Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
-------- activists
The National Gulf War Resource Center moved its national offices on Friday, May 19, 2000. The new address is:
MAILING ADDRESS:
National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc. PO Box 11131 McLean, VA 22102-7131
STREET ADDRESS
National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc. 8605 Cameron Street, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910
As always, we are reachable through our website at http://www.ngwrc.org
----
Paid Media Campaign Against 'Star Wars' Begins
US Newswire
19 May 14:18
Paid Media Campaign Against 'Star Wars' Begins To: National Desk Contact: Adam Eidinger or Abby Coffey, 202-744-2671 or 202-986-6186; Web site: http://www.peace-action.org
WASHINGTON, May 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Peace Voter Fund will begin airing hard-hitting anti-Star Wars television and newspaper ads on Monday, May 22, as part of a campaign through Nov. 7 to educate voters about the danger of building the $60 billion anti-missile system.
The over $100,000 ad campaign on cable television and in daily newspapers coincides with President Clinton's trip to Russia and nationwide events organized by the 70,000-member grassroots organization Peace Action.
The paid media's campaign encourages citizens to contact candidates and incumbents, including Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), Rep. Jim Rogan (R-Calif.), candidates Mark Kirk (R) and Lauren Beth Gash (D) in Illinois' District 10, Rep. Bob Franks (R-N.J.) and New Jersey Democratic senatorial rivals Jim Florio and Jon Corzine. All are asked to "pledge to vote no on Star Wars and to invest that money in our schools, health care and kids."
The television ads begin with the earth surrounded by lasers, followed by shots of failed missile tests and a voice-over: "There's a nation at peace that's building new nuclear weapons and that refuses to stop nuclear testing. No, its not a rogue nation. It's the United States. And now the same Congress that voted against the nuclear test ban wants to waste 60 billion dollars on the Star Wars missile system -- a system top scientists say won't protect us, won't work and the majority of Americans don't want."
Van Gosse, director of the Peace Voter Fund, said, "When President Clinton and Congress speak about criteria for their decision on Star Wars, they regularly disregard public opinion -- a factor we won't let them ignore. We are building upon the opposition of the majority of Americans and demonstrating our strength in states where our members will have a big impact on the election." A recent ABC News poll of 1,004 adults showed that 53 percent of Americans oppose building even a limited missile system.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that even a limited "National Missile Defense" would cost $60 billion. So far the Clinton administration and Congress have committed nearly $13 billion to the NMD program. "Considering the U.S. has spent $122 billion over the past 30 years on Star Wars programs with zero results, new money thrown at this proven boondoggle defies all common sense," said Gordon Clark, executive director of Peace Action. "In the real world there are greater priorities. The U.S. could meet critical needs in healthcare and education by cutting off this spending spree."
Claims the proposed weapons system won't work stem from a recent study by MIT and the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report concluded that simple counter measures, like deploying decoy aluminum balloons around incoming warheads, creating hundreds of targets, would confuse anti-missile interceptors. (http://www.ucsusa.org for more information).
The Peace Voter Fund is a political committee authorized by Peace Action. To receive copy of the commercial in VHS or BETA format, contact Abby Coffey at 202-986-6186.
---
Deal saves old redwoods
Tract bought from sawmill will give wildlife access to sea
San Francisco Examiner
05/19/00
By Jane Kay EXAMINER ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER
mailto:janekay@examiner.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/19/redwoods.dtl&type=science
The 82-year-old Save-the-Redwoods League says it will purchase 1,075 acres of forest for wildlife in southern Humboldt County, bringing recent acquisitions to more than 5,000 acres.
The first group founded to preserve California's ancient redwoods, the league is trying to create a sheltering swath of trees where wildlife can move unmolested from the inland Humboldt Redwoods State Park to the seaside King Range National Conservation Area.
On Friday , Save-the-Redwoods League and its partner in the project, Ancient Forest International, announced the agreement to buy the 1,075 acres from the employee-owned Eel River Sawmills in Fortuna for $2.5 million.
The land lies in the Mattole River valley, home to northern spotted owls, mountain lions, red tree voles, golden eagles, goshawks, pileated woodpeckers and Pacific fishers. The Mattole is spawning ground for chinook salmon and steelhead. Four of its tributaries flow through the land.
Last October, the league bought 3,800 acres for $5.3 million adjacent to Gilham Butte Late Seral Reserve, where for 20 years local groups worked with the Environmental Protection Information Center in Garberville, Humboldt County, to limit logging and protect the watershed.
Eel River Sawmills also has agreed to sell 280 acres of old-growth Douglas fir on the northern boundary of the King Range.
Kate Anderton, executive director of Save-the-Redwoods League, called the deal "an unusual opportunity to preserve land on this scale in California" and create permanently protected connections between the habitats.
"We see a connection of old-growth redwood forest in the Eel River moving up through Rockefeller Forest over the ridge down through the old-growth Douglas fir forest of Gilham Butte into the Mattole River Valley, then up to King Peak and the King Range and that long unroaded coastal area," she said.
Conservation biology makes it clear that fragmentation of wildlands is at the root of the loss of species, Anderton said.
"It's like island biology. The smaller the island, the greater the pressures on any given set of wildlife that's there. So by expanding the openness among areas, there's a freedom of movement and the ability to survive on the landscape's scale that is natural for a diverse population," she said.
The $7.8 million came from private donations and the rest from federal and state funds, including from the Wildlife Conservation Board.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management will manage the land, as it does the new 7,400-acre Headwaters Forest, purchased by federal and state money for $380 million last year.
The Save-the-Redwoods League, founded in 1918, is working with other ranchers and timber owners to transform private land into wildlife corridors.
One strategy is to use conservation easements, where landowners receive tax advantages or money in return for leaving land in its natural state for wildlife. The land carries a deed restriction.
A commitment from a landowner is important for the environment, said Anderton. "Once the land breaks apart in pieces, we're never going to be able to stitch it back. We'll never have the wholeness again."
Dennis Scott, president of Eel River Sawmills, praised Anderton and Save-the-Redwoods League for raising the money in a relatively short time for the timber land.
"We think it's a pretty good deal. There's been no adversarial relationship, no legal action. It's a fair price for both concerned," Scott said.
Mel McLean, who co-founded Eel River Sawmills in the 1940s, sold 50 percent of the shares to the 375 employees in 1986. He died a year ago at age 90.
McLean's assets were transferred to a private foundation, which required that a portion of his investment in Eel River Sawmills be sold within five years.
In April, the company announced that it intended to sell its 30,000 acres of remaining land, mill and power plant to Pacific Lumber Co. in Scotia, owned by Maxxam Corp.
Eel River Sawmills decided to sell to Pacific Lumber because it couldn't get enough logs as timber sale contracts in the federal forests slowed down.
Pacific Lumber, which owns more than 200,000 acres of commercial timber land, has said it would hire the Eel River employees and continue running the operation -- if it decides to purchase. A decision is expected by the end of the month.
Eel River Sawmills was willing to sell the 5,155 acres to the environmentalists because it had been working on the deal for a couple of years before talking to Pacific Lumber, said Scott.
"We're just really pleased that this final handshake is part of the legacy they will leave as a company," Anderton said.
---
USA Today
05/19/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm
Kentucky Louisville - Police plan to close several streets and park a city bus between those attending a Ku Klux Klan rally at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Saturday and anti-Klan demonstrators, who plan to assemble in a park across the street from the courthouse .
---
USA Today
05/19/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm
California Thousand Palms - To save the fringe-toed lizard, the government protected the desert dunes of Coachella Valley. Now federal authorities say they need to protect the sand source that builds those dunes. Authorities want to expand the Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge by 5,000 acres in an upwind area thought to be the main corridor for sand to migrate from the Indio Hills to the Thousand Palms area.
-------- alternative energy
JOINT STATEMENT ON COOPERATION ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/5/19/12.text.1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release May 19, 2000
1. The United States and China agree that meeting development needs in a sustainable manner is one of the most important challenges of the 21st century. They underscore the central role energy plays in economic development, as well as the human health and environmental risks associated with unsustainable use of energy and natural resources. They note that the development and deployment of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies will contribute significantly to improving local air quality and protecting the global environment. The United States and China recognize that countries can achieve sustained economic growth while protecting the environment and taking actions to combat climate change.
2. The United States and China note that their common desire to promote clean energy and protect the environment has guided past cooperation and joint initiatives. They accord high importance to the US-China Forum on Environment and Development and commit to further their cooperation in the fields of clean energy, environmental protection, science and technology and commercial cooperation. The two nations will also continue to cooperate on efforts to strengthen the Chinese environmental regulatory regime to encourage pollution control and abatement.
3. The United States and China recognize the potential of Chinese accession to the WTO to broaden and accelerate the transfer of environmentally-sound technologies, goods and services, thereby advancing clean energy and environmental protection goals.
4. The two countries are taking many initiatives on their own to mitigate the impact of energy production and use on the environment. China plans to expand significantly the use of natural gas in China's energy supply and increase the utilization of coalbed methane and clean coal technologies. China also plans to increase significantly the generation of power from renewable energy sources. China's recent structural reforms and removal of certain fossil fuel subsidies have already resulted in economic and environmental benefits; further economic reforms should result in additional environmental benefits.
5. The United States is committed to a clean energy future and to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, the United States pursues a program of research and development, public education, promotion of energy efficient products and practices, and targeted tax incentives. Specific actions during the past year include issuance by the President of an Executive Order mandating reduction in energy use in federal buildings; issuance by the President of a directive that sets a target to triple the use of bio-energy in the U.S.; issuance by the President of a directive to reduce petroleum use in the federal vehicle fleet; and establishment by the Department of Energy of new goals to increase the share of U.S. electricity generated by wind power.
6. The United States and China reaffirm their strong support for international efforts to combat global climate change under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The two countries express the willingness to entertain new and creative thinking and approaches to cooperation between developed and developing countries on climate change. The two countries intend to work together and with other countries toward early agreement on the elements of the Kyoto mechanisms, including the Clean Development Mechanism, which could offer opportunity for mutually beneficial cooperation between developed and developing countries. They recognize, in particular, that the Clean Development Mechanism could provide important opportunities for economic growth and environmental protection.
7. China and the United States reaffirm their commitment to sustainable management and protection of natural resources and endangered species. China is taking aggressive steps to combat deforestation, including banning of logging in southwest China and an ambitious tree-planting and reforestation program in the Yangtze basin, in the Beijing metropolitan area, and elsewhere. The two countries have a long history of cooperation in this area, and affirm their intention to work together to assure that any increased trade flows will not undercut natural resource management and species protection programs.
8. The United States and China believe that energy and environment constitutes one of the most important areas of cooperation between the two countries. The joint initiatives taken by the two sides will give practical shape to that vision. By making clean energy widely available through development and application of new technologies and strengthening efforts to protect our environment and this planet's biodiversity, China-US cooperation will contribute in significant measure towards further securing the welfare and quality of life of the peoples of the two countries. It will also be a vital contribution towards preserving the riches of our planet for future generations.
----
North Korea using rice husks as power source
JAPAN: May 19, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6747
TOKYO - North Korea is turning to rice husks, corn stalks and tree stumps for electric power, the latest sign of bleak conditions in the world's last Stalinist state.
Radiopress, a monitoring agency in Tokyo, quoted domestic North Korean radio as saying on Thursday that a farm near Pyongyang is using gases produced from rice husks, corn and parts of trees to generate electricity.
No details were given on how this was done, aside from saying that all the necessary equipment had been designed by the farm's residents themselves.
North Korea has been grappling with a growing energy crisis for some time, with power cuts frequent across the country, even in the capital of Pyongyang. Dozens of people were killed in February when a train derailed due to a power failure.
North Korea blames the power shortage on the United States, saying the problem stems from its signing of a landmark 1994 agreement with Washington to halt the operation of its nuclear reactors.
Under the agreement, the U.S.-led Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) promised to build two light-water nuclear reactors and provide fuel oil until they were completed, if Pyongyang agreed to put its nuclear weapons research programme on hold.
But the United States, South Korea and Japan - all KEDO members - have disagreed at times over how to shoulder the enormous costs and the reactors are unlikely to be completed until 2007.
No matter how dark Pyongyang may be, though, one light unfailingly shines - the spotlight under the giant statue of "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung.
-------- australia
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 06:07:09 +0800
From: Graham Daniell gdaniell@wt.com.au
PNDWA has been trying for many years to stop uranium mining - the source - as Australia has some very large uranium deposits. We have had limited success, the main opposition party here, the Labor party, has a policy to limit uranium mining to three mines, mainly because thats how many were in existence when they last came to power. However the current Liberal Government would like to expand that number.
So I guess I have in the past thought mainly about controlling it at the source. However it should in theory (if the will was there) be possible to control it at other points in the nuclear cycle, due to the radioactive nature of the products, and due to the extraordinary measures needed to protect workers and contain the radiation.
Again, I think the WILL is the missing ingredient.
Regards, Graham Daniell
-------- britain
British sub shuts nuke reactor after cooling leak
Planet Ark
GIBRALTAR: May 19, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6738
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-britain.html
GIBRALTAR - A British nuclear submarine has sprung a leak in the cooling system of its reactor and may have to be towed back to Britain from the colony of Gibraltar, the military said on Thursday.
"There is no hazard to the general public, nor to personnel on board," British Forces Gibraltar said in a news release. "Radiation levels are normal throughout the submarine; routine monitoring continues."
HMS Tireless was due to arrive in Gibraltar on the southern coast of Spain on Friday for checks on its propulsion system after being withdrawn from a round-the-world deployment, the military said.
The defect involved a leak of coolant water from the reactor's cooling system but the leak was contained in the reactor compartment. The reactor has been shut down, the statement said.
The Tireless is one of seven Trafalgar class submarines in the British Navy that are capable of launching Tomahawk missiles, according to Janes Fighting Ships.
Launched in 1984 and commissioned in 1985, the Tireless is 85.4 metres (280 feet) long, holds a crew of 130 sailors and can reach a speed of 32 knots.
Gibraltar is a tiny British colony on the southern coast of Spain at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea. It was once considered a strategic military base but its value has diminished since the end of the Cold War.
Its deep-water port at the base of the famous "Rock of Gibraltar" is a convenient stop for British submarines.
The submarine base generates little controversy in Gibraltar, where most of the colony's 30,000 people favour an arrangement whereby London has control over defence, police and foreign policy while local authorities enjoy home rule.
The government of Gibraltar said in a statement it was satisfied with Ministry of Defence assurances there would be no hazard to public health, but the local lobbying group Voice of Gibraltar again raised safety concerns about the submarines.
"It seems we are only good for this, for having problems like a nuclear submarine that no one else wants," said Julio Pons, a leader of Voice of Gibraltar, which first objected to the submarines two years ago. "We're good for that but no one helps us with all the other problems we have."
Gibraltar itself is disputed. Spain claims the territory of six square kms (2.3 sq miles) for itself and refuses to recognise Gibraltar's locally elected government.
-------- depleted uranium
DU - TANK BUSTER NO. 1
May 19, 2000 (UK Guardian)
From: "Steve Wagner" stevewagner@swords-to-plowshares.org
PRISTINA, The use of depleted uranium weapons is again causing concern. The people of Kosovo have been alarmed to discover that the conflict there has left radioactive contamination, just as it did in Kuwait nine years ago.
Why do the United States and Britain continue to use a waste product of the nuclear industry in their weapons? Some commentators allege that it is a conspiracy between the military and the nuclear industry to dispose of dangerous waste in hostile countries. The real reasons are more complex.
When metal meets metal at five times the speed of sound, hardened steel shatters like glass. Metal flows like putty, or simply vaporises. A faster shell does not necessarily go through more armour, but, like a pebble thrown into a pond, it makes a bigger splash.
Armour penetration is increased by concentrating the force of a shell into as small an area as possible, so the projectiles tend to look like giant darts. The denser the projectile, the harder the impact for a given size. DU is almost twice as dense as lead, making it highly suitable. Uranium is "pyrophoric": at the point of impact it burns away into vapour, so the projectile stays sharp. When it breaks through, the burning DU turns the inside of a vehicle into an inferno of white-hot gas and sparks.
Evening news edited by Nikola Stan
AIM, Belgrade, May 19, 2000 19:30 http://www.aim.ac.yu/
-------- europe
Worries Mount in Europe Over U.S. Missile Defense
Washington Post
Friday, May 19, 2000; Page A27
By William Drozdiak Washington Post Foreign Service
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/europe/A29851-2000May18.html
BERLIN, May 18 -- The U.S. proposal to build a national missile defense system is provoking growing alarm among America's European allies, who fear it could trigger crises with Russia and China, spark a high-technology arms race and break NATO's bond of shared risk.
Despite those worries and a desire to put forward a united position, the allies have not been able to mount an effective campaign to oppose the missile defense proposal, according to high-ranking European officials.
They hold strikingly different views about the threat from "rogue" states such as North Korea and Iraq that Washington says the system is designed to counter. They also differ over the potential effect the system would have on their relations with Russia, and whether a U.S. antimissile program would reassure Americans about their security and thus help keep the United States committed to Europe--a prime argument being used by the Clinton administration.
Since the antimissile plan was first broached, the allies have stifled their misgivings, largely to avoid a confrontation with Washington. They fear a hostile backlash if the U.S. public perceives them to be interfering with America's sovereign right to protect itself against outside threats.
But as the Pentagon prepares a crucial test this summer that could determine whether President Clinton decides to deploy a limited antimissile system, the NATO allies have awakened to what they fear will be dramatic repercussions--particularly if the United States does not win Russia's consent to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, allowing the missile defense system to be deployed.
A parade of European foreign and defense ministers has visited Washington in recent months to hear the administration's rationale for constructing a network of 20 interceptors and a new radar installation in Alaska within five years. But the administration briefings have generated more questions than answers, according to senior officials in several European capitals.
Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said Europe fears the cure might be worse than the threat if the U.S. system were to spur Russia and China to take countermeasures such as bolstering their nuclear arsenals and developing decoys that could foil interceptors.
Solana also said many Europeans would be outraged if the United States abrogated the ABM Treaty. In the court of public opinion, such a U.S. decision would nourish impressions abroad of the United States as an arrogant superpower, he said.
Finally, Solana said Washington must bear in mind the risk that other NATO allies would feel that a missile defense system just for America would create separate security zones within NATO--one country protected against missile attack, the others not. That could "decouple" the United States from Europe and Canada.
The Clinton administration has implored the allies to see that a U.S. missile defense system would be in their interests as well because the United States would feel reassured enough to undertake bolder military actions in the future to protect their security interests. But that argument has not proved convincing--largely because many Europeans believe that since the Cold War ended, the United States has been loath to embark on allied military missions that might entail casualties.
During their trips to Washington, many European ministers have muffled their concerns because they believe it would prove counterproductive to argue publicly against U.S. missile defense plans that already have significant momentum. Some ministers said that embracing Clinton's limited plan might be the wiser course if it blocked a bigger, more ambitious scheme proposed by the Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush.
"We know this is a national decision, but on the other hand the United States is the leading power in the world, and this is a national decision with a very strong international impact," said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. "For us, it's a very key element whether this will lead to confrontation between the United States and Russia."
Fischer acknowledged it has been difficult for the allies to reach a unified view on the missile defense proposal because "our interests are not homogeneous within Europe."
In Germany, sentiment is running strongly against the program across the political spectrum. German officials say good relations with Russia are vital, and they see a U.S. missile defense program as a destabilizing factor. Powerful factions in the governing alliance of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats and Fischer's Greens party want more aggressive steps toward nuclear disarmament.
Many Europeans, moreover, have a hard time comprehending why the United States feels so threatened by rogue states that it is willing to spend up to $50 billion on a missile shield that might not work. "Is the U.S. really threatened by two or three little states?" French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine asked. "We're a bit puzzled by this so-called threat."
Britain has been the least antagonistic toward missile defense. The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who takes pride in his close relationship with Clinton, says it shares the U.S. perception of the threat.
Nonetheless, senior British officials say skepticism still runs strong in some quarters, including at the Defense Ministry, particularly if Britain became a party to breaking the ABM Treaty.
The officials said Gen. Charles Guthrie, the chief of Britain's defense staff, has raised the issue of NATO unity by suggesting that Britain might have decided against participating in the 1991 Persian Gulf War if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had nuclear missiles that could strike London but not Washington.
If the United States is determined to go forward with the shield, Europeans hold out hope that it could be done as part of a grand bargain in which Russia accepted changes in the ABM Treaty in exchange for a START III accord to significantly lower nuclear arsenals.
But even at NATO headquarters, where sympathy runs strong regarding the U.S. assessment of missile threats, there is concern that the enormous investment required for missile defense would drain resources at a time when NATO is revamping its strategy to project power beyond allied territory to distant hot spots.
"How will you convince European voters to approve larger defense budgets when they see billions of dollars being frittered away on a threat that probably doesn't exist and a system that probably won't work?" asked a senior NATO diplomat. "There are a lot of other pressing defense needs within the alliance that could use that money."
-------- germany
Germany: "India should back test ban"
BBC
Friday, 19 May, 2000,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_754000/754684.stm
The German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, has urged India to sign the international test ban treaty on nuclear weapons.
Speaking at the end of a visit to Delhi, Mr Fischer said the treaty was an important means of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that Germany would be happy if India found a way to support it.
India carried out a series of nuclear tests in 1998.
Mr Fischer and his Indian counterpart, Jaswant Singh, also discussed reforming the United Nations.
They said their countries would be willing to become permanent members in an expanded Security Council.
-------- imf / world bank
Despite U.S., World Bank Approves Iran Loans
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/world/iran-worldbank.html
WASHINGTON -- Over the objections of the United States, the World Bank on Thursday approved its first loans to Iran in seven years: $232 million for a sewage-treatment project in Tehran and for improvements in health care.
After the vote by the 24-member executive board of the bank, its chairman, James D. Wolfensohn, said future loans would depend on the progress of reforms in Iran. Wolfensohn said that the United States had voted against the loans and that Canada and France had abstained. The chairman said several board members who voted for the loans had expressed concern "that their support of these projects not be construed as support for current events." That was a reference to the closed-door trial in Iran of 13 Jewish men on espionage charges.
The United States also opposed the loans because Iran is on the State Department list of countries suspected of sponsoring terrorism. Washington managed to postpone the vote two times and had hoped to do so again while the trial is going on.
Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement on Wednesday anticipating the vote and condemning it. "I believe all Americans should be offended," Helms said. "Do voting members of the World Bank believe that as a kangaroo court in Iran continues its relentless persecution of 13 Iranian Jews we should continue business as usual?"
World Bank officials said the loans would better the lives of ordinary Iranians, including women and children in poor families, while furthering the reform efforts of President Mohammad-Reza Khatami. Moderate allies of Khatami fared well in recent legislative elections.
The United States has been in a difficult position regarding Iran, on the one hand holding fast to its anti-terrorism principles and objecting to the closed trial while trying to improve relations with the Iranian people and their government.
In recent months, the United States has eased some economic sanctions against Iran. In a major policy speech in March, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledged that the United States bore some responsibility for the hostility between the countries. As for the Iranian people, she said, "the United States bears them no ill will."
---
World Bank defies U.S. with Iran loan
Washington Times
May 19, 2000
World Scene
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-200051922713.htm
Despite strong U.S. opposition, the World Bank Thursday approved two loans to Iran totaling $232 million. Iran last received bank loans in 1993.
World Bank President James Wolfensohn said several members of the executive board expressed "deep concern with current internal events in Iran," but others concluded the country's basic human needs took priority.
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright told reporters the United States lobbied against the loan, citing a "show trial" of 13 Iranian Jews charged with spying, as well as Iran's continuing state sponsorship of terrorism.
---
China trade: What hangs in the balance?
USA Today
05/18/00- Updated 02:45 PM ET
By Gannett News Service
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncsthu11.htm
WASHINGTON - What hangs in the balance in the debate over trade relations between the United States and China and what it means:
QUESTION: What does this debate over permanent normal trade relations mean?
ANSWER: President Clinton, many farmers and big businesses want Congress to abandon a law that forces lawmakers to vote each year whether to continue normal trade with Beijing. Congress now decides each year whether to extend low-tariff trade status to China, the only major U.S. trading partner to undergo the annual trade scrutiny.
Although Congress has approved normal trade with China every year for more than 20 years, the annual congressional battles - often marked by bitter debate over the country's human rights record - infuriate Chinese officials.
Permanent normal trade relations with China is expected to easily pass the Senate, but faces a tougher road in the House, where unions, pointing to labor abuses in China, are pressuring Democrats to oppose normal trade status. China's recent threats of military action against Taiwan also concern congressional conservatives.
Q: How is this related to China's efforts to get into the World Trade Organization?
A: As part of its effort to gain membership in the WTO - the international body that mediates trade disputes - China is negotiating agreements with nations that are members of the WTO. Under its agreement with China, the United States agreed to scrap the annual congressional review of China's trade status.
In exchange for permanent trade relations status, China promised that U.S. businesses will have greater access to the Chinese market. Tariffs on many U.S. products, ranging from contact lenses to linoleum, would tumble. Lower tariffs mean U.S. goods will sell for a cheaper price in China.
Q: Could China enter the WTO without gaining permanent normal trade relations status from Congress?
A: Possibly. China needs the support of at least two-thirds of WTO members and has completed negotiations with all but 10 members. However, the United States holds some influence over the organization.
Chinese officials have warned they will press for entry in the WTO, even without the blessing of the United States. If China wins access to the WTO and Congress decides to withhold permanent normal trade relations status, China would be under no obligation to lower tariffs on U.S. goods.
---
Free trade with China
Washington Times
EDITORIAL • May 19, 2000
http://208.246.212.80/op-ed/ed-house-2000519182452.htm
Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on President Clinton's proposal to make permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) with China. The issue, however, is less about what China gains from upgraded trade status than what U.S. businesses and workers gain.
In November the Clinton administration concluded a historic market-opening NTR agreement with China as a condition for China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). For years, China had negotiated the terms of its entry into the WTO - a membership that would require it to drop protectionist trade barriers - under the supposition that permanent NTR with the United States would be part of the deal. That status would mean that China did not have to undergo an annually embarrassing review of its human rights violations to get yearly extensions of NTR status.
But more recently China has declared it will join the WTO regardless of whether Congress approves permanent NTR. If the House rejects it, lawmakers risk shutting U.S. firms and workers out of Chinese markets to which the rest of the world will enjoy an open door.
The administration rightly regards the vote as the most important of the year. In a Wednesday speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Mr. Clinton went so far as to assert that congressional rejection of permanent NTR legislation would "invite a future of dangerous confrontation and constant insecurity." On the same day, presumptive Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush, citing "three compelling reasons to support [the WTO] agreement - freedom, security and economics," echoed the administration's emphasis, saying the vote would be among the "most serious decisions our government will make this year."
Also on Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee voted overwhelmingly, 34 to 4, in favor of granting China permanent NTR. Despite such bipartisan committee approval, however, the outcome of next week's vote in the full House is still uncertain. Indeed, administration officials believe they are still 10 votes shy from prevailing in the House as Democratic supporters are having difficulty obtaining the 70 Democratic votes, or one-third of the party's caucus, believed to be necessary for the measure to pass.
Failure to grant China permanent NTR would be a serious setback for the cause of free trade, a cause the United States has been leading throughout the postwar period. And it would be a terrible development for the world economy, whose growth has depended greatly on the relentless, U.S.-led dismantling of trade barriers. Moreover, the failure would cast serious doubt on the United States' resolve to continue its indispensable leadership in this vital area throughout the new millennium.
As the House prepares to vote, a very important distinction needs to be made. Whether protectionist representatives like it or not, next week's vote will have no bearing on China's eventual accession to the WTO, which is expected to occur later this year. It seems quite clear that China, following the completion of market-opening agreements with the European Union and other major trading countries, would be able to muster the two-thirds vote among the WTO's 136 members it will need to join. Equally clear is another fact. If the U.S. Congress fails to grant China permanent NTR, China would continue to apply to U.S. businesses the currently prevailing high tariff rates and other trade barriers. Meanwhile those barriers would come down for businesses of other nations whose governments have granted China permanent NTR.
Irrespective of how the House votes next week, China's relatively closed market, which comprises one-fifth of the world's population and which has already greatly expanded during the last 20 years, will be significantly opened to foreign businesses and investment over the next few years. What wavering congressmen must simply decide is whether they will vote to permit U.S. businesses and workers to take advantage of these unprecedented opportunities.
---
China, EU reach WTO deal
USA Today
05/19/00- Updated 07:48 AM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwsfri01.htm
BEIJING (AP) - China and the European Union reached a market-opening trade deal Friday after the Chinese premier intervened, clearing Beijing's largest remaining hurdle to joining the World Trade Organization.
European Union Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy and Chinese foreign trade minister Shi Guangsheng, surrounded by their aides, signed the agreement and capped it with a champagne toast after five days of arduous negotiations.
''This agreement is in the fundamental interests of both parties,'' a smiling Shi said after the cheers subsided.
WTO entry for China ''has benefits for China. It has benefits for EU companies and it will enhance EU-China relations,'' Lamy said.
The deal's most immediate impact would likely be on a contentious debate next week in the U.S. Congress on granting China much-sought permanent low-tariff access to the American market.
EU negotiators believed an agreement with Beijing would sway wavering members of Congress into supporting China's trading rights.
Details of the EU-China agreement were not immediately available. During negotiations both sides divulged little information.
After the signing ceremony, Lamy and Shi went to deliver the good news to Chinese President Jiang Zemin in the communist leadership compound.
The European Union has said that the landmark market-access agreement China reached with the United States in November met only 80% of Europe's needs.
The EU wanted greater access to China's telecommunications, financial and automobile sectors and lower tariffs on gin, cognac and other items.
China's communist government has tried to join world trade's rule-making body for 14 years and set a goal of entering the WTO this year.
The 15-member EU was the largest of six remaining WTO members yet to conclude the separate market-access agreements necessary for Beijing's membership.
Chinese leaders, especially reform-minded Premier Zhu Rongji, have seen WTO membership as a way to secure needed export markets and foreign investment and force long-protected state industries to make capitalist reforms.
Lamy said it was in the European Union's interest that China move toward free markets.
''WTO can provide a boost to the reform process,'' he said at the signing ceremony.
But powerful bureaucrats in charge of critical industries have opposed Zhu's concessions.
Chinese leaders have brought provincial politicians to Beijing in recent weeks to persuade them of the WTO's benefits, while admitting that greater foreign competition will push more Chinese out of work.
Zhu, whose crucial intercession clinched the China-U.S. deal, broke the logjam with the European Union, meeting for an hour Friday with Lamy. Shi and Lamy then wrapped up the negotiations later in the day after a brief period of confusion.
China's Foreign Ministry, apparently confident that a deal was in hand, alerted foreign news organizations that an announcement on the talks would come around 4:30 p.m.
When that time came, EU spokesman Anthony Gooch said negotiations continued and ''any rumors about imminent signatures are premature.''
''We are in a very delicate process and it's a delicate moment,'' Gooch said.
Zhu's intervention came on the heels of two unusual meetings - one Thursday night, the other this morning - between Lamy and Shi, each with their lead WTO negotiators.
Their technical teams, who hash out the details of proposals, were not included.
---
Trade Deal Will Hurt China's Hard-Liners
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By SAMUEL R. BERGER and GENE SPERLING
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/19berg.html
WASHINGTON -- As Congress takes up the bill that would establish permanent normal trade relations with China, the question before it is not whether China's human rights record is good or whether the deal by itself will cure it. The question is, in addition to the overwhelming economic benefits, will its passage increase the chance of positive change in China?
We believe it will, not out of faith that increased trade always brings freedom, but because the specific concessions China is making in order to enter the World Trade Organization will move China in the right direction.
The divisions within China are clear. Those advocating W.T.O. membership and closer ties with the United States are the same leaders pushing a more daring transition from a command-and-control to a market economy. They realize that if they open China to global competition, they risk unleashing forces beyond their control -- temporary unemployment, social unrest and demands for freedom. But they have concluded that without competition, China will not be able to build a modern, successful economy.
The opposition is the entrenched state-owned manufacturing sector and those Communist officials clinging desperately to one-party control over how people work and live. They know that if China slashes protective tariffs to get into the W.T.O., more of its state enterprises will go. The government's ability to control workers and their loyalty will diminish. There will be more internal pressure for political change.
Last year alone there were more than 120,000 labor disputes across China over demands for openness and accountability. In some places, the government has cracked down. In others, it has responded by giving people a greater say, holding local elections and letting workers take grievances to court. That is how real change can begin. How would we be encouraging it by handing a humiliating defeat to reformers seeking normalized trade and a huge victory to the stalwarts of a state-dominated economy?
If China enters the W.T.O. and we approve permanent normal trade relations, the resulting greater participation of American telecommunications companies will also make telephones and the Internet more accessible for Chinese citizens. Right now only 12 percent of Chinese have phones; fewer than 1 percent have Internet access. No matter how hard Chinese officials try to stuff the information genie back into the bottle, an explosion in information technology will lead to an explosion of idea sharing in China. But if we reject permanent trade ties, our information industries will be denied access. How would that help Chinese citizens seeking new ideas and tools for political activism?
Finally, as Martin Lee, the leader of Hong Kong's Democratic Party has said, participation in the W.T.O. would bolster those in China who understand that the country must embrace the rule of law. Economic activity in China is mostly based on vague and unpublished rules that maximize the arbitrary power of party officials. To join the W.T.O., China must publish key rules, making it easier for citizens to advance on the strength of their ideas, not their connections.
Of course, W.T.O. membership does not guarantee China's leaders will choose political reform. But by accelerating economic change, it will force them to confront that choice sooner, and will make the imperative for the right choice stronger. If we reject the trade deal and undercut the reform-minded leaders who have risked their reputations for greater openness, we will increase the likelihood of the wrong choice.
Certainly, establishing permanent normal trade relations is not by itself a human rights policy toward China. Change will come through a combination of internal pressure and external validation of China's human rights struggle. We have to maintain our leadership in the latter, even as the W.T.O. contributes to the former. That's why we sanctioned China under the International Religious Freedom Act last year, and why last month we sponsored a U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution condemning China's human rights violations.
Those who oppose the trade deal have little vision of how a no vote would further reform in China other than maintaining our annual vote to threaten to close our market to Chinese goods (at considerable cost to millions of American families). Yet, after 20 years, this ritual has become just that, a ritual. Even when our relationship was at its lowest point, after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, this process has affirmed our trading relationship with China. A human rights commission like that proposed by Representatives Sander Levin and Douglas Bereuter could be much more effective.
We do not know what path China will take. All we can do is make the decisions most likely to push China in the direction of economic and political reform. It is hard to see how freezing the status quo, empowering hard-liners, slowing the economic transition, and keeping American companies out of China will increase respect for human rights or lead to a more open society.
Samuel R. Berger is the national security adviser. Gene Sperling is President Clinton's national economic adviser.
---
Winners, Don't Take All
New York Times
May 19, 2000
FOREIGN AFFAIRS / By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/friedman/051900frie.html
At stake in next week's vote by Congress over whether to grant China permanent normalized trade relations -- which in plain English means a long-term, open trade relationship between America and China -- is not just the future of U.S.-China relations but also the future of the Democratic Party.
Let's be honest, we have a bizarre situation here that can't go on indefinitely for the Democrats: We have the leadership of the Democratic Party, including the president, at war with its rank-and-file labor union base. Labor is now spending millions of dollars on a nationwide jihad to kill what would be one of President Clinton's most important foreign policy achievements: bringing China's 1.3 billion people under the rules of the World Trade Organization and into a long-term open trading relationship with the U.S.
There is only one way to heal this breach in the Democratic Party, and that is, first, for labor to be thoroughly defeated on this China vote.
Because only once this deal is passed, only once one-fifth of humanity -- the Chinese people -- have been brought into the W.T.O. and into an open-ended trading arrangement with the U.S., will labor's leadership have to conclude that, at least for now, it is time to stop fighting over whether we globalize and to start focusing instead on how we globalize. Labor then might finally put forward a positive global agenda that addresses how to strengthen U.S. workers -- other than by pushing hidden and real trade barriers. Labor's failure to do that up to now has only been eroding its own power and has put it in a reactionary corner with Patrick Buchanan.
But while defeating labor on this issue is necessary, it's not sufficient. As dangerous as losing this China trade bill would be for the Democratic Party, and the country as a whole, equally dangerous would be if the winners treat victory on this bill as a final victory against all the forces in this country uncomfortable with globalization, and therefore a free pass to forget the concerns about free trade.
I disagree with labor's stand on China, but the zeal with which labor's rank and file have fought this war, and the passive support the unions clearly have around the country, underscore that there are real anxieties out there -- about globalization, about losing manufacturing jobs to lower-wage countries, about people feeling that they are not winning from this new economy the way they would like -- that would be reckless to ignore.
If at this time of rising prosperity in the country as a whole, with unemployment at record lows for all sectors of the population, a bill to extend permanent normal trade relations to China can win only by one vote, then, folks, we have a problem. Imagine what will happen when we have our next, inevitable, recession and unemployment really rises. There could be a ferocious backlash against all these free-trade initiatives and a real mass move to put back the walls.
That's why now is the time to be addressing the anxieties and myths about globalization. That is what a united, progressive Democratic Party agenda should be about. But while progressive politics requires a labor base that is ready to embrace the new economy, it also requires business and government leaders ready to finance the training programs, health care reforms, public education programs and labor laws that give workers the security to try to master change rather than stop it, and to open up, rather than hunker down.
Right after this vote, if labor loses, would be the ideal time for a labor-government-business conference in which government and business say to labor: Look, we know you have concerns; what can we do to address them without putting up walls?
I believe you dare not be a globalizer in this world (and this is business' mistake), an advocate of free trade and integration, without also being a social democrat, ready to spend what it takes to bring the have-nots, know-nots and left-behinds along -- otherwise they will eventually shut the doors on you. But you dare not be a social democrat today (and this is labor's mistake) without also being a globalizer, because without embracing globalization and free trade you will never have all the resources, markets, immigrants and knowledge needed to keep generating rising incomes to redistribute.
The trick is finding the right balance. Defeating labor on this China bill is necessary for that, but it will be sufficient only if the winners also draw the right conclusions.
---
China, EU Conclude Trade Deal, Bringing China Nearer to WTO Entry
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/world/19china-eu2.html
BEIJING -- China and the European Union reached a market-opening trade deal today after the Chinese premier intervened, clearing Beijing's largest remaining hurdle to joining the World Trade Organization.
European Union Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy and Chinese foreign trade minister Shi Guangsheng, surrounded by their aides, signed the agreement and capped it with a champagne toast after five days of arduous negotiations.
"This agreement is in the fundamental interests of both parties," said a smiling Shi, after the cheers subsided inside a meeting room in China's foreign trade ministry. "Once China becomes a WTO member, it will seriously abide by WTO rules and fulfill the commitments it has made."
Noting that China and Europe have been trading since the Roman era, Lamy said WTO entry for China "has benefits for China. It has benefits for EU companies and it will enhance EU-China relations."
Details of the EU-China agreement were not immediately available. During negotiations both sides divulged little information.
The deal's most immediate impact would likely be on a contentious debate next week in the U.S. Congress on granting China much-sought permanent low-tariff access to the American market. EU negotiators believed an agreement with Beijing would sway wavering members of Congress into supporting China's trading rights. But while such a congressional rejection would affect US-China relations, it would not hurt China's entry into the WTO.
In Geneva, Rita Hayes, the U.S. ambassador to the WTO, said she was pleased to hear about the deal and hoped it would help sway Congress's debate. "It will be a tremendous boost to everybody," she said.
"Maybe we will finally end up with a 'world' trade organization," added Mike Moore, WTO director-general.
China's communist government has tried to join world trade's rule-making body for 14 years and set a goal of entering the WTO this year. The 15-member EU was the largest of six remaining WTO members yet to conclude the separate market-access agreements necessary for Beijing's membership.
After the signing ceremony, Lamy and Shi went to deliver the good news to Chinese President Jiang Zemin in the communist leadership compound.
The European Union has said that the landmark market-access agreement China reached with the United States in November met only 80 percent of Europe's needs. The EU wanted greater access to China's telecommunications, financial and automobile sectors and lower tariffs on gin, cognac and other items.
Chinese leaders, especially reform-minded Premier Zhu Rongji, have seen WTO membership as a way to secure needed export markets and foreign investment and force long-protected state industries to make capitalist reforms.
Lamy said it was in the European Union's interest that China move toward free markets.
"WTO can provide a boost to the reform process," he said at the signing ceremony.
But powerful bureaucrats in charge of critical industries have opposed Zhu's concessions. Chinese leaders have brought provincial politicians to Beijing in recent weeks to persuade them of the WTO's benefits, while admitting that greater foreign competition will push more Chinese out of work.
Zhu, whose crucial intercession clinched the China-U.S. deal, broke the logjam with the European Union, meeting for an hour today with Lamy. Shi and Lamy then wrapped up the negotiations later in the day after a brief period of confusion.
China's Foreign Ministry, apparently confident that a deal was in hand, alerted foreign news organizations that an announcement on the talks would come around 4:30 p.m. When that time came, EU spokesman Anthony Gooch said negotiations continued and "any rumors about imminent signatures are premature."
"We are in a very delicate process and it's a delicate moment," Gooch said.
Zhu's intervention came on the heels of two unusual meetings -- one Thursday night, the other this morning -- between Lamy and Shi, each with their lead WTO negotiators. Their technical teams, who hash out the details of proposals, were not included.
-------- iraq
Iraq, Albright, Rafeedie, and the UC Berkeley Graduation.
From: SoniaAFSC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:35:48 EDT
Some of you may have heard about Fadia Rafeedie, a young Palestinian woman who, as something like the valedictorian of her class, spoke at UC Berkeley's graduation last week. You may also have heard that the keynote speaker for the convocation was Madaleine Albright. Albright's speech was interupted by many different flavors of protests on everything from Columbia to Iraq. Below is Fadia's explanation of what happened, and the transcript of her impromptu speech.
I think her bravery and poise are inspiring. Sonia
--
Fadia Rafeedie: Transcription of convocation address
Dear Friends,
I've been wanting to extend my thanks to everyone (Sawsan, Ali, Rania, Wael, Nader, Zahi, Randa, Nabella, Kathy, Sherry, Rima, and everyone else) for supporting me before and after Berkeley's convocation last Wednesday "featuring" the so-called "Keynote Speaker of the Millennium, Madeleine Albright." Things have been so crazy, though! I've been on a mission to respond to every single email that pops into my inbox about what happened, but the task is so exciting and overwhelming at once, that I decided to leave it alone for a while so that I could submit a more impersonal but comprehensive 'report.'
Below I've included my meandering address, which, when transcribed, sounds superficial and poorly organized. (It was.) I'll narrate the succession of events, which I think reads like a drama, and within it I outline some of the reasons why I think that Wednesday was a collective victory for the forces of opposition against the Iraqi sanctions in particular, and the Arab community - in solidarity with the Left in this country - more generally.
First, even for the people who were at the Greek Theatre that afternoon in the blinding sun, you cannot *imagine* what the audience looked like from our vantage point on stage. It was like fireworks! The images are imprinted in my head forever.
At the moment when the administrators announced, after we were all sitting on stage, that they'd change the schedule around so that Albright spoke first and not last, I knew that the "powers that be" were frightened of what was to come - embarrassment and exposure to a woman whose administration and policies deserve it.
As soon as she stood up on the thick block at the foot of the podium to reach the microphone, a 15-foot bright red and black banner - signature of the International Socialist Organization -- unfurled itself in the distance, directly across from her in the center of the theatre, with the clearly written slogan, "Madeleine Albright is a War criminal."
Then, in unison, hundreds of voices (or at least they sounded like it), interrupted her before she could begin, with chants of "end the sanctions now! end the sanctions now!"
The 'security' forces, dressed in loud yellow jackets, were quick to rip down every poster that surfaced in the crowd and escort the protesters outside of the theatre, but there was NO WAY to get at all of them. As I said, it was like fireworks!
When the red banner went down, another one to the left of the crowd flew up about the situation in Columbia. Then the officers tore that one down, dragged out the audience, and scanned the crowd for the sources of the consistent cries of protest.
Albright was stumbling and bumbling through her speech there was no way that anyone was listening to her babble about stopping war criminals in Kosovo, preventing the "buying and selling of human beings" in Latin America, achieving so much as a Secretary of State wearing a skirt, etc. etc. etc. There were just too many people screaming out that she was a war criminal, that she was occluding any mention of Iraq, and that she was a liar. The hypocrisy laden in every sentence she uttered was truly unbearable to have to endure, especially since I was caught off guard about having to speak after and not before her, as is tradition at Berkeley.
She tried - successfully, unfortunately - to win the audience to her side, but I'm convinced that they supported her more out of nationalistic fervor in response to a group of what they perceived as disruptive and 'foreign' objectors than because she was actually convincing or inspiring. Anyone, even a Nazi, I would argue, would have garnered support from the audience, because it was incredible how successful the protesters were in silencing her!
So after the Columbia banner went down, another one spread itself out in a different part of the theatre about how she's supporting imperialism. There was still more chanting, heckling, and booing.
From the distance, one protester wearing a conspicuous red shirt completely shut off all movement in his body, forcing the officers to drag him - slowly, awkwardly, and painfully - down a long, long isle of stairs to the left of the theatre. No one at that point was even looking at Albright. They were watching this poor guy's body slouch in the distance, his head buried in his chest and his shoulders extending over his ears as his arms were flailing.
Right from the start, two of my friends from ADC-SF, Eyad and Senan, were 'escorted' out. They both looked at me from the distance as they left, and I was fuming. Part of me wanted to just get up and leave with them so as not to dignify what this woman was saying while I was sharing the stage with her. But I knew that a spoken statement would have more effect. I decided then that the best thing to do, despite the fact that she was going to flee on her broomstick before she had a chance to hear me speak, was to deliver an impromptu address since my original speech was now obsolete. In any case, after seeing all that, there was no way I was going to rattle off about how much I loved my brother Ramiz, how grateful I was to my parents, how I wished my grandmothers a happy mother's day, how we were leaders of the future, etc. etc even though all of that would have been, and was intended to be, appropriately delivered under the expected circumstances.
It was a true pleasure to hear (or actually, not) the rest of Albright's speech, because just when I thought all the protesters were ejected, another group would whip out their own banner, unfurl it, and start chanting. Their resources seemed inexhaustible. By no means was her address uninterrupted at any stage of the game.
I know that Berkeley had a Madeleine Albright Unwelcoming Committee website and meeting the week before the event, but my understanding was that it was disorganized and a bit splintered. The activists there decided to just work independently of each other, and I think that was - in some ways - their strength. The message of opposition was the same, but the faces, slogans, posters, and styles were all different. It worked out to be a symphony of voices of dissent, and in some ways, I was happy to see the disgruntled audience members exasperated at what they saw as another "Berkeley spectacle." As I said before, the support they gave to Albright came more out of sympathy for her and respect for a national symbol than out of any true understanding of what she stood for.
The loud condemnation continued to the very end of her hackneyed speech, but she received a standing ovation nonetheless. Happy with her victory (which was in some ways a great PR stunt for her), she descended from the block at the foot of the podium, turned to the students and faculty sitting (actually, now standing) most near her, and smiled as she shook each of their hands in self-congratulation. She was going in a row until she got to me. I stayed sitting, my hands clasped in my lap, and gave her a serious, angry look. Her smile turned into the frown of scorn which she wears more naturally, then she withdrew her hand, and turned around to walk away. "Insirfi," I thought to myself.
[I had been asked by university administrators a day earlier to meet with her for a half hour before the ceremony. I told them that I'd prefer not to, and I told them that if I was in any photo opportunity with her, it would be a result of the fact that we were merely sharing a stage together as mutual honorees. I was not intending on shaking her hand, only to be captured and coopted by a photographer. They didn't press me to comply either way.]
Okay, then she left abruptly, briskly, and riding a wave of glee from INSIDE the theatre. Outside, with the well-mobilized protesters who'd been there for hours before her clandestine arrival - and here's the greatest victory of all - she had to leave sprawled across the back seat of her car like the criminal that she is, ducking for her life, and dashing off into the distance.
Things quieted down a bit after that. We heard two more speeches - one of which was especially light and funny - but I enjoyed neither. Three of my friends were gone, and my family was looking painfully at me in the distance. It's true that my moment was hijacked by the university administration and the secret service. I had worked so, so hard on my speech You wouldn't believe how much help and support I got. It was a true learning experience, but at the same time, I was ambushed.
Rania Masri was emailing me articles and tips nearly every day towards the end; my friends with the ADC-SF chapter had a special meeting where they all contributed their thoughts and opinions about style, content, tone, etc. in a roundtable discussion; and Eyad and Emily Kishawi - to whom I am most grateful and indebted - stayed up very late nights with me figuring out the best approach that got my political AND personal message across in a way that reflected my personality without compromising the more important and broad political message. (We used Iraq Under Seige as a great resource, so thanks Rania and Ali!) My poor parents, brothers, and sisters watched me flip-flop and agonize for weeks - just as I had been finishing up my senior thesis, too - about the right way to frame what I wanted to say so that I would achieve a three-point goal that would: 1. Address my class honorably, not just as a way to earn legitimacy before I launched into a myopic discussion about politics, but because I truly was grateful to Berkeley and held (hold) affection for my class. My speech was certainly not going to be a reaction to Albright, and in it I had included the story of my uncle's imprisonment in the Zionist jails, and how we were graduating together this summer, etc. etc. 2. Educate my class and the general public about what's happening in Iraq, hopefully with the ripple effect that the media's presence would provide; and 3. Confront Albright as a symbol of power and try to emulate, though the circumstances were much different, the sensational and inspiring event at Ohio State where she was caught off-guard and humiliated for being, again, the criminal that she really is.
I had wanted to ask for help from this list and another one, but I honestly think that the flood of opinions would have confused me even more. Besides, I was a bit paranoid that I was going to somehow be prevented from speaking. The university, also unlike custom, never released a public statement about my speaking at commencement. They kept saying that I was going to "share the stage" with her. Only a sensationalist journalist at a local paper seemed to make public that the University Medalist was really the antithesis of what Albright stood for.
However, he was just after a news story. What he did was talk about me, then talk about her, and then quote some law professor at Berkeley who said that you couldn't have chosen more polar forces than this even if you were casting a play. He said that the lineup was the kind of thing to make "officialdom shudder" and that I was a "rebel with a cause." This was all without my mentioning a word about the plans I had for my speech. I myself didn't have a clear idea of what my speech was going to be, particularly since I was working on it literally until the last minute.
I should say that Ibrahim Alloush gave me a piece of advice that proved prophetic for what was going to ensue later. He said, "you don't have to rant and rave to be a good revolutionary, even though that is absolutely necessary sometimes."
I don't - by any stretch of the imagination - take credit for the turn of events at convocation on Wednesday. They probably wanted her out of there as quick as possible to circumvent the flurry of stunts that audience members had planned. (The longer she stayed, the more protracted the embarrassment, I think.) That the movement of resistance was successful in subverting an entire program and turning it on its head is in itself a victory.
Still, it's significant to note that the materials I had submitted to the Committee on Prizes when I was competing for the medal were unequivocally pro-Palestinian, anti-sanctions, anti-Oslo, etc. etc. They chose Albright to be our commencement speaker precisely the day before they chose me to be the Medalist. I'm not even sure the 8-person committee, which was composed of professors, knew of the senior class council's decision. They are definitely more concerned with choosing the person who most fits the description of University Medal than worrying about the lineup at graduation. Or, it would be that the professors really DID want someone to counter Albright and they thought a Palestinian would be perfect. I don't know there are too many theories. Maybe she and I were both chosen independently of each other and the lineup was random.
In any case, what I think made the university a bit wary of me was that I refused to submit my speech to them. (That decision was also one that agonized me for weeks, because there was ramifications for each option, and I had no way of predicting which would be the most effective to achieve the goal of saying what I wanted the way I wanted.) I shared the beginning and end with them, but didn't elaborate on the middle part. It wasn't because I was hiding anything from them, necessarily. It's just that they didn't have a right to read it in the first place, and I wasn't finished composing it anyways. Of all universities to check freedom of speech, Berkeley should never be one of them. More than that, I think I threw up a red flag when I declined the opportunity to meet with Albright beforehand. The coordinator of student activities was also well aware that I had no respect for Albright or her policies.
I should say that Eyad predicted precisely what happened: that once the university really knew what I felt about her, they wouldn't have the audacity to remove me as a speaker, but they'd just change the schedule so that I spoke last, just as the reporters were packing up to leave
Albright's speech-writers had access to all the information I had submitted to the Committee on Prizes because she was ostensibly interested in my "story" (didn't you know? all Palestinians have "stories" because we're like performers in a circus), and she even said she wanted to include me in her speech. That, I think, was an unsuccessful attempt to preempt me and force me to be nice and gloating in her presence.
Okay, for whatever reason, it turned out that gave a speech as the "p.s." of the program, since in my hands was an obsolete message which would have had bad timing and a stiff delivery if I delivered it in its present state.
That's one big long introduction to explain why the heck what I've included below is so discursive and anti-climactic given what you might have been expecting. I'm embarrassed, almost, to share it with you. There are grammatical errors (lots of sentences that end in prepositions!), a couple factual errors, no organization, many examples of poor diction, and in general unintelligent-sounding. Still, I think what was important was the delivery, since I was trembling, angry, and calm when I spoke. I disagree with one reporter's assessment of it as "rousing and militant." It was more of a sad, serious, sincere, half-exasperated, half-informative address that I gave completely off the cuff. After working all those weeks with my awesome friends on solidifying a message, though, it wouldn't be completely accurate to say it was an extemporaneous delivery. I learned so much from the people who helped me with my speech, and in many ways, I was saying their words but with my voice. Thanks to everyone.
The support I received afterward vindicated the injustice (almost) of having the rug swept from under my feet. Many, many people lined up to extend their congratulations. Most of them were strangers. "Courage" is the word I heard most often. Some Iraqi women came to me crying afterwards, happy that I was able to speak (some of) the truth. Even the chancellor of the university, who really, really legitimized what I had to say before I opened my mouth because of the astounding and exaggerated introduction he included when he awarded me the medal, said that he agrees the sanctions should be lifted, that he was proud of me, and that he wanted to meet my parents. All of today and yesterday, I've been receiving so many, many emails of support from Arabs, non-Arabs, Muslims, non-Muslims, friends, strangers, university administrators, professors, etc. etc. If you're interested, I could post some of the highlights of the mail I've gotten. The best part of what happened was that everyone who went home that night had no choice but to mention the protesters, Iraq, the sanctions, etc., and many of them had no idea what was happening in the first place. I only received 3 letters of intense criticism of what some graduating seniors saw to be my "lack of tact" in politicizing their convocation and giving legitimacy to people whom they thought were disruptive and disrespectful protesters. One of the letters appeared in our campus newspaper and was especially biting. She basically said that I had an outstanding academic record but that I lacked a key social technique: "tact." Yikes. (Whatever.)
My friend Nadine lined up a radio interview with me, which I think went well. I have a reporter with another local newspaper for Tuesday. And the coverage has been pretty good at the local level. I'm extremely inexperienced when it comes to media stuff, but Emily's helping a lot with that!
The ADC-SF crew has been really outstanding. They were calling, writing, supporting, and standing with me in solidarity through every single aspect of this. Poor Maad recorded the speech but was so nervous and excited that it's a bumpy viewing! :) My favorite graduation card was the one that they all signed for me. It had snoopy on the cover and read, "2, 4, 6, 8, You're Someone to Congratulate" but they had scribbled in, "Fadia's graduation day anthem: 1,2,3,4 end the sanctions, end the war, 5, 6, 7, 8 end the sanctions, end the hate!" My friends were so courageous on Wednesday truly a reflection of their spirit and dedication to this struggle. I love each of them dearly.
We're totally hoping to use the momentum from Wednesday to continue forward with our huge anti-sanctions campaign, which is supposed to culminate in a series of outdoor advertisements on billboards and buses in San Francisco commemorating the 10-year anniversary of the imposition of the sanctions.
Here's where you can find some stories:
1. Berkeley's website has a press release with pictures and a sugar-coated summary. I think it summarizes my position pretty well albeit briefly. It's at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/features/2000/05/11_convoc.html
2. The local press in Southern California interviewed me the day before the convocation, so the writer - a sympathetic Egyptian by pure coincidence - wrote a glowing report without knowing what actually happened that day. Still, it's a good article and it's at http://www.inlandempireonline.com/news/stories/051200/grad.shtml
3. My school newspaper had a report of it all, but I think the protesters were trashed throughout. It's at http://www.dailycal.org/article.asp?id=2561&ref=news I can't believe that I said she's the perpetrator of horrible "things"! What terrible word choice
4. Then there was the Oakland Tribune, which said that I was the "main course" (sensationalism!) and included lots and lots of information about the sanctions, which was nice.
5. I think many of you have already seen the SF Chronicle's report.
Okay, here's the text of my speech. Forgive it, please, for all of its mistakes!!! And forgive me - even though I haven't yet forgiven myself - for talking about U.S. policy as though it's "our" policy, or the government as though it's "my" government, or the people of Iraq as "them" instead of "us." That was just the more effective route. There are many more errors !
Chancellor Berdahl: Please join me in congratulating our 2000 University Medalist, Fadia Rafeedie:
Fadia: Thank you, that was way too generous, Chancellor Berdahl. It makes me sound, you know, a lot better than I am.
And uh you know I just feel.. I had a speech and it's right here. It took me so long to draft it and I kept re-drafting it, and this morning I changed it again, but I'm just going to put it to the side and I'm going to talk from my heart because what I witnessed here today, I have mixed feelings about.
I don't know why I'm up here articulating the viewpoints of a lot of my comrades out there who were arrested, and not them. It's not because I got, you know, straight A's or maybe it is. Maybe that's the way the power structure works, but I'm very fortunate to be able to give them a voice. I think that's what I'm going to do, so if you give me your attention, I'd really appreciate it.
I was hoping to speak before Secretary Albright, but that was also a reflection of the power structure, I think, to sort of change things around and make it difficult for people who are ready to articulate their voice in ways they don't usually get a chance to.
So I'm going to improvise, and I'm going to mention some things that she didn't mention at all in her speech but which most of the protesters were actually talking about. You know, I think it's really easy for us to feel sorry for her, and I was looking at my grandmothers who are actually in the audience - my grandmother and her sister - who weren't really happy with all the protesters, and I think they thought that wasn't really respectful of them, and a lot of you didn't, I don't think, because you came to hear her speak.
But I think what the protesters did was not embarrass our university. I think they dignified it.
Because secretary Albright didn't even mention Iraq, and that's what they were here to listen to. And I think sometimes NOT saying things - not mentioning things - is actually lying about them. [Applause]
And what I was going to tell her while she was sitting on the stage with me, I was going to remind her and I was going to remind you that four years ago from this Friday when we were freshmen, I heard her on 60 Minutes talking to a reporter who had just returned from Iraq.
The reporter was describing that a million children were dying [died] due to the sanctions that this country was imposing on the people of Iraq. And she told her, listen, "that's more.. children than have died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think the price is worth it?" [Albright] looked into the camera and she said, "the price is worth it."
And I was going to tell her, "do you really think the price is worth it??!" Since that time, 3 times that number of people have died in Iraq.
I mean, we're about 5,000 here today. Next month by the time we graduate, that's as many people who are going to die in Iraq because of the sanctions. This is what House Minority Whip David Boniors calls 'infanticide masquerading as policy.'
Now, I don't want to make the mood somber here because this is our commencement, but commencement means beginning, and I think it's important for us to begin where civilization itself began, and where it's now being destroyed. [applause]
Let me talk to you a little bit a little bit more about the sanctions, because I think it's very important. Now, I'm a Palestinian, I would really love to talk about the struggle for the liberation of my country, and to talk about a whole bunch of other things and I see some people maybe rolling their eyes, and other people nodding these are controversial issues, but I need to speak about Iraq because I think what's happening there is a genocide. It's another holocaust.
And I'm a history major, and sometimes I look back at history and I see things like the slave trade, the Holocaust you know, I see I see people dropping atomic bombs and not thinking what the ramifications are, and I don't want us to think about Iraq that way. It's already a little too late because 2.5 million people have died and yet these sanctions continue.
For the last 10 years, you wouldn't imagine the kinds of things that aren't being let into this country: heart machines, lung machines, needles, um infrastructural parts to build the economy. Even cancer patients sometimes some of the medicine will be let in, but not ALL of the medicine.
It's very strategic what's let in at what time, because what it does is it prolongs life, but it doesn't save it.
In Iraq, the hospitals they clean the floors with gasoline because detergent isn't even allowed in because of the sanctions.
These are all United States policies.
And Secretary Albright - I have no conflict with HER, you know, as an individual.. I don't happen to RESPECT her, but she belongs to a larger power structure. She's a symbol.
And when the protesters are protesting, it's not because they, you know, want to pick a fight with the.. with the woman who you guys all happen - well, many of you - happen to love.
In fact, she was.. she was introduced as the 'greatest woman of our times.' Now see, to me that's an insult. [applause] This woman is doing HORRIBLE things.
She's allowing innocent people to suffer and to die.
Iraq used to be the country in the Arab World that had the best medical services and social services for its people, and NOW look at it. It's, it's being OBLITERATED.
And a lot of times you might hear it's because of Saddam Hussein and I'd like to talk a little bit about that. He's a brutal dictator - I agree with her, and I agree with many of you. But again, I'm a history major, and history means origins. It means beginnings. We need to see who's responsible for how strong Saddam Hussein has gotten.
When he when he was gassing the Kurds, he was gassing them using chemical weapons that were manufactured in Rochester, New York.
And when he was fighting a long and protracted war with Iran, where 1 million people died, it was the CIA that was funding him. It was U.S. policy that built this dictator. When they didn't NEED him, they started imposing sanctions on his people. Sanctions - or any kind of policy - should be directed at people's governments, not at the people.
The cancer rate in Iraq has risen by over 70 percent since the Gulf War. The children who are dying from these malicious cancers [and here the front row walked out of the theatre so I was blabbering incoherently] um.. and diseases, they weren't born when the Gulf War happened.
The reason that the cancer rate is so high is because every other day our country is bombing Iraq STILL. We're still at war with them. They have no nuclear capabilities. In fact, just last week, the United Nations inspectors found [again] that Iraq has no nuclear capabilities and yet WE are BOMBING them every other day with depleted uranium. And what this does is it releases a gas that the people breathe. It's making them ill, and they're dying and they don't have medicine.
I saw some of my friends, even, being arrested here today. One of them was Lillian. Her aunt did a documentary about this depleted uranium, and it showed that it's being MINED by Native American populations in the United States. THEY'RE getting sick. Their children are getting sick. And that depleted uranium is going from HERE, to our MILITARY, to Iraq, and it's decimating populations. This is a big deal.
And I'm embarrassed that I don't even get to talk about Columbia, because I saw a few signs about that, too. And my colleague here, Darren Noy, who's also a Finalist, is very interested in these issues. We don't stand alone. I'm on stage with allies, I'm looking out at allies, we need allies, my allies have been taken away [today].
But in general, I mean, I'm speaking to a crowd that gave a standing ovation to the woman who typifies everything against which I stand, and I'm still telling you this because I think it's important to understand.
And I think, that if I achieve nothing else, if this makes you think a little bit about Iraq, think a little bit about U.S. foreign policy, I've succeeded.
I don't want to take too much of your time, but I want to end my speech with a slogan that hangs over my bed in Arabic. It says, "La tastaw7ishu tareeq el-7aq, min qilit es-sa'ireen fihi" and that translates into, "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." I think our future is going to be the future of truth, and we're going to walk on that path, and we're going to fill it with travelers.
Thank you very much. [Standing ovation from the stage, with the faculty members, the senior class council, and the student award-winners. And, of course, standing ovation from my cheering section in the crowd.] :)
Two sweet examples of poetic justice came out of this, too:
1. The quote at the end of my speech about the path of truth was really inspiring to some people. Many of the emails ask me to quote it for them again. The funny thing is, I actually took it from the bottom of the PFLP's 1999 calendar reprint of the unamended PLO charter which hangs over my bed!
2. While Albright had to leave the way she did sprawled stomach-down in her car, my family and friends went to San Francisco later that evening to have a little graduation celebration at the Ramallah Club's Hall. We danced to the music of the shababeh and tableh, in a room decorated with a Palestinian flag. One of our theme songs, taken from a poster given to me as a precious gift at the party, was "Im-ma Filasteenu wa im-ma annara jeelan ba3da jeelin"!! ("Either Palestine, or the fire generation after generation.") Remember?? Ha! We had a blast, and it was the happiest day of my life in spite of and because of everything that happened.
All the best, Fadia Rafeedie
---
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:45:44 -0000
From: "mitzi" upthesun@cshore.com
Hi, Just a small correction of a minor error in Fadia's powerful statement. The mining of uranium (not yet "depleted") does in fact cause major illness among the Native Americans who inhale uranium dust, radium, thorium and radon gas at work, and in their families from these radioactive contaminants released from the earth and into the local environment. This is natural and not-yet-processed uranium, etc. Depleted uranium, (denser than lead and "pyrophoric" that is it bursts into hot flame on impact) is one of the isotopes of natural uranium, It is U238, the larger proportion. The process of enrichment for fissioning in reactors and for production of nuclear bombs, separates U235, the more fissionable isotope but a small proportion of natural uranium, from as much of the U238 as is needed for the purpose. (Weapons-production needs greater enrichment, that is more 235 in the mix.). These processes leave tons of U238 piling up for 50 years and on. What to do with such a massive pile of garbage, dangerous for billions of years? It costs billions of dollars to manage it right now, so why not use it to make money for the weapons manufacturers, and at the same time help to weaken and kill the "enemy" (mostly civilians and even our own soldiers)? Hope I haven't confused anyone. I'll try to clarify if there are questions. Mitzi
-------- japan
Dumping of illegal waste on Teshima Island to be settled
Kyodo News Service/Associated Press
2000-05-19
http://envirolink.yellowbrix.com/pages/envirolink/Story.nsp?story_id=10594598&ID=envirolink
TAKAMATSU, Japan, May 20 (Kyodo) -- A long-standing controversy over industrial waste dumped on Teshima Island in Kagawa Prefecture neared resolution Friday as a government coordination commission sent a settlement plan to the prefectural government and Teshima residents.
The Environmental Disputes Coordination Commission issued its final plan on the dumping, suggesting that some 500,000 tons of industrial waste be transferred to nearby Naoshima Island, located in the Inland Sea. The proposal was based on the prefectural government's suggestion, commission sources said.
The plan also stipulates that the governor of Kagawa make an apology to islanders for allowing the illegal waste to be dumped, the sources said.
The plan further suggests that the Kagawa prefectural government and Teshima residents equally share the compensation to be provided by companies that dumped the waste.
Teshima islanders will hold a gathering to decide on whether to accept the plan, while the prefectural government will make its decision at a prefectural assembly.
In 1975, a now-defunct local tourism development company submitted a request to the prefectural government to start an industrial-waste disposal business on the island. Islanders, however, later filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the construction of a waste-disposal facility.
The islanders and the company reached a compromise in 1978 allowing the company to dispose of wood shavings and sludge produced in paper production.
But large amounts of industrial waste began to be dumped illegally on the island around 1983, evoking complaints by local residents.
Police discovered illegal dumping on the island in 1990. In 1993, residents sought government arbitration on the issue, and in 1995, a survey by the commission found toxic substances, including dioxins, on the island.
Residents subsequently filed a damages suit against the company, seeking compensation and the removal of the industrial waste. The Takamatsu District Court ruled in favor of them in late 1996.
In 1997, the islanders and the prefectural government agreed to an interim settlement that proposed disposing the industrial waste where it was dumped. The interim plan did not stipulate an apology from the prefectural government, and only said that the prefectural government failed to properly instruct those who dumped the waste.
----
Greenpeace members released after paying fines
Kyodo News Service/Associated Press
2000-05-19
May 19 (Kyodo)
http://envirolink.yellowbrix.com/pages/envirolink/Story.nsp?story_id=10591548&ID=envirolink
TOKYO, Four members of the environmentalist group Greenpeace International were released Friday after they agreed to pay fines of 70,000 yen each for climbing a tower in Tokyo to protest dioxin emissions.
The four had spent 11 days in detention on suspicion of trespassing.
Al Baker from Britain, Marleen van Poeck from Belgium, Clement Lam from Hong Kong, and Paul Schot from the Netherlands were arrested May 9 after scaling a tower near an incinerator plant in Tokyo to protest Japan's waste-incineration policies, which they said results in high emission of toxic dioxins.
The four told a press conference after the release that Japanese law enforcement authorities were "going too far" by detaining them for 11 days, compared with one or two days in other countries, and raiding the Greenpeace flagship in connection with the case.
On May 11, police searched the Rainbow Warrior, which was berthed at Tokyo port as part of an Asian tour campaigning for a toxic-free Asia.
"We were simply peaceful messengers of a very serious toxic emergency in Japan. The real criminal trespassers are dioxins which enter our children's bodies through the food they eat, and the air they breathe, to wreak biological destruction," Lam said.
Greenpeace staged rallies outside Japanese embassies and consulates in more than 15 countries around the world this week to protest the detention of the four.
----
Under the Umbrella: Japan's Nuclear Potential
Japan has the technological and economic ability to become a full-fledged member of the growing nuclear club. The only thing Tokyo lacks is the will.
From: owner-weekly@cdi.org
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 03:57:52 -0400
[Weekly Defense Monitor] - Volume 4, Issue #20
Since the end of World War II, Japan has been a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Japanese officials have taken strong measures to maintain the image of a nation that can resist the temptation to "go nuclear." They have adhered to the "Three Non-Nuclear Principles," stressed Japan's status as the world's only "atomic victim," and forced the resignation of officials such as parliamentary defense vice minister Shingo Nishimura, who advocated Japan's acquiring the Bomb in an interview last October. However, real world circumstances have convinced Japanese policy makers to quietly lay the foundations for the future development in a relatively short period of time of a nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it.
Japan is in an exposed position off the Asian mainland. The archipelago would be vulnerable to threats from a powerful and aggressive China. Tokyo also fears its neighbor on the Korean peninsula. Despite recent progress in improving relations between the West and North Korea, Tokyo remains deeply suspicious of Pyongyang's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The August 31, 1998 North Korean satellite launch of a Taepodong 1 missile alarmed Japan as it soared over the main island of Honshu. While Japan has begun to take defensive measures such as participating in joint development of the theater missile defense with the United States, Japan might pursue a nuclear deterrent if Pyongyang appeared poised to strike with nuclear weapons. Even a unified Korea, with a free-market economy and a democratic government, could cause Tokyo concerns. The historical animosity between Korea and both China and Japan could drive Seoul to develop its own nuclear arsenal.
Should Japan decide to build nuclear weapons, much of the infrastructure needed to develop and produce warheads and delivery systems is already in place. Wary of its heavy reliance on foreign energy sources, the island nation has vigorously pursued a domestic nuclear energy program. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Japan had fifty-three nuclear power plants in operation at the end of 1999, which supplied the country with 35% of its energy. As a result, the Japanese nuclear power cycle has produced a stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium adequate to build several thousand weapons. A report by the British Defense Ministry also stated that Japan is believed to have acquired all of the necessary components to build a bomb by the mid-1990s.
Japan's National Space Development Agency (NASDA) and its advanced space program are tackling the challenge of constructing a missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. Lessons NASDA learned by the recent failures of its scrapped H -2 space launch vehicle program are being used to help develop the cheaper and more efficiently designed H-2A. This rocket will have a 15,000-km range and be able to carry a 4,000-kg payload, making it an ideal intercontinental ballistic missile. The National Security News Service reported that Japanese engineers have been studying several warhead designs, including an old Soviet SS-20, which can be used to construct a multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle (MIRV) for the H-2A. While this missile might be several years away from its potential deployment, a fighter-based delivery system could be used if the need arose. Chinese analysts, however, point out a serious weakness in Japan's potential nuclear deterrence -- Japan has not actively pursued a ship or submarine launched delivery system.
According to weapon system analyst Carey Sublette, "Should Japan decide to do so, it is likely that emergency capability nuclear weapons could be deployed by Japan within a few months of a decision to produce them." Several factors have prevented Tokyo from going ahead with building and deploying the Bomb. First, Japanese public opinion remains bitterly against nuclear weapons, even as the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fade from living memory. A 1998 Gallup poll revealed that 89% of Japanese said their country did not need nuclear weapons. Even after the North Korean missile launch, 79% of all respondents in an Asashi Shimbun poll stated that all countries should destroy their nuclear weapons without exception.
More importantly, Japan still has the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. As much as the Japanese public and some officials resent the American presence in Japan, it makes Tokyo's development of an independent nuclear capability unnecessary. American policy makers must take this into consideration while debating the future of America's military presence in Japan and East Asia. Tokyo is party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and several other agreements that promote disarmament and prevent the spread of weapons components and materials. If a champion of non-proliferation and peace such as Japan abrogated these agreements and joined the nuclear club it would deal a serious -- and perhaps fatal -- blow to years of work towards nuclear disarmament.
-------- npt
Nuclear Agreement Near
Yahoo News
Friday May 19 8:11 PM ET
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000519/wl/un_nuclear_treaty_2.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The world's nuclear haves and have-nots neared agreement late Friday on a new disarmament agenda, but a final accord was stalled by a dispute between Iraq and the United States over Baghdad's alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
``The entire conference is being held hostage with regard to the situation in Iraq,'' said Rebecca Johnson, editor of ``Disarmament Diplomacy,'' a monthly arms control journal.
The four-week conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was scheduled to end Friday, but negotiations among the 187 signatories to the accord were expected to continue into the early hours Saturday.
Johnson said Iraq accepted a statement in the conference's final document that the International Atomic Energy Agency has not been able to confirm that Baghdad has foresworn nuclear weapons. But the United States wants language saying Iraq is not in compliance with the treaty's requirement that all signatories abandon attempts to develop or obtain nuclear arms, she said.
Earlier Friday, delegates reached a consensus on a document reviewing progress on disarmament since 1995.
At the insistence of the five established nuclear powers, all references were dropped to the 35,000 nuclear weapons still in their arsenals and the thousands still on hair-trigger alert.
Countries without nuclear weapons had wanted the figures - which came directly from Secretary-General Kofi Annan's opening speech to the conference - to be included, Johnson said.
In a key breakthrough on Thursday, the five nuclear powers agreed to ``an unequivocal undertaking'' to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, a decision praised by several non-nuclear countries.
The agreement specified no timetable, and delegates said it would take many years to achieve a nuclear-free world.
After weeks of opposition, China agreed to go along with a call for increased transparency by the nuclear weapon states regarding their nuclear weapons capabilities, which means Beijing must provide information about its nuclear capabilities, Johnson said.
The conference president, Algerian U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali, was working to try to resolve the remaining differences ahead of a plenary session of all 187 nations to consider a final document.
---
Nuclear Powers To Eliminate Weapons
Associated Press
May 18, 2000 Filed at 11:45 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-UN-Nuclear-Treaty.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The five nuclear powers agreed Thursday to eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals, a decision hailed by several countries without such weapons.
But the agreement specified no timetable for implementation and delegates said it would take many years to achieve a nuclear-free world.
The preliminary deal could become part of a final document expected to be approved by Friday, at the conclusion of a 187-nation conference reviewing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
As negotiations on other issues continuing Thursday night, even the most staunch advocates of disarmament expressed only cautious optimism over the agreement.
``I don't count my chickens until they're hatched,'' U.N. Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala said.
A U.S. official had no comment on the agreement, explaining that the conference documents were not yet final.
Nonetheless, the agreement on key disarmament issues, which Dhanapala called ``an important development,'' lifted the gloomy atmosphere at the four-week conference and sparked hope among delegates that a final document could be adopted by consensus.
For two years, a group of seven moderate countries without nuclear weapons known as the New Agenda Coalition has been campaigning to get the nuclear powers to make an unequivocal commitment to total nuclear disarmament -- as called for in the treaty.
When the conference started, the five original nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- reiterated their ``unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament.''
But the seven coalition members -- Mexico, Ireland, South Africa, Egypt, Sweden, New Zealand and Brazil -- rejected their statement saying ``the total elimination of nuclear weapons is an obligation and a priority and not an ultimate goal.''
After lengthy negotiations, the nuclear powers and coalition members reached agreement Thursday on ``an unequivocal undertaking ... to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.''
Darach Mac Fhionnbhairr, the top disarmament expert in Ireland's Foreign Ministry, said the agreement is the culmination of ``a long, hard struggle'' with the nuclear weapon states.
But any prospect of total elimination is tempered by concerns about India and Pakistan, which exploded nuclear devices in 1998, and Israel, which is believed to have nuclear capabilities. The three countries, along with Cuba, are the only nations that have not signed the treaty.
India has repeatedly insisted it will not sign the NPT unless other nuclear powers first agree to a ``time-bound framework'' for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
-------- puerto rico
VIEQUES LEADER ROBERT RABIN BRUTALIZED BY POLICE
Fri, 19 May 2000 11:25:48 GMT
From: "Robert Rabin - Nilda Medina" bieke@coqui.net
Compañer@s:
I am sending you this information. I hope to have it in Spanish in a couple of hours. Bob has been released from the hospital and will arrive in Vieques in the late morning. He will then be going directly to his home to rest from this terrible ordeal. he has many scatches and bruises but the information we have NOW is that his condition is not serious.
--
Comunicado de Prensa
URGENT! VIEQUES LEADER ROBERT RABIN BRUTALIZED BY POLICE
Contact: Pepo Belardo, Rangie de Leon and Kathy Gannett Camp for Justice and Peace of Vieques, Vieques, P.R. Tel. 787-741-0716 and 787-741-0358
May 18, 2000
Vieques, P.R.- At about 9:15 pm on Thursday, May 18, 2000, a convoy of about seven Navy vehicles lined up inside the gate of Camp Garcia. At that time many people were present in Camp for Justice and Peace in Vieques, both in the house across the street from the gate and in the adjacent camp to the north of the house.
The convoy passed through the gate and took a right onto the road.
Robert Rabin, leader of the Camp for Justice and Peace in Vieques and of the Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques, was already heading North on the same road in a red jeep. The Navy convoy pulled up behind him and the first vehicle bumped Bob's jeep on the fender right in front of the camp. Many people saw this happen and the events that follow below.
After Bob's jeep was hit, 4 policemen ("Fuerza de Choque") who had been standing in front of the gate, ran to the jeep. They opened his car door and then grabbed him and pulled him out of the car. These 4 policemen repeatedly beat up on Bob him with their nightsticks. They pushed him to the ground. They kicked him many times. Then they put handcuffs on him. They brought him to sit on the ground in the entrance to Camp Garcia.
We were able to take photos of this senseless brutality against Bob with disposable cameras. We plan to make these photos available to the media as soon as possible.
About 11 policemen stood in a line along the street with Bob sitting behind handcuffed. People from the Camp gathered on the other side of the street to observe what would happen to Bob. Then many more police cars and police arrived and joined the police line.
By the time that Bob was taken away at about 10:15 pm, there were about 35 policemen guarding him and about 7-8 police buses parked around the area. Bob was able to report to us that he was in great pain, most likley his back and his kidneys. Then police took him to the local hospital (Jesusa Centeno). At about 11:00pm, because of his condition, they had to transport him by plane to the emergency room of San Pablo hospital in Fajardo.
At 10:20PM or so - after Bob had been taken from the scene where he was beaten, the 30-plus police moved their line to block the road (instead of blocking the gate) - leaving the entrance to the gate open to the road from the south. At 10:30 a convoy of about 10 cars arrived from the south (from the direction of Esperanza) at fast speed and entered Camp Garcia. Only one or two were military vehicles, the other 7-8 appeared to be civilian cars carrying military personnel. After they entered the gate was closed again.
Perhaps the first military convoy leaving the base was intended to divert attention from the convoy that arrived to the base from the south later. Toledo, the head of the Police Department, has already claimed that Rabin "provoked" his own beating - but Toledo was not present. About 15-20 eye-witnesses observed this attack on Bob Rabin. He was an innocent victim of police brutality. Rabin has time and again proven his dedication to peaceful action and has never, nor would he ever, jeopardize the integrity of the movement for Peace in Vieques by any type of violent act.
The community of Vieques continues to be under a state of siege by the huge presence of the police and U.S. military everywhere in Vieques. In spite of this aggressive occupation, the community stands strong and united and determined to work through peaceful means to rid the Isla Nena of the US Navy. We denounce this senseless and unprovoked brutality against one of the great leaders of the peaceful movement to get the U.S. Navy out of Vieques.
-------- russia
Hill Seems Eager to Pay Russia to Cut Atomic Arms
Washington Post
Friday, May 19, 2000; Page A26
By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-05/19/110l-051900-idx.html
The Republican-dominated Senate Armed Services Committee has approved more than $1 billion for next year to help Russia and other former Soviet republics destroy their strategic weapons, secure nuclear materials and pay weapons scientists to keep busy at nonmilitary ventures.
The Senate panel, which has challenged the White House on other defense and foreign policy issues, last week approved almost all of the 50 percent increase that the Clinton administration had sought for the so-called threat reduction and nuclear cities programs, on which the United States spent $718 million this year.
"We have asked Congress for extra funding here, to help Russia keep its arsenal of nuclear weapons secure," President Clinton said in a speech Wednesday at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, adding that the United States so far has "helped Russia to deactivate about 5,000 warheads."
The Senate action, on top of the House Armed Services Committee's almost full support last week for the Pentagon portion of the program, comes as good news to the administration as it prepares for next month's summit between Clinton and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.
The use of Pentagon and Energy Department funds to help dismantle Russian weapons and secure Russian nuclear materials is the only major U.S. aid program that has survived Republican anger at Moscow's policies, particularly its brutal tactics in Chechnya and its support for Yugoslavia in the Kosovo conflict.
Under the Pentagon's eight-year-old Nunn-Lugar program, named for its authors, then-Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), American contractors are helping to dismantle SS-18 and SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missiles, the one-time Soviet first-strike threat against the United States.
"Sunflowers are now growing on what used to be a field of SS-19 ICBMs," Brig. Gen. Thomas Kuenning Jr., director of the threat reduction program, said this month in a speech at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The House panel said it supports the core purpose of the Pentagon's program, which it described as "the accelerated dismantlement of former Soviet strategic offensive arms that threaten the United States." However, the committee said it is "concerned that the poor economic situation in the former Soviet Union is shifting an increasing share of . . . costs to the United States."
The panel earmarked $162.8 million--$10 million more than the president's request--for the elimination of strategic offensive arms in Russia.
Kuenning said the Russian navy was so short of funds that the United States now pays to tow Moscow's nuclear submarines into the shipyards where they are dismantled. He pointed out that it will cost $13 million to take apart a single Russian Typhoon sub, which is twice as large as a U.S. Trident missile submarine.
Twelve Russian submarines have been eliminated, and 10 more are moving toward destruction, Kuenning said.
The Pentagon also is building a $300 million complex at Mayak, near Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, where the Russians will store plutonium triggers from dismantled warheads. In the planning stage are facilities to store spent nuclear fuel from Russian subs and to do away with the fuel from Russian rockets.
Kuenning said Russia still must eliminate 26 SS-18s by December 2001 to comply with the first strategic arms reduction treaty, or START I. He added that he has held preliminary talks with the Russians on eliminating all of the remaining 154 SS-18s under START II, a treaty recently ratified by the Russian parliament.
One program that both committees held up would have provided $25 million to build a chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye. The House panel eliminated the money on grounds that "the costs of this particular project exceed its anticipated benefits." On the Senate side, the money was held up until Defense Secretary William S. Cohen certifies that the Russians agree to provide at least $25 million a year to support the facility.
Cohen last month wrote to Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) supporting the Shchuch'ye project, saying the 5,450 tons of modern nerve agents stored there remain a "proliferation threat" unless the destruction facility is completed and the weapons are eliminated.
The Energy Department programs approved by the Senate panel total nearly $600 million, according to committee aides. They include enhancing security for Russian facilities that store plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
Expansion of the Energy Department's Nuclear Cities Initiative, which finances projects to employ scientists who once worked on nuclear weapons, is being delayed until Energy Secretary Bill Richardson obtains an agreement to close "some" of the four remaining Russian facilities that still assemble as well as disassemble nuclear weapons. Another limitation will require the Energy Department to set up procedures "to ensure projects will not enhance Russian military capabilities."
---
U.S. Firm on Russia Missile Treaty
New York Times
May 18, 2000 Filed at 6:06 p.m. EDT
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-US-Russia.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even if he is unable to convince Russia to change a treaty barring a national missile defense, President Clinton will ``go ahead with a deployment decision'' on such a program if it is in the national interest, a senior official said Thursday.
The chairman of Russia's International Affairs Committee said such a move could have dangerous consequences. ``Basically, we are against opening this Pandora's Box,'' said Dimitriy Rogozin, chairman of the International Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma.
Clinton is expected to seek Russian President Vladimir Putin's approval to amend a 1972 treaty that bans national missile defenses in their talks in Moscow June 4-5.
But a senior U.S. official, briefing reporters on the summit, said Clinton would go ahead without Putin's approval if he concluded a missile defense met U.S. criteria, which include security needs.
``The short, honest answer is yes,'' said the official, speaking on condition his identity would be withheld.
``If we do not reach an agreement of some kind with the Russians on changes to the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty necessary to proceed with a deployment decision... and if the President decides... it is in the national interest to still go ahead with a deployment decision, he will go ahead with a deployment decision,'' the official said.
In other security areas, he said the United States faced threats besides that of a North Korea intercontinental ballistic missile and ``we will keep looking at other technologies'' as well as the 100 launchers and improved radar that Clinton is considering.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said last week that Clinton would go to Moscow with an open mind on missile defenses and determined not to touch off a nuclear arms race.
On a visit here, Rogozin on Thursday ridiculed the notion that North Korea posed a missile threat.
Speaking at the Nixon Center, a private research group, he said ``we are talking about two bamboo wooden crates carrying a box of matches.''
``We know North Korea has no possibility to produce nuclear arms in the near future,'' he said in Russian.
Rogozin said the United States and Russian should be able to arrange ``reasonable compromises,'' offering North Korea ``confidence-building measures'' to deter a nuclear weapons program.
One proposal known to be under consideration in Moscow is assisting North Korea to develop a commercial satellite system, as a boon to its weak economy.
North Korea froze a suspected nuclear weapons program in 1994 in exchange for civilian-style reactors and energy supplies.
Rogozin said if the United States went ahead with a missile defense over Russia's objections it would force Moscow to reconsider a ban the 1993 START II treaty imposed on long-range missiles with multiple nuclear warheads.
Also, he said, China would feel vulnerable ``and certainly take action to enhance its arsenal.''
Meanwhile, Jack Seymour, a former State Department official, said the United States had always ``had its way'' with the European allies, but they do not agree that there is a new missile threat that requires new defenses.
Theresa Hitchens, research director for the British American Security Information Council, an arms control think tank, said ``the allies have felt they have been left out of the process'' and that a U.S. decision to deploy a defense system has been made.
Daniel Plesch, director of the research group, said the United States is seen as pursuing a Cold War policy.
Plesch, at a joint news conference with Seymour and Hitchens, ``one cannot find a single supporter, any country'' in favor of a new missile defense.
``There is concern that the threat is grossly exaggerated,'' he said.
---
U.S. Cuts Its Hopes For Putin Summit
Differences Persist On Strategic Arms
Wasahington Post
Friday, May 19, 2000; Page A01
By Roberto Suro Washington Post Staff Writer
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-05/19/206l-051900-idx.html
The Clinton administration has scaled back its hopes for new arms control agreements with the Russians, senior officials said yesterday, conceding that they expect little progress at a Moscow summit meeting next month.
Failure to reach an accord at the June 4-5 summit will leave President Clinton little time before he leaves office in January to resolve major disagreements with the Russians over the size of nuclear arsenals and American plans to build a high-tech missile defense system.
Attempting to tamp down expectations, a senior State Department official offered reporters what he termed a "disclaimer," insisting that the Moscow meeting would not be an "arms-control-only" summit. "In fact, we think it would be quite a mistake to proceed as though everything has to be resolved in one fell swoop in the course of several days in early June," he said.
Neither Clinton nor Vladimir Putin, his Russian counterpart, is "in a position to put grand compromises on the table at the summit, and so both sides will be happy to come away with some kind of process for further talks in the future," a senior Defense Department official said.
Such talks could occur at three international meetings that Clinton and Putin are expected to attend before Clinton leaves office, as well as in regular discussions among top officials, the State Department official said. But administration officials--who in the past had hoped that the Russians would negotiate in earnest with Clinton rather than wait to deal with an undetermined successor--do not express any confidence that there will be a breakthrough before January.
One reason for the downsized goal is a realization that Clinton has little to offer Putin in return for the concessions that America is seeking on missile defense. The Joint Chiefs of Staff let it be known earlier this month that they are uncomfortable with a Russian proposal for sharp reductions in both countries' nuclear arsenals--to a maximum of 1,500 warheads on each side--and the White House dropped consideration of that offer, at least for now, officials said.
Administration officials had hoped to persuade the Russians this summer to drop their insistence that the proposed U.S. National Missile Defense system would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and undermine the entire structure of arms control accords. Instead, Clinton is likely to face a November deadline for deciding whether to begin construction of the system in the face of steadfast Russian opposition.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced yesterday that it has once again postponed a critical flight test for the missile defense system as a result of problems with the "kill vehicle" that is designed to knock down enemy warheads in space. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the test, originally scheduled for April, then put off until June, probably will take place in early July. But Bacon said the Pentagon believes that the problems have been resolved and that the delay "should not have any impact whatsoever" on the timing of Clinton's decision.
In the first major test of the kill vehicle last October, the interceptor drifted off course before finding the target, and in a second test in January, a vital sensor failed, causing the interceptor to miss a dummy warhead high over the Pacific. After getting the results of the upcoming test this summer, Clinton could decide to postpone deployment of the system until the technology is further refined. According to the administration's plan, he will also take into account the potential threat of a missile attack, the cost of the system and its impact on broad national security issues, including relations with Russia and China.
This week, as the administration's attention increasingly focused on preparations for the summit, avoiding a falling out with Putin on strategic issues became a key objective. With no concessions to offer Putin, the administration apparently has concluded that there is little to gain and much to lose by putting the new Russian president in a position where he either has to knuckle under to, or openly defy, Clinton.
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, the president's national security adviser, was in Moscow yesterday discussing an agenda that will go beyond arms control to touch on "a whole range of matters" from investment opportunities for Americans in Russia to peacekeeping missions in the Balkans, a senior State Department official said.
"Whatever people hoped for a while ago, the reality now is that no one wants Putin's first summit with an American president to end badly; there is too much at stake for the long run," an administration official said.
Since January, the administration has formally sought Russia's assent to modify the ABM Treaty to allow the proposed missile defense plan, and discussions went into high gear after Putin was elected to the Russian presidency in March.
When Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov spent two days here at the end of April to prepare for the summit, however, there was little movement toward compromise. At the end of his visit, Ivanov said "considerable differences" remained.
Over the past three weeks, administration officials have made no perceptible progress in convincing the Russians that the U.S. proposal to base 100 interceptor missiles in Alaska poses no threat to their nuclear deterrent but instead is aimed at "rogue states" such as North Korea and Iran. Rather than press the issue and be rejected by Putin, Clinton is expected to repeat familiar U.S. positions to the Russians, and to get familiar responses in return.
As recently as last month, the Russians asked the administration to consider other ways to deal with the potential missile threat from rogue states, such as joint diplomatic initiatives and small-scale, regional missile defenses. But U.S. officials have stated that the interceptors in Alaska are the only option under immediate consideration. "It's become very clear that this is a system that can be deployed the soonest," Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said Wednesday.
The Clinton administration also has rebuffed Russia's request to consider cuts in nuclear arsenals beyond the arms reduction framework reached by Clinton and Putin's predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, at a summit in Helsinki three years ago. "The Russians have said they would like to go down further, but right now, we are looking at the Helsinki range of 2,000 to 2,500" warheads, Bacon said last week.
-------- spying
Justice Department Faults FBI in China Spy Case
Friday, May 19, 2000
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A classified internal U.S. Justice Department report has harshly criticized the FBI for the way it handled the investigation of Wen Ho Lee, the former U.S. government physicist suspected of spying for China, government officials said on Friday.
The report said the year-long review concluded that the FBI moved too slowly in the investigation, failed to provide sufficient resources and supervision, and prematurely focused on Lee as the prime suspect for the alleged theft of U.S. nuclear secrets.
One official familiar with nearly 800-page report said it mainly was critical of the FBI, although it contained lesser criticisms of other government agencies, including the Justice and Energy departments. The official described the FBI's actions in the case as "negligent."
Lee, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Taiwan, goes on trial in November on 59 federal counts of making illegal copies from computer files on nuclear weapons development programs at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, where he formerly worked.
Lee, who has pleaded not guilty, has been jailed since his arrest in December amid a wider controversy over allegations China had obtained U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. Lee was not charged with espionage, and China has denied the allegations.
RENO CALLS REPORT COMPREHENSIVE
Attorney General Janet Reno said at her weekly Justice Department news conference that she has been briefed on the report, but has not completed reading it. "It is detailed; it is comprehensive; it is thoughtful."
She added, "the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been very forthcoming and cooperated, and I think we're all interested in using the contents of this report to shape the future efforts in this regard."
Reno last year named federal prosecutor Randy Bellows to head an internal review into whether the Justice Department or the FBI made mistakes in the Lee case beginning in 1982, when his name first surfaced in a separate espionage case at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The officials said the report concluded that the FBI could have moved in on Lee and other suspects sooner if its agents had shared information with its own counterespionage experts.
The report said the Justice Department should have approved the warrant for electronic surveillance requested several times by the FBI. But the FBI failed to provide all the information it had to the department, the officials said.
The report concluded that investigators did not need a court order to search Lee's computer because he had signed a privacy waiver granting permission for a search. Had Lee's computer been searched in 1997 without a warrant, Lee's computer downloads could have been discovered years earlier.
FBI CONDUCTS BROADER INVESTIGATION
The FBI in September began a broader investigation of the allegations of Chinese espionage at U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories after officials decided the initial probe had been too narrowly focused.
With its initial focus on Lee, the FBI failed to consider other possible suspects, according to the report.
FBI spokesman John Collingwood said the FBI was "carefully reviewing" the report, which it received two days ago. "The problems identified with the early parts of this case have or are being remedied and substantial changes have already been made," he said.
The report reached many of the same conclusions as a series of earlier investigations by congressional committees. Reno said she would like to share the report with Congress.
----
War maps
Washington Times
May 19, 2000
Inside the Ring Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200051922399.htm
Faulty maps were blamed for the CIA's failure to identify the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, last year before it was blown up accidentally by U.S. B-2 bombers. But there was one success for the map-making and satellite photograph agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, known as NIMA.
According to a CIA report, the agency produced "NIMA-in-a-box" for NATO military forces to use during the war in Kosovo. The spy photos and maps were accessed by 15 laptop computers and printed out on color printers.
The system helped "save the life of a downed F-16 pilot" during the bombing campaign, the report said. "The airborne command-and-control center battle staff used NIMA-in-a-box to identify potential obstacles such as power lines and plotted a safe course for the rescue helicopter," the CIA said.
The report made no mention of the mistaken bombing, which China believes was intentional. No wonder. The report said of the agency's role in Kosovo: "CIA analysts provided key analytical support on the crisis in Kosovo to U.S. policy and military commanders, receiving praise from U.S. diplomats and military commanders."
State insecurity
Speaking of laptops, two State Department intelligence officials disciplined for the loss of a laptop with highly classified intelligence information have been identified.
They are Alan Locke, head of missiles and space issues for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR. The second is Nancy May, who was acting INR executive director. The officials were blamed for the missing laptop that investigators believe was swiped by a contract employee from a department conference room during renovation.
Critics of the punishment, which was ordered by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, said the officials were "scapegoats" for security failures of the department's higher-ups.
Mr. Locke was identified to us in the past as a key player in State's cover-up of the sale of Chinese M-11 missiles to Pakistan years ago, a cover-up that prevented imposition of economic sanctions on Beijing. He was sent to the Freedom of Information Act office. Miss May is now working for the Foreign Buildings Office.
Now that 15 other State Department laptops have gone missing, including one from Morton Halperin, the liberal policy-planning director, how many others will be punished?
---
Phalcon Crest
Notes from the Pentagon.
Washington Times
May 19, 2000
Inside the Ring Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200051922399.htm
U.S. intelligence agencies reported this week that Israel is nearly finished with work on a high-technology airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft for China. The Israelis resumed work on the jet and U.S. spy services now expect the first of several AWACS aircraft to be delivered to China late next month.
The intelligence is a sign that the Israeli government ignored recent warnings about the sale from Defense Secretary William S. Cohen. The secretary last month urged Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak not to go through with the deal. Mr. Cohen told him the technology contained in the high-tech surveillance jet could be re-exported to Israel's enemies, a common practice for Beijing's military.
U.S. intelligence first detected the outfitting of the Russian jet in Israel last October, but the sale has been known since 1996. The system is being outfitted by the Israelis aboard a Russian Il-76 transport. Inside will be Israel's Phalcon radar system. The resumption of work on the jet indicates the Israelis at least temporarily suspended the deal.
The aircraft will boost the Chinese military's capability to target enemy forces with "over-the-horizon" surveillance. Some Pentagon officials view the sale with alarm because its most likely use will be to directly threaten U.S. aircraft carriers and naval forces in the Pacific that would be called into defend Taiwan in the event of an attack on the island by mainland forces.
The AWACS are part of a major buildup of Chinese military command and control, the software of war fighting. Earlier this year, China launched the first military satellite for a new command-and-control system called Qu Dian. The AWACS aircraft will further enhance the system.
Chinese President Jiang Zemin saw the $250 million aircraft during a visit to Israel last month. China could buy between three and seven additional aircraft.
The Pentagon has said it is opposing the transfer because it will upset the military balance with Taiwan. At the same time, the Clinton administration is refusing to approve sales of advanced U.S. weapons to Taiwan, including Aegis warships that would increase Taipei's defenses.
---
Cloak and Swagger Magnet of Mystique Continues to Draw Recruits to State and CIA
Washington Post
Friday, May 12, 2000
By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-05/12/069l-051200-idx.html
Last of six articles
A week before recruiters from the Central Intelligence Agency visited Harvard University last spring, a graduate student dropped off his resume at the Kennedy School's career office and cracked the requisite CIA joke: "Isn't this supposed to be signed in invisible ink?"
He had never really considered working for the CIA, but the agency's mystique soon proved alluring. Now, less than a year later, the 26-year-old Ivy Leaguer works as an economic analyst in the CIA's Office of Transnational Issues, even though consulting firms are offering two or three times as much money.
"It just sounded like a really interesting opportunity," he said.
His choice helps illustrate the continuing power of America's foreign service agencies to recruit talent from the nation's top universities in the face of growing private sector competition in the new global economy, according to senior officials at the CIA and State Department.
Officials at State and the CIA, like the rest of the federal government, report difficulty in competing with private industry for high-tech specialists because of the big salaries and stock options on the outside. But both agencies remain highly competitive for the type of talent--political scientists, economists, linguists, historians--that forms the backbones of the State Department's Foreign Service and the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, its analytical arm.
Both agencies are able to offer unique careers in diplomacy and intelligence with compensation packages that may fall far short of Wall Street and Silicon Valley but remain equal to, or better than, those in academia and the nonprofit sector.
The CIA brings in entry-level analysts with a bachelor's degree at the GS-8 or -9 level, where annual pay ranges from $32,000 to $46,000. Analysts and operations officers with master's degrees, language proficiency and some work experience come in at the GS-10 to -11 range, with salaries between $39,000 and $55,500.
State Department officials say most entry-level Foreign Service officers come in at the Foreign Service 5 or 6 level, with a salary range from $44,800 to $47,900.
"The name sells, the mission sells," said Gilbert C. Medeiros, the CIA's director of recruitment. "The worst time for recruiting was the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era, when we were simply not welcome on a lot of campuses. Now, we are welcomed almost everywhere. In fact, we get calls saying, 'Why aren't you here?' "
With the end of the Cold War, the CIA's work force dwindled from a peak of about 22,000 employees in the late 1980s to fewer than 16,000 two years ago. The CIA has since embarked on its largest recruiting campaign for new spies and analysts in more than a decade. Congress agreed to fund the buildup with hundreds of millions in increased appropriations after CIA Director George J. Tenet made the case that cutbacks in personnel had gone way too far.
This year, the agency is hiring between 6 and 7.5 percent of its entire work force, 50 percent more than the previous year. The CIA recruits intelligence analysts and scientific personnel from a targeted list of 66 schools chosen for their ability to meet specific agency needs, which range from diversity to particular engineering, technology and language specialties.
A slick advertising campaign has been devised, meanwhile, to attract operations officers, who are typically already in the work force, with overseas experience and special language skills. The ads, which have run in a variety of upscale publications, ask in big bold letters, "Do you have what it takes?" and feature photographs of attractive young men and women of a variety of racial and ethnic hues.
The campaign has been so successful that only a handful of those who contact the agency and proceed through a rigorous series of interviews are actually offered jobs.
A diplomatic career at the State Department remains highly selective as well: Of 9,380 people who took the rigorous Foreign Service exam last year, less than a third passed--and only 10 percent of them ended up getting hired.
Indeed, a recent McKinsey & Co. study commissioned by the State Department found that the Foreign Service remains competitive with top U.S. corporations in its ability to recruit talented students and others as measured by their grades, degrees and prior work experience.
"We still have a monopoly on what we do," one senior State Department official said. "If you're an American and you want to be a diplomat, come to us."
State Department recruiters focus on 53 schools, including most of the Ivy League colleges as well as other top public and private universities, from the University of California at Berkeley to Georgetown and Johns Hopkins, and a number of historically black colleges.
"There's been a bit of a resurgence, I'm happy to say," said Ronald T. Lambert, director of career services at Johns Hopkins University's School for Advanced International Studies. "Four years ago, the perception on students' part was, they're not hiring. That has really changed. The CIA, especially, has been beating down our door to make presentations to students, and the students have responded."
Jennifer Armini, assistant director of the Kennedy School's Office of Career Services, reports similar levels of interest: "The population that is going after State and CIA are very committed to foreign affairs and international development issues, and you're not going to find that in the private sector."
Recent hires from top universities at both agencies agree that money was not a particular factor in their decision to sign up.
"I have friends who are out in the private sector with a lot more money," said one newly hired East Asian analyst at the CIA, a 27-year-old African American male with a bachelor's degree from Princeton and a master's from Berkeley. "But they have this mythical respect for what we do here at the agency."
Latest Recruits
Here is a profile of the Foreign Service officers in "orientation class" from Jan. 18-March 3.
AGE
Range: 23-52
Average: 29
EDUCATION
Master's degree: 34
Bachelor's degree: 19
Law degree: 5
Doctoral degree: 1
PLACE OF BIRTH
United States: 51
Venezuela: 2
France: 1
El Salvador: 1
India: 1
Nepal: 1
Puerto Rico: 1
Vietnam: 1
LANGUAGES
Spanish: 26
German: 14
French: 13
Russian: 10
Japanese: 4
Portugese: 4
Cantonese: 3
Arabic: 2
Czech: 2
Hindi: 2
Italian: 2
Dutch: 1
Hebrew: 1
Indonesian: 1
Korean: 1
Nepalese: 1
Oshiwambo: 1
Swahili: 1
Thai: 1
Turkish: 1
Urdu: 1
Vietnamese: 1
SOURCE: State Department
Thousands of federal employees will reach retirement age in the next few years, but is the government ready to replace them? This series of special reports, which began Sunday and ends today, has been exploring the government's difficulty in hiring and keeping the best people on the job. Today's report is on intelligence analysts. The entire series may be found on The Post's Web site at washingtonpost.com/ on politics.
Stephen Barr, who wrote last Sunday's article about the wave of retirements set to hit the government, will take over the Federal Diary column in the Metro section this Sunday, succeeding Mike Causey. Readers are invited to post comments at washingtonpost.com about the experience of working for the federal government and the personnel challenges facing the government. Barr will relay some of those stories when his column begins Sunday. Also, Barr will appear online on Wednesdays at noon on washingtonpost.com to moderate live discussions about issues facing federal workers.
---
CIA Had No Role in Crack Epidemic, House Probe Concludes
Washington Post
Friday, May 12, 2000; Page A29
Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-05/12/061l-051200-idx.html
The CIA did not play a role in bringing crack cocaine into the Los Angeles area in the 1980s, the House intelligence committee concluded in a report yesterday.
The report, the latest in a series by investigatory bodies to exonerate the CIA, said no evidence was found of any conspiracy by CIA agents to bring drugs into the United States.
"Bottom line: The allegations were false," said committee Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.).
Allegations of CIA links to drug dealers surfaced in an August 1996 series published by the San Jose Mercury News, suggesting a San Francisco Bay area drug ring sold cocaine in Los Angeles and funneled profits to the Nicaraguan contra rebels for the better part of a decade.
"The committee found no evidence to support the allegations that CIA agents or assets associated with the contra movement were involved in the supply or sale of drugs in the Los Angeles area," the committee said in a report.
The committee noted that similar conclusions had been reached in previous inquiries by the CIA's inspector general, the Justice Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
"All the issues raised by the Mercury News articles were addressed in the investigation," said Rep. Julian C. Dixon (Calif.), the committee's senior Democratic member.
"I believe that the committee's effort, together with the work of the Justice Department and CIA [inspector general], thoroughly examined those issues," he said.
The newspaper series also reported that two Nicaraguan cocaine dealers, Oscar Danilo Blandon and Norwin Meneses, were civilian leaders of an anti-communist commando group formed and run by the CIA during the 1980s.
The House committee said it found "no evidence to support the allegations."
None of the paper's top editors was immediately available yesterday to comment on the report, Mercury News spokeswoman Patty Wise said.
In 1997, the executive editor of the Mercury News, Jerry Ceppos, wrote a column that critiqued the series, saying it "did not meet our standards" in key areas. Among other things, Ceppos said the series often presented only one interpretation of complex evidence, oversimplified the spread of crack and used graphics and language "that were open to misinterpretation."
The articles were followed by a storm of protests in urban areas such as South Central Los Angeles, with citizens demanding answers as to whether their communities had been ravaged by drugs to help pay for a foreign policy goal.
"The explosive nature of the story and the seriousness with which we view allegations of complicity in narcotics trafficking by any official U.S. agency led us to go the extra mile in our inquiry," Goss said in a statement.
-------- terrorism
Visa for terrorism supporter
Washington Times
May 19, 2000
Steven Emerson
http://208.246.212.80/op-ed/ed-column-200051918457.htm
On Tuesday, May 9, the U.S. embassy in Jordan restored the visa to Ishaq Farhan, a leader of the Jordanian fundamentalist Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Based on his acts and incitement to terrorism, Mr. Farhan was placed on the State Department's Terrorist Watch List late last year. That meant his visa, which was granted in 1998, was revoked and he was prohibited from entering the United States.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevented his entry into the United States when he landed at Kennedy Airport in New York on May 3 as he was preparing to attend a conference of the American Muslims for Jerusalem in Santa Clara, Calif., a conference that last year included speakers calling for the killing of Jews and who described the West as the leader of a cabal against the Muslim nation. Apparently, he had not been notified earlier in Jordan that his visa had been revoked.
As soon as he arrived back in Jordan, the U.S. ambassador to Jordan, William Burns, called Mr. Farhan to "express his concern" and "promised to try to find out what happened and what can be done about it." On May 9, Mr. Burns telephoned Mr. Farhan to "inform him that the State Department has completed its review of the visa issue, and determined that he is eligible for a U.S. visa." Furthermore, the U.S. Embassy in Jordan apologized to Mr. Farhan. This past week in conversations with U.S. congressmen, the ambassador called Mr. Farhan "a moderate we can work with."
What is troubling is that Mr. Farhan and his party have openly called for terrorist attacks against the United States and the West, championed Hamas and Hezbollah, facilitated a threat of terrorist violence against the United States, called for Muslims to "confront" the United States, which was deemed an "enemy," issued incendiary exhortations to carry out violent terrorist attacks on all Israelis and Jews, and took part in indoctrinating Hamas terrorists in the United States.
Despite all of this, it is ironic that Mr. Farhan was called a moderate by the U.S. Embassy in Jordan, a description repeated by the New York Times in its coverage of the controversy.
Mr. Farhan served as the president of the Second Annual Conference for the Defense of Jerusalem held in Amman, Jordan, in October 1999, which issued the following statement: "Support for the valiant resistance in Lebanon [Hezbollah] and Palestine [Hamas] against the Zionist enemy. Appeal to the Arab and Muslim masses to show even more compassion for the forces of the resistance in their capacity as the vanguard of the Umma [the Islamic nation] in its resistance to the Zionist project." (From Al-Sabeel, Oct. 25, 1999, as translated from the original Arabic text.) A year earlier, the Jordan Times (Sept. 9, 1998) quoted Mr. Farhan as stating, "The resistance of the enemy [Israel] is a right and legitimate jihad [holy war]."
On Nov. 10, 1996, the American embassy in Amman received a fax threatening terrorist actions against American targets worldwide if Hamas leader Mousa Marzook were extradited to Israel from the United States. The fax had been sent on Mr. Farhan's fax machine from his IAF headquarters. The State Department, in its internal notations, in documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, noted that, "the Arabic fax bears the Islamic Action Front name." The threat stated: "We demand that you immediately release Dr. Musa Abu Marzook and urge you not to hand him over to the Zionist enemy. We warn you that if you do not release Dr. Musa Abu Marzook, and if you hand him over to the Jews, we will turn the ground upside down over your heads in Amman, Jerusalem and the rest of the Arab countries and you will lament your dead just as we did to you in Lebanon in 1982 when we destroyed the Marine House with a booby-trapped car, and there are plenty of cars in our country. You also still remember the oil tanker with which we blew up your soldiers in Saudi Arabia."
Mr. Farhan has a long record in participating in militant Islamic conferences in the United States, including those of the pro-terrorist Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), identified as a "front for Hamas" by Oliver Revell, a former top FBI official. Mr. Farhan played a key role in the recruitment of young Hamas terrorist trainees at the IAP convention in 1989 held in Kansas City. Nasser Hidmi, a Palestinian youth, later arrested in Israel in 1992 for attempting to detonate a bomb, admitted the role of the Hamas military wing in the United States and the role of Islamic conferences in the United States for the training of Hamas activists/terrorists in his statement to the Israeli authorities: "At the conference at Kansas City, Muhammad Salah gathered about 20 young men including myself, for a secret meeting of the activists of Hamas in a meeting hall at one of the hotels. This was done in order that they will take part in activities that will support and strengthen the Intifadah within the framework of Hamas. Among those that lectured to us was Ishaq Farhan who is a member of the Jordanian Parliament."
The real story on Mr. Farhan should have been why he was granted visas for the past 10 years in the first place. In a recent speech Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declared that the United States would never be a party to the politics of hate. On other occasions, the secretary of state has repeatedly declared that the war on terrorism would never be compromised and that the United States would do its utmost to rid the United States of the financial infrastructure that abets terrorism. Nice strong words. But when it came to decisive action, the United States proved once again that terrorism pays. That the Clinton administration has politicized the "Terrorist Watch List" is a scandal that calls for congressional inquiry.
Steven Emerson is author of books on the Middle East and executive producer of the PBS film "Jihad in America."
-------- ukraine
U.S. to check Chernobyl fire radiation in Belarus
May 19 2000
Reuters
http://www.envirolink.org/environews/reuters/articles/Environment/05_19_2000.reulb-story-bcenvironmentchernobyl.html
MINSK, The United States will send a team of experts to check if fires raging near Ukraine's troubled Chernobyl nuclear power plant have increased radiation levels in Belarus, a U.S. diplomat said on Friday.
Israel has already evacuated its embassy in Minsk and sent staff home for medical checks amid fears that fires on peat bogs polluted by fallout from the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, just over the border in Ukraine, will spread radioactive particles. ``We expect that experts will arrive soon to assess the radioactivity situation,'' Diana Moxi, head of the information service at the U.S. embassy in Minsk, told Reuters. ``In line with our data, based on our own checks, there is no danger. But we are not specialists.''
Moxi said the Belarussian Foreign Ministry had promised to issue visas for U.S. specialists without delay.
Belarussian officials have said there was no danger of increased radioactivity from the fires and the Foreign Ministry said the Israeli embassy would resume work next week. Chernobyl was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident when a reactor caught fire and exploded in 1986, spewing radioactive dust over neighbouring Russia, Belarus and much of the rest of Europe.
A brush fire in the U.S. state of New Mexico earlier this month started by the National Park Service got out control and damaged the country's largest nuclear weapons laboratory, where the first atomic bomb was built in 1945.
-------- us military
Senate Armed Services Committee Markup for Defense Authorization
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:52:35 -0400
From: jrmichel@icx.net
THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE MARKUP OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001:
Department of Energy (DOE) National Security Programs The committee has responsibility for oversight and authorization of over two-thirds of the Department of Energy's budget, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, defense environmental management, other defense activities, and defense nuclear waste disposal. The committee also authorizes funds for the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board, an independent agency responsible for external oversight of safety at DOE defense nuclear facilities. Highlights from this year's bill as defined by the committee in its press release:
Authorized $12.8 billion for Atomic Energy Defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE), a $697.0 million increase over fiscal year 2000 funding levels, to ensure that America's nuclear weapons stockpile is both reliable and safe and that wastes generated as a result of the Department's weapons activities are managed in a responsible manner. The authorized amount reflects a net reduction of $323.6 million to the President's request. Reductions were taken principally from the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program and defense environmental management privatization.
Authorized $6.2 billion for activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in the following programs:
* $4.7 billion for weapons activities, which is a $78.8 million increase over the budget request, and an increase of $332.1 million over fiscal year 2000 levels
* $847.0 million for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, which is $59.0 million below the budget request, and a decrease of $2.3 million below fiscal year 2000 levels; and
* $695.0 million for naval reactors activities, which is a $17.4 million increase over the budget request, and an increase of $19.9 million over fiscal year 2000 levels.
* Authorized $6.3 billion for defense environmental restoration and waste management (including defense facilities closure projects and defense environmental management privatization), which is $132.0 million below the budget request, and an increase of $356.4 million over fiscal year 2000 levels.
* Authorized $466.3 million for other defense activities, which is $88.8 million below the budget request, and equal to fiscal year 2000 funding levels.
* Provided an additional $34.0 million to continue progress on restoring tritium production;
* Added $15.0 million to provide infrastructure upgrades at DOE weapons production plants;
* Added $10.0 million to begin conceptual design on a new pit production capability;
* Added $17.4 million for naval reactors facility decommissioning activities;
* Reduced by $40.0 million the Defense Computing and Simulation program.
* Added $30.0 million to enhance counterintelligence at NNSA nuclear weapons laboratories.
* Added $50.0 million to the environmental management technology development program.
* Authorized $450.0 million for the Tank Waste Remediation System privatization project.
Nuclear Cities Initiative Required the Secretary of Energy to prepare an annual report for the Material Protection, Control, and Accounting Program to track progress in securing weapons-usable nuclear materials in Russia. Limited the expansion of the Nuclear Cities Initiative Program until after the 11 Secretary of Energy obtains a signed agreement with Russia stating that Russia will close some of its facilities engaged in nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly work.
Prohibited the use of 50 percent of the fiscal year 2001 funds for the Nuclear Cities Initiative until the Secretary of Energy establishes and implements project review procedures to ensure that these projects will not enhance Russian military capabilities, are commercially viable and have a commercial, industrial,or nonprofit partner. Limited the use of fiscal year 2001 funds for the Cooperative Threat Reduction's Program on the Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium until the Secretary of Defense obtains an agreement with Russia on the option and date for the shut-down of Russia's three remaining plutonium producing reactors. Prohibited the use of funds for the construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye, Russia until after the Secretary of Defense certifies that (1) Russia provide each year no less than $25 million dollars to support the facility; (2) this facility will be used to destroy all the nerve agent stockpiles in Russia; (3) the United States has obtained multiyear commitments from the international community for assistance to the facility; and (4) Russia has agreed to eliminate its chemical weapons production facilities at Volgograd and Novocheboksark.
Worker and Community Transition Funding The Committee authorized $24.5 million for the Office of Worker and Community Transition, matching the amount authorized by the House.
For more information on the Committee Markup, go to: http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/www.senate.gov/~armed_services/
---
Armed Forces Day Turns 50
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 19, 2000
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/5/19/1.text.1
FACT SHEET
Armed Forces Day, celebrated the third Saturday of May, was established on August 31, 1949, by then-Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson. Armed Forces Day replaced separate Army, Navy and Air Force Days, marking the unification of the Armed Forces under one department -- the Department of Defense. The Coast Guard, one of the Armed Forces that is under the Department of Transportation, is also honored.
Over the past 50 years, the tradition has evolved into a week of celebrations. It begins on the second Saturday of May and ends on the third Sunday of May, the day after the actual celebration of Armed Forces Day. Military bases and facilities around the world are holding events to commemorate Armed Forces Day.
President Clinton speaks today at Andrews Air Force Base during opening ceremonies kicking-off a three-day air show in celebration of Armed Forces Day. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, General Hugh Shelton, and Senator John Glenn will participate in the ceremony.
The air show will have displays and demonstrations from all branches of the military services that showcase the people, equipment, and technology of today's U.S. Armed Forces, including:
-- search and rescue demonstrations; -- a parachute team; -- a Harrier --jump-- jet; -- aerial demonstrations by both the Navy's Blue Angels and the Air Force's Thunderbirds; and -- aircraft displays, including the Air Force's hi-tech B-2 stealth bomber.
During his remarks, President Clinton will highlight a nationwide initiative to restore the meaning behind Memorial Day. He will urge all Americans to observe on that day a moment of remembrance for our military heroes in the Armed Forces who have given their lives so that we might live in freedom and peace and, by doing so, help "put the Memorial back into Memorial Day."
President Clinton will also discuss the importance he places on military readiness in today's unique, multi-threat, high-tempo operational environment. The Administration has placed a priority on improving military readiness, including having:
-- Increased readiness spending, with a proposed $5.4 billion increase for fiscal year 2001. -- Worked over the last two fiscal years to add $124 billion over the next 5 years to improve facilities, strengthen readiness, speed modernization, and support personnel. -- Raised military pay by 8 percent in the last 2 years. This year's pay raise is the largest in nearly 20 years with further pay raises planned. -- Modified the military pay scale, to take effect this July, with increases of nearly 5 percent to reward and retain middle-level service members who have gained experience.
----
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT 50TH ANNIVERSARY ARMED FORCES DAY CEREMONY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 19, 2000
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/5/19/5.text.1
Andrews Air Force Base Suitland, Maryland
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Secretary Cohen, thank you for your kind words and your truly exemplary leadership of the Department of Defense. Secretary Slater, thank you for your presence here and the support you have given the Coast Guard. General Shelton, thank you for your lifetime of service and for your leadership of the Joint Chiefs. Senator Glenn, I thank you for your service, your personal friendship to me, and your astonishing lifetime example. We're all looking forward to going into space in our late 70s, thanks to you. (Applause.)
I thank the members of the Joint Chiefs and the Service Secretaries. General Jones, General Shalikashvili, thank you for being here. Ladies and gentlemen of our Armed Forces, family members and friends.
I want to begin, if I might, by paying tribute to the men and women of our military who work in the White House -- my Andrews-based Air Force One crews, my helicopter crews; my military aides, and those from every branch of the services who actually work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Without you, we couldn't do America's business, stand up for America's interests, or even keep the White House open as America's house. Thank you for seven and a half wonderful years.
As has already been said, 50 years ago tomorrow America marked the first Armed Forces Day. It was then an uncertain time for our country -- American's coming to realize that our new global leadership carried with it global responsibilities; chief among them, the defense of freedom across the world. American troops then still occupied Germany, and soon would be pouring into Korea. All around us there were new and terrifying weapons, determined adversaries and an unfamiliar landscape. Against that backdrop, President Truman moved to put in place the foundations of America's modern military, a force united under the Department of Defense.
The first Armed Forces Day celebrated service unity, honored those in uniform and reassured Americans that our military was ready for whatever challenges lay ahead. Fifty years later, we can look back proudly on a half-century in which America's best have more than met those challenges. We are as secure at home and safe from external threat today as we have been at any time in our long history. For that, we owe every American in uniform and everyone who has served before an eternal debt.
Next week, as we celebrate Memorial Day, we will remember the thousands of men and women who have given their lives so that we might live in peace. I hope all Americans will teach our children how their forebears fought and died for the freedoms we hold dear. I have asked every office in the federal government to observe a moment of remembrance for our military dead, to put the "memorial" back in Memorial Day.
Over my service as President, I have seen our men and women in uniform meet every conceivable kind of challenge, from flying flawless missions over Kosovo to working to contain Saddam Hussein, to keeping our word on the Korean Peninsula, to slogging through the mud to rebuild lives and communities in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch in Central America, to keeping the peace in Bosnia, and everywhere you go, always representing the best of America.
Some of you have mentioned to me from time to time, as I meet our service personnel, that you see in the pictures at the Oval Office the stands of military coins I have there given to me by units, officers and enlisted personnel all over the world. I have about 400 now. And my historians at the White House say I have visited more military units than any President before. All I can tell you is, it's been one of the great honors of my life. I never get tired of it. And if you have a coin I don't have, I'd be glad to have it today. (Laughter.)
I never cease to be amazed at all the different things we ask our Armed Forces to do. We ask them to serve in the White House or in Kosovo's Camp Bondsteel, on the deck of a carrier or on the crew of a space shuttle launch. We ask you to defend our interests in a 21st century world of high-tech weapons, fast-moving small-scale warfare, peacekeeping -- sometimes when there's no peace to keep -- and terrorism. But the 21st century challenge is the same essentially as President Truman defined 50 years ago -- readiness for any eventuality. Today I want to talk just a little bit about what we are doing and must continue to do in the areas of personnel readiness, combat readiness and civilian readiness to help you meet that challenge.
As has already been said by previous speakers, the people in our Armed Forces are our most important asset, so our first task is doing the best job we can of recruiting and retaining good people; to train them to do their jobs right, to train them so they can do their jobs safely; and then to provide the state-of-the-art equipment that will keep them ahead of every adversary and every eventuality.
Keeping faith with you is a sacred obligation. We've tried to do it. Over the last two years, military pay has been raised by more than 8 percent, with another significant raise slated for this year. This year's raise was the largest in about 20 years. In July, we're increasing parts of the military pay scale as much as 5 percent and more to reward service members who gain experience and stay with us to put it to use.
And we must never forget that, although we recruit individuals, we must retain families. Thanks to the leadership in the Department of Defense, military child care and schools are now the envy of many civilians. We are working to provide better military housing, and taking steps to improve access to medical care to all military personnel, families and retirees.
Readiness also means making sure our forces are trained to fight and equipped to win. The world we live in demands a high tempo of operations. That puts strains on individuals and families, and creates important challenges for readiness.
I realize that I am the first President to serve his entire service in the post-Cold War era, and that, as a consequence, I have imposed more high-tempo operations on the military, more different kinds of things in more different circumstances than any previous President in peacetime. Often, when I see our young men and women in uniform, I don't know whether to thank them or apologize, because I know what burdens I have imposed on many of you and your families. All I can tell you is, America is a safer, stronger place, and the world is a more peaceful, more democratic place because of what you have done. And we have to continue to do everything we can to ease your burdens and make it more likely that you will be successful.
We have tried to watch combat readiness closely. We have tried to respond rapidly where there are strains. For several years now, we've increased the amount of money available for readiness spending, including $5.4 billion for the year ahead. We've worked with Congress to protect funds for training and equipment, and proposed an increase of $124 billion to support military personnel, strengthen readiness, and speed modernization with improved facilities through the next five years.
That includes the latest advances in digital communications and navigation technology for soldiers in the field; advanced combat air craft, like Super Hornets, Raptors, and the Joint Strike Fighter; new and modernized destroyers and a new air craft carrier; and, less exciting, but perhaps even more important, more money for spare parts.
I've talked about our budget and priorities for readiness, but we also must meet our responsibility for civilian readiness, creating an understanding among our elected officials and among our people at large that power and prestige don't just happen; that America cannot be a leader for peace and freedom and prosperity without paying the price. Civilian readiness means commitment to keeping our military the best-trained, the best-equipped, the best-led fighting force. It means support for diplomacy that can help us avoid using force in the first place. It means that when we do make the difficult decision to commit our troops, we stay the course.
Secretary Cohen talked about our involvement in Kosovo. Last spring, I had the privilege of meeting with our fighting men and women from Barksdale and Norfolk, to Aviano and Skopje. When I met the wing commander of Spangdahlem Air Force Base in Germany, he told me, "Sir, our team wants to stay with this mission until it's finished." He could have spoken for every one of our men and women in uniform. When we and our allies responded to the rising tide of violence in Kosovo, we sent a message of hope and determination to Europe and all the world.
Let me remind me that there had previously been a terrible war in Bosnia. It took the world community a long time to respond. When we did, we put an end to it, and people are living and working together there in peace. Then, as if no lesson had been learned, Mr. Milosevic drove nearly a million people out of their homes, in a poor country, over difficult roads and adverse circumstances. Thousands lost their lives, but nearly a million people were run out of their country just because of their ethnic background and the way they worship God. That was a threat to our national interests because it was a threat to the security and stability of Southeastern Europe, and because it was a colossal affront to the basic notions of human rights and freedom.
The 20th century has witnessed a lot of this kind of hate and human suffering. But it ended with an affirmation of freedom and human dignity, because in the face of division and destruction, we helped to stand with our allies and good people in that region for humanity and for freedom. (Applause.)
Well, what's happened since then? Our troops are on the ground in Kosovo, doing another job every bit as vital -- working to help the people there rebuild their lives and build a lasting peace. Now our allies and partners have taken on the lion's share of the burden. Since the end of the conflict, our European allies and others are supplying 85 percent of the troops and nearly 85 percent of the police on the ground. Our share of international assistance for Kosovo is now well under 20 percent.
It's been a fair burden-sharing because we bore the majority of the responsibility for the military conflict that made the peace possible. But it's still important that we do our part. Our presence is vital, for our forces symbolize something fundamental about the promise of America, the possibility of true peace and, frankly, the confidence your presence gives to others because nobody doubts that if any job can be done, you will do it.
Our forces in Kosovo are doing a terrific job under still difficult circumstances. We must give them the tools to succeed and the time to succeed. Yesterday, the Senate of the United States, in bipartisan fashion, cast a profoundly important vote -- they affirmed our nation's commitment to stay the course in Kosovo, rejecting language that would have called our resolve into question, permitting people to say, had it passed, that the United States would walk away from a job half-done and leave others to finish.
But the Senate said, no, we won't walk out on our allies; we won't turn our back on freedom's promise; it may be a difficult job, but we started it and we intend to finish it. And I would like to thank the senators -- Republicans, as well as Democrats -- and the American leaders around the country -- Republicans, as well as Democrats -- who took this position to stand by you until the mission is completed. (Applause.)
In 1963, on Armed Forces Day, a great American veteran, President John Kennedy, said that our servicemen and women "stand as guardians of peace, and visible evidence of our determination to meet any threat to the peace with measured strength and high resolve. They are also evidence of a harsh, but inescapable truth -- that the survival of freedom requires great cost and commitment and great personal sacrifice."
We're a long way from the Cold War world in which President Kennedy spoke those words. But today, the words are still true -- where you stand as freedom's guardians in a world where communication is instant, but so is destruction; a world where the threats of the last century have largely been vanquished, but the timeless demons of hate and fear and new destructive possibilities rooted in new technologies and new networks are with us; in a world where millions still struggle for liberty, decency and the very basics of life.
Today America thanks you for your commitment, renews our pledge to stand with you, and asks you to continue to do your best and give your best for freedom. The last 50 years are proof that when you do your job, and we support you, the world is a much, much better place.
Thank you, and God bless you. (Applause.)
----
U.S. Men Not Registering for Draft
From: owner-weekly@cdi.org
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 03:57:52 -0400
[Weekly Defense Monitor] - Volume 4, Issue #20
Nearly one in five American men are not registering for the military draft, according to the Selective Service Administration. Current law requires all men living in the United States and its territories, including immigrants and non-citizen residents, to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their eighteenth birthday. According to the agency, for men born in 1980 who are now 19 or 20, the registration rate is 83%. This is down from 93% a decade ago. Agency officials believe that ignorance of the law, rather than wilful resistance, is the cause of the decline.
----
Military contest could win recruits
USA Today
05/18/00- Updated 10:26 PM ET
By Andrea Stone,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncsthu22.htm
WASHINGTON - If you've fantasized about breaking the sound barrier in an F-15 fighter jet, cruising on an aircraft carrier or parachuting with the Army's elite Golden Knights, the Pentagon and Yahoo! have a deal for you.
The Department of Defense and the popular Internet W eb site launched a "Fantasy Career in Today's Military" contest Thursday to help boost recruitment.
Civilians who want to live the life of a G.I. without having to enlist can try their luck through July 4 by logging onto careers.yahoo.com.
Contestants must explain in no more than 200 words why they want to cruise on an aircraft carrier, fly in an F-15 or, in the case of the Marines, "be a smart, tough, elite warrior." U.S. citizens 18 years or older must submit a résumé and be in very good physical condition to be eligible.
The contest is more than a thrill ride without boot camp. Except for the Marines, each branch of service has struggled to meet recruiting goals. Officials hope the promotion will generate a little excitement and, just maybe, a few recruits. Each service will announce one winner in August. Among the prizes:
Army: One lucky winner will get to soar over the treetops at speeds up to 200 mph in an Apache attack helicopter. He or she also will get to make a tandem parachute jump with the elite Golden Knights at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Navy: A wannabe "Top Gun" will earn a "Tailhook" certificate when he or she lands on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a C-2A Greyhound turbo-prop cargo plane.
Air Force: The contest winner will fly at 2 1/2 times the speed of sound in an F-15 fighter jet.
Marines: The winner will spend a week at the Marine Corps' The Basic School in Quantico,Va., where he or she will be put through a series of physical challenges. Buzz cut is included.
Coast Guard: A winner who can swim will spend four days in Houston, where he or she will learn about search and rescue operations.
-------- us nuc facilities
Nuke compensation weakens in Congress
By Benjamin Grove - grove@lasvegassun.com
LAS VEGAS SUN
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2000/may/19/510278576.html
WASHINGTON -- Five weeks after the Department of Energy made a historic $520 million pledge to compensate nuclear weapons workers -- including Nevada Test Site workers -- for work-related illnesses, the proposal is crawling through Congress.
The House on Thursday passed a nonbinding resolution urging members to tackle the problem. A resolution expresses the "sense" of Congress but does not require action.
Still, the move was an important step, said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., who co-sponsored the resolution.
"This resolution was a clarion call to Congress that this issue is ripe for a decision and resolution," Gibbons said.
Earlier he had argued for the resolution on the floor, "These wounds, for which no Purple Heart can ever be awarded, were received in Cold War battles waged in laboratories and weapons plants all across America."
But Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the resolution isn't strong enough and doesn't get money to ailing workers fast enough.
"We are duty bound to protect the workers who are now suffering horrific illnesses because of services they preformed for their country," Berkley said.
Berkley tried but failed to introduce the legislation as an amendment to a military authorization bill. She criticized Gibbons for supporting a weak resolution.
Berkley and Gibbons -- and many others in the House -- have been at odds over how to turn the DOE's plan into law. They have fought over who should pay for the plan, the Department of Energy or the Department of Defense. They puzzled over procedural details.
"It's very disappointing and dismaying that the Republican leadership hasn't embraced this issue," Berkley said, drawing a party line in the sand.
But Gibbons stressed that the resolution was supported by Republicans and Democrats.
Gibbons also said the legislation needs to go through a number of hearings. Attaching it as a full-fledged amendment to the military spending bill would have slowed that bill, thereby slowing the flow of money to other needed military projects, Gibbons said.
Gibbons said he was optimistic the resolution would kick-start the hearings in his Armed Services Committee and four other committees. He said those committee chairmen have pledged to act quickly on the resolution.
Meanwhile the Senate version of the legislation -- a free-standing bill -- awaits hearings, but none have been scheduled. The bill was introduced by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. Sens. Richard Bryan and Harry Reid, both D-Nev., support the bill.
Department of Energy officials, flanked by 11 lawmakers, on April 12 made a landmark announcement that the department would no longer turn away claims made by workers who had labored to construct and test nuclear weapons at facilities in 10 states, including workers at the Nevada Test Site.
"The government is, for a change, on their side, not against them," Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said.
Richardson pointed to the "Congressional firepower" gathered around him and said, "I think we can get this passed."
Thousands of workers labored at the Test Site about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, some overseeing tests of nuclear weapons between 1951 and 1992.
Doctors have discovered lung scars in some workers that may have been caused by beryllium, a metal dust, or silica from dust in the Test Site's tunnels.
----
House OKs sick-worker bill
from staff reports
Friday, May 19, 2000
The Oak Ridger
From: jrmichel@icx.net
The U.S. House of Representatives Thursday approved a defense bill that includes compensating defense plant workers sickened by radiation and hazardous substances such as beryllium.
The bill must be approved by the Senate, a House-Senate committee and the president before becoming law.
The amendment on sick workers calls for compensating the victims, but it doesn't carry any money with it. Legislators have not yet decided on how much compensation the workers will be given and which government agency will handle the workers' claims.
----
House OKs measure for nuclear workers
By Tony Batt Donrey
Washington Bureau
May 19, 2000
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2000/May-19-Fri-2000/news/13609826.html
WASHINGTON -- The House approved by voice vote Thursday a nonbinding resolution seeking compensation for nuclear workers, including Nevada Test Site employees, who were disabled by contact with toxic materials.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., tried to offer the compensation proposal as an amendment to a military authorization bill but her request was rejected by the House Rules Committee.
"I support (the resolution) because that is the right thing to do, but I am also well aware of the fact that that is too little, and it won't be getting the job done for these people who are looking to the federal government to get compensation for their illnesses," she said.
Earlier this week, Berkley said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., and other co-sponsors of the resolution "turned tail and ran" by pushing a compensation resolution instead of an amendment.
Gibbons co-sponsored the resolution after unsuccessfully proposing a compensation amendment during a meeting of a House Armed Services subcommittee.
In an apparent reference to Berkley's criticism, Gibbons said Thursday on the House floor, "Contrary to the arguments of those who simply want to jump on the bandwagon and then immediately demand to steer, this `sense of Congress' amendment will provide the necessary momentum to get this vital compensation program actually enacted into law."
No date has been set for House committee hearings on the compensation program.
Sponsors of a compensation bill in the Senate also are waiting on a hearing date.
----
Janet R. Michel 2106 Holderwood Ln. Knoxville, TN 37922 jrmichel@icx.net
May 19, 2000
Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. White House Washington, DC
Dear Vice President Gore,
I am writing to let you know that the Administration's bill for compensation of DOE workers is AWFUL. I am extremely disappointed in the low standards of compensation offered. Secretary Richardson pretended, in his press conference where he announced this bill that things would be taken care of. He said: We put workers in brutal working conditions. We did not protect them. We lied to them. It is time to make amends.
Do I really need to tell you the dozens of reasons why the Administration's bill is unacceptable? Put yourself in the place of a fellow Tennessean who has almost the lowest in the nation opportunity for a good education. A patriotic citizen who had a relatively good paying job in Oak Ridge is now dying or completely disabled; and/or completely on welfare, Social Security Disability, and TennCare; and/or has had their career and earning potential terminated; and has mounting medical bills and has no idea when more medical problems will arise in the future that may be even more devastating than the current ones. You know that $100,000, and even $200,000, can be gone in a heartbeat when serious medical problems arise. Please remember that we have told you repeatedly that we are not receiving proper and appropriate medical testing, diagnosis, and treatment for our conditions because DOE's contractor's insurance will not allow it.
I feel the Administration's attitude is callous. We have become political pawns and are being manipulated. We know that there are "behind the scenes" discussions that would undermine the compensation bills. Secretary Richardson said on primetime network television that deals were cut with DOE's beryllium vendor in the past. This vendor is lobbying hard in Congress right now to be let off of the hook for any responsibility. This removes another remedy for a beryllium diseased worker. We know that DOJ and DOD are fighting hard to limit this compensation for a variety reasons. Doesn't the White House have control over its cabinet?
It appears that the White House is showing no leadership in allowing the bar to be set so low in its proposed compensation scheme. I am truly amazed that it is the Democrats that are pushing for the more conservative package and the Republicans are advocating for the more liberal package! What is happening?
This nation can send relief all over the world for people in need, can get the Los Alamos residents back on their feet after the USNPS burned them out, can do almost anything it wants when it has a mind to do so. You even said as much in your book "Earth In The Balance." The absolute least it can do now is to make amends to the Cold War veterans who are suffering and paying the price for a callous disregard for their health and safety in the interest in national security.
I want you to know that I only worked at the K-25 site in 1994-6 for one and one-half years (after the "end" of the Cold War) as a project manager - an office worker - in a building that had been a nickel industrial operations area. It was never meant to be office space. I should NEVER have been put in harm's way. Yet, I now have mercury and nickel poisoning and had cyanide poisoning while I was on site. This is absolutely outrageous and should be criminal!
Be the leader I know you want to be. Do the right thing. Push hard for a compensation package that we can live with. We are not asking for a lot.
Sincerely,
Janet R. Michel
--
A wonderful letter to Gore!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:31:46 EDT Reply-To: downwinders@egroups.com
Dear Janet:
Great letter. Give ém hell. Gore and the Administration have a lot to answer for on this attempted sham compensation bill. DOE was not entitled to a "five finger discount" for attempted Stealth use of the Armed Services Authorization process. It was wrong to seek to pass the $100k bribe bill in secrecy, without heairngs.
Regards,
Ed Slavin Box 3084 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3084 (904) 471-7023 (904) 471-9918 (fax)
http://www.downwinders.org/victims.html (victims' testimony) http://www.downwinders.org/ed.htm (Ed's column on nuclear compensation) http://www.downwinders.org/slavinhtml.htm (Ed's U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs testimony, "DOE's Toxic, Hostile Working Environment Violates Human Rights.")
----
Another good letter to Gore
Subj: Re: Nuclear Workers' Compensation Bill
Date: 5/19/00 3:53:56 PM EST
From: Wheezin 2 To: vice.president@whitehouse.gov
Glenn Bell Beryllium Victims Alliance 504 Michigan Ave. Oak Ridge, TN 37830
May 19, 2000 Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20500
Dear Vice President Gore:
I am writing to express my disappointment in reports of the Nuclear Workers' Compensation proposal becoming weakened by the Administration, and possibly by vendors, and others with profits and ulterior motives, rather than "doing what is right", as has been promised by the Administration, the Energy Secretary, and members of both the Senate and House, of both parties.
We, the ill veterans of the Cold War, deserve the very best the Administration can provide, to make our lives as normal as possible, had we not developed these maladies. We do not expect a windfall, only adequate wage replacement, and full medical coverage. At present, I am denied both mortgage insurance and group life insurance offered by my union's International (IAM), and I am still working. We need, and must have, full health coverage, as these ailments contracted in the line of duty prevent us from even basic care coverage. An accident or non-work related health condition would destroy us. Some have already experienced this.
Stephen Schwartz' book "Atomic Audit" documents the billions of dollars spent without restraint to develop and maintain the nuclear program. The obscene amounts of funds spent fighting worker claims are also a matter of record. Cleanup of the legacy sites, while obviously necessary, appears to hold more priority than human health and life. Admission has been made that "deals were cut" with beryllium, and possibly other suppliers, at the expense of worker health and safety. We beg of the Administration to assure that this does not happen again.
These are not situations with easy answers, but we did not ask to be placed in harm's way. We did our tasks as patriotic citizens, and did not question that we would be taken care of, should things go wrong. However, in researching documents as far back as the late 1940s, we find that the aura of secrecy and the demand for weapons has been put above worker safety and health from the beginning. We beg of you, do not allow history to repeat itself. We only ask reasonable compensation and full health care. Anything less is unacceptable. Truly do the right thing, and history will bear witness to the same.
Sincerely,
Glenn Bell
----
Energy Department to Revamp Policy on Private Contractors
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/00/05/19/news/washpol/nuclear-contractors.html
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- Frustrated by the performance of the contractors that it hires to run its nuclear weapons plants, the Department of Energy will demand the right to fire the contractors' top managers and control the managers' bonuses in future contracts, Secretary Bill Richardson said today.
In addition, under the new policy, decisions on what goals to set for contractors and whether the contracting companies have met those goals and should earn bonuses, will be reviewed directly by the energy secretary. Previously, such decisions were usually made by senior civil servants, not the secretary or assistant secretaries.
"I'm trying to end the cozy relationship between the department and its contractors," Mr. Richardson said in an interview. "From now on, contractors will be rewarded for results and not just get paid for writing plans."
That has happened in the past, a problem caused by the department itself, senior officials acknowledge. At one nuclear cleanup project, they said, the department set goals for achievements like writing a safety plan but none for the number of acres cleaned up or the number of pounds of radioactive material sealed up.
"The department has not exercised proper oversight," Mr. Richardson said, "and it needs to get tougher."
Senior government officials say they also need better performance from their own contract managers. "They should know the technical details, and manage, and not just get the reports from time to time," one senior official said.
Mr. Richardson's plan is the latest effort to cope with a program in which the government owns everything but does nothing for itself.
From the department's origins in World War II, when the Manhattan Project set out to build the atomic bomb, almost all the work has been done by private contractors, including planning, constructing and operating reactors and chemical factories, and later, cleaning them up and tearing them down.
Energy Department workers seldom, if ever, hold a shovel or a hammer or twist a knob in a control room.
An exception is that the department recently decided that the workers at the emergency operations center at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, who have been trying to cope with wildfires there, should be employed by the federal government, not private contractors.
Not counting employees in specialized agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the department has 11,000 employees supervising 110,000 contractors, and officials say this 10-to-1 ratio is the highest in the federal government. Of its $17.5 billion annual budget, 85 percent is spent on contractors.
For years, all work was on a cost-plus basis -- the Department of Energy reimbursed the contractors for all costs and added a fixed markup -- but in the 1990's the department moved more heavily into setting incentives for good performance. It has seldom withheld the bonuses, officials say.
But the department has recently penalized two contractors for poor performance.
At Hanford, Wash., it ended a contract with BNFL to build and operate a factory for mixing high-level nuclear waste liquids into glass, because, Mr. Richardson said, cost increases had gotten out of hand and managers had not kept the department informed.
Last year, for similar reasons, it restructured a program to build the National Ignition Facility, a laser device designed to test the operability of nuclear weapons without actually exploding them.
The contractor was the University of California.
The department administers more than 30 management contracts, worth more than $50 billion in the next decade. But department officials acknowledge that the government is not easy to work for; to bid on the contract to manage the Mound plant, in southern Ohio, contractors had to submit applications that ran to 15,000 pages, officials said.
Outside critics say that part of the department's problem is a continuing struggle between political appointees in its headquarters here and personnel in the field offices, many of whom have far more experience in the department's actual operations.
Many contractors know the government well because they are former government employees.
The project manager on the waste-processing plant at Hanford, for example, was the former head of the Energy Department's office in Richland, Wash., which is in charge of Hanford. BNFL also hired away department contracting officers at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, near Idaho Falls, and at the Oak Ridge site, in Tennessee, to work on department projects.
"Part of the problem is the revolving door," said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit group here that analyzes the Energy Department. "The secretary cannot make these judgments about what is going on in the field on his own; he has to have a staff that is thoroughly independent, empowered to evaluate these contractors.
"If they have one eye, and sometimes one foot, in the contractor's operation, the secretary has no way to get the information he needs to make sensible decisions."
---
House OKs nuclear-compensation resolution
Columbus Dispatch
Friday, May 19, 2000
Jonathan Riskind Dispatch Washington Bureau
http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea00/may00/284870.html
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House yesterday passed a resolution calling for federal compensation of nuclear workers in southern Ohio and elsewhere sickened by Cold War-era exposures to radiation and other hazardous substances.
The resolution was approved as a nonbinding addition to a defense authorization bill, but proponents say the voice vote puts the House on the record in support of compensating U.S. Department of Energy workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, and other nuclear sites nationwide.
"The civilian men and woman who performed duties uniquely related to the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons production and testing programs over the last 50 years should have efficient, uniform and adequate compensation,'' said the resolution co-authored by a half-dozen lawmakers, including Reps. Ted Strickland, D-Lucasville, and Edward Whitfield, R-Ky.
"The solution is sufficiently unique to the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons production and testing programs that it is appropriate for congressional action this year.''
The resolution does not carry a price tag, but such a compensation program presumably would be more expensive than the $500 million proposal unveiled last month by the Clinton administration.
The administration's plan contains federal payments of $100,000 or health-care benefits for cancers caused by radiation exposure, but not both. And that plan requires workers made ill by chronic contact with toxic chemicals to seek state workers' compensation benefits, excluding them from the federal compensation package.
Strickland and Sen. George V. Voinovich, R- Ohio, are authors of bills doubling the proposed payments to $200,000 per worker and offering lifetime health-care benefits, and includes federal compensation for illnesses caused by chemical exposures.
The House and Senate armed services committees so far have refused to allow the Strickland and Voinovich proposals to be included in the annual defense authorization bill. Strickland and Whitfield, who represents a district that includes Piketon's sister plant in Paducah, Ky., introduced the resolution to put members on the record on the issue.
"This legislation is not compensation itself,'' Strickland said. "But it is proof of the growing momentum for passing compensation for these workers who were exposed to some of the most dangerous substances on earth.''
Before the vote, several key House committee chairmen promised to hold hearings on the issue before the end of the year.
Richard Miller, an attorney for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union that represents many workers at Piketon and other nuclear sites, said progress is slowly being made.
The Energy Department is expected to soon release a report detailing decades of problems at Piketon, which now is run by USEC, a privatized federal corporation. The Piketon plant produced weapons-grade uranium during the Cold War, but now manufactures only material for commercial nuclear-power plants.
-------- new mexico
Ground-Water Study Disputed
Albuquerque Journal
Friday, May 19, 2000
By John Fleck Journal Staff Writer
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/36503news05-19-00.htm
Ground water beneath Sandia National Laboratories' Mixed Waste Landfill appears to be contaminated, despite Sandia claims to the contrary, according to a preliminary report from an independent consultant.
Data supporting the contamination claim is limited, and critics say it is insufficient to support the assertion that plutonium and uranium have reached the water table.
They also note the report is preliminary, and say its author will be given more information that might alter his conclusions.
"He's made some statements in there that would probably change if he had the whole story," said Dick Fate, manager of the landfill project for Sandia.
Consultant Mark Baskaran reported finding evidence in Department of Energy test data for uranium, plutonium and strontium in ground water that "is likely" to have come from the landfill, according to a copy of the document obtained by the Journal.
Baskaran suggests the contamination might have happened in 1967, when Sandia dumped 271,000 gallons of nuclear reactor cooling water in the landfill.
He said there is contamination some 500 feet beneath the landfill.
Tom Swiler, a member of the citizen advisory panel that commissioned the report, questioned Baskaran's claim that the contaminants have reached that deep.
The report's claim is based on radioactive materials in a handful of ground water and soil samples, and Swiler said the amount of data is insufficient to claim the contaminants are anything other than natural background materials that might be found anywhere.
Uranium is found naturally in Albuquerque soil, and sensitive tests commonly find plutonium from nuclear test fallout in soil around the world.
The debate about Baskaran's report is whether the material beneath the Sandia landfill is from such natural sources, or is evidence that radioactive material is leaking from the old dump.
Sandia wants to build a cap over the landfill, saying it doesn't believe the material will leak. They say it would be safer to leave the radioactive and hazardous waste where it is.
A small but determined band of activists wants the lab to clean up the waste and cart it off to a certified landfill designed to contain hazardous materials.
"It's just buried in open pits," said Miles Nelson, leader of the push to clean up the site. "It's not safe."
Located on fenced federal property five miles southeast of the Albuquerque airport's main runways, the landfill contains some waste that is too radioactive to safely dig up, lab officials say.
From 1959 to 1988, Sandia workers dumped radioactive and chemical wastes in unlined trenches in the landfill.
Sandia closed the landfill in December of that year, and the government began trying to figure out how to deal with the mess.
A 1987 assessment determined that the dangerous wastes in the landfill had "high potential" for migrating from the site, according to Sandia records.
Nelson and Swiler are members of Sandia National Laboratories Citizens' Advisory Board, which commissioned the new report.
The Department of Energy funds the group to provide independent input into Sandia's environmental cleanup program. Board members wanted an analysis by a technical expert independent of Sandia and the Energy Department.
The board paid Baskaran, a researcher at Wayne State University in Detroit, $5,000 for the study. He didn't return telephone calls Thursday from the Journal.
He sent copies of a preliminary draft of his report to board members this week for their review.
---
Blunders in Los Alamos
New York Times
May 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/editorial/19fri3.html
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt left no doubt yesterday about the National Park Service's responsibility for the disastrous Los Alamos fire. A preliminary internal report, he said, found that officials at the Bandelier National Monument had made several critical mistakes. Among other things, they failed to fully evaluate the risks before giving the go-ahead for a "controlled burn" that quickly roared out of control, destroying more than 200 houses and apartment buildings and driving 25,000 people from the city. They should also have had more firefighters on hand in case the fire jumped its prescribed boundaries.
Having accepted responsibility, Mr. Babbitt and other officials have two tasks. One is to see what can be done to improve the policy of controlled burns, a generally successful technique for clearing forests of debris and thus preventing even more devastating fires. One possibility, Mr. Babbitt suggested, is to "'thin out" the forest in advance by clearing very small trees. The second task is to arrange compensation. President Clinton has already declared Los Alamos a disaster area, but disaster relief is slow and often meager. The victims could sue, but a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act shields the government from liability for a wide range of actions.
Mr. Babbitt has already said, however, that "if we were negligent, we pay." That is certainly the right attitude. The question is where to get the money. One possibility is to make the Park Service pay, but the service is already woefully underfinanced. A better idea would be an emergency Congressional appropriation. There is a precedent. In 1976 the Teton Dam, on the upper Snake River in eastern Idaho, broke apart, killing 11 people and destroying 4,000 homes and businesses. Five weeks later, after a preliminary investigation suggested that the Bureau of Reclamation had built the dam on a geologically suspect site, Congress approved a $200 million appropriation to satisfy claims.
It is not clear yet how much the damage will amount to in Los Alamos. But Congress could set aside some money now, and more later. In any case, a Congressional law seems the fairest and fastest way to make the Los Alamos victims whole.
---
Babbitt: No Charges in N.M. Fires
Associated Press
Friday May 19 9:50 AM ET
By CHRIS ROBERTS
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000519/ts/new_mexico_fires_118.html
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - A ``systematic failure'' in the Park Service led to a wildfire that left 405 families homeless, but Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt say today there was no criminal negligence and there will be no criminal charges.
``These are mistakes,'' Babbitt said on NBC's ``Today'' show this morning, the day after releasing a report blaming the fire on a series of errors. ``There's nobody out there conspiring to burn down the forests.''
Although he said he expects some personnel actions once a review board finishes its investigation next week, ``you don't prosecute people for making mistakes.''
He does expects policy changes, however.
``It was a systematic failure in the Park Service. I think we are going to have to go back as a result of this investigation and revamp the fire program from A to Z. ... We owe that to the American people,'' Babbitt said.
``These forests are too thick,'' he said. ``They're explosive, they're dangerous, and the reason is because fire has been excluded for 100 years and there's too much fuel in the forests, too many trees.''
A preliminary report released Thursday by Babbitt concluded that National Park Service officials who started the fire May 4 to clear brush did not follow proper procedures and did not have enough fire crews on hand to keep it under control. The fire forced 25,000 people in and around Los Alamos to evacuate for up to five days and scorched more than 47,000 acres.
``It's clear there were large mistakes of agency oversight,'' Babbitt said.
``The causal chain of this fire is quite complex. I would liken it to what happens on a mountainside when a rock is dislodged,'' he said. That one rock can create a ``cascading series of events.''
Set at the nearby Bandelier National Monument, the blaze was driven out of control by wind gusting to more than 50 mph. The fire damaged some portable buildings at the storied Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory.
The fire was 70 percent contained Thursday, and officials said they hoped to have it completely corralled next week. The areas burning now, though, are a distance away from Los Alamos and most residents are back in their homes.
Babbitt and federal lawmakers pledged to work on legislation to pay all fire victims for losses not covered by insurance or emergency assistance. The White House also said the government will accept responsibility and take care of those who lost homes and businesses.
``Los Alamos has been hit by an 18-wheeler, and the government was driving that 18-wheeler,'' Gov. Gary Johnson said at Babbitt's news conference Thursday. He asked the people of New Mexico to ``give the government a chance to make good on this.''
The report found a ``number of critical deviations from both the prescribed fire plan and standard fire practices'' - including not putting firefighters on standby before starting the fire.
The report said Bandelier employee Mike Powell, who directly oversaw the prescribed burn, notified firefighting dispatchers in Santa Fe the morning of May 4 that the burn was to take place that evening. A dispatcher expressed concern because the Forest Service had suspended prescribed burns as a result of high winds and dry weather.
The investigation found that the plan was not ``substantively reviewed'' before it was approved by Bandelier Superintendent Roy Weaver, who has taken responsibility for the blaze and been placed on leave.
``There's a tendency to rubber-stamp decisions made by people at the field level,'' Babbitt said. ``That is an unacceptable paradigm.''
Weaver has declined interviews and there was no answer Thursday at his home. There was no listing for Powell in northern New Mexico.
The stage was set for the fire's escape on May 7, three days after it was set. Fire crew members started a backburn in a flat area full of dead wood in an attempt to rob the original fire of fuel and halt its southward advance.
Investigators said the ``burnout'' should have been set farther north, in an area with less fuel and steeper slopes.
Complicating the problem was the fact that Park Service officials had requested a spot weather report for the wrong day and were unaware that winds were predicted to increase, said John Snook, a Forest Service official who was one of the investigators. Those steady winds blew to the northeast and pushed the flames over a ridge, the report said.
Once the fire topped the ridge, winds carried embers outside the prescribed burn area and the fire established itself on the other side.
From there it moved steadily toward Los Alamos.
The Energy Department said Thursday it could cost as much as $150 million to clean up Los Alamos National Laboratory and reopen it.
Sitting in a dimly lit bar Thursday in Los Alamos, Danne DeBacker watched Babbitt and other federal officials on television explain the mistakes.
``They're just saying, 'Here's what happened.' We already know what happened - the damned forest burned down,'' said DeBacker, whose home in the northwest part of Los Alamos was destroyed.
``I'm sad, not just for my house, but for the forest,'' he said. ``Before these little black sticks were standing around here, we had a really pristine forest.''
Hal and Judy DeHaven, who lost their home of 23 years, were at the bar with DeBacker.
``There was a lot of irresponsibility here,'' DeHaven said. ``They weren't prepared for what happened. This confirms our suspicion that they burned our houses down and they owe us something.''
---
U.S. takes blame for N.M. blaze
Government to ensure victims are compensated
USA Today
05/19/00 Page 3A
By Patrick O'Driscoll
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20000519/2280140s.htm
With blunt self-criticism, the government took formal responsibility Thursday for the wildfire that destroyed hundreds of homes in Los Alamos, N.M.
In what Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt called ''an unflinching appraisal'' of the disaster, fire investigators concluded that carelessness and ''critical mistakes'' up and down the chain of command led to the inferno, which forced 25,000 people to flee.
National Park Service crews in Bandelier National Monument, south of Los Alamos, started the fire intentionally May 4 to clear brush. However, dry and windy conditions turned the ''controlled burn'' into a wildfire. It raced into national forest land next door and burned north, where it torched 220 homes and destroying buildings at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, birthplace of the atomic bomb.
The blaze, still burning in the forest Thursday but 60% contained, has consumed nearly 48,000 acres.
The White House said it is meeting with Congress to ensure that the fire's victims are compensated.
Babbitt, announcing the results of the investigation at a news conference in Santa Fe, said the park service's pre-fire analysis of the burn's complexity was ''seriously flawed.''
In an effort to avoid the possibility of another Los Alamos, Babbitt also proposed a program to fireproof the risky perimeter where urban sprawl meets scenic forests in other communities across the West.
In the report, fire investigators said officials:
* Didn't review the burning plan properly.
* Ignored fire safety and hazards beyond the fire's intended boundaries.
* Failed to check wind forecasts.
* Didn't have adequate staff and equipment standing by to put out the fire.
''We have a special obligation ... to avoid the possibility of another Los Alamos,'' Babbitt said.
---
Federal Officials Blamed for Fires
Yahoo News
Friday May 19 8:25 AM ET
By CHRIS ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000519/ts/new_mexico_fires_117.html
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - Sitting in a dimly lit bar, watching federal officials explain the mistakes that led to a devastating wildfire, Danne DeBacker had one response: Mistakes? No kidding.
``They're just saying, 'Here's what happened.' We already know what happened - the damned forest burned down,'' said DeBacker, whose home in the northwest part of Los Alamos was destroyed.
``I'm sad, not just for my house, but for the forest,'' he said. ``Before these little black sticks were standing around here, we had a really pristine forest.''
A preliminary report released Thursday by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt concluded that National Park Service officials who started the fire May 4 to clear brush did not follow proper procedures and did not have enough fire crews on hand to keep it under control.
``It's clear there were large mistakes of agency oversight,'' Babbitt said.
``The causal chain of this fire is quite complex. I would liken it to what happens on a mountainside when a rock is dislodged,'' he said. That one rock can create a ``cascading series of events.''
Set at the nearby Bandelier National Monument, the blaze was driven out of control by wind gusting to more than 50 mph. It forced 25,000 people to flee, scorched more than 47,000 acres, left 405 families homeless and damaged the storied Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory. The fire was 70 percent contained Thursday, and officials said they hoped to have it completely corralled by late Monday.
Babbitt and federal lawmakers pledged to work on legislation to pay all fire victims for losses not covered by insurance or emergency assistance. The White House also said the government will accept responsibility and take care of those who lost homes and businesses.
The report found a ``number of critical deviations from both the prescribed fire plan and standard fire practices'' - including not putting firefighters on standby before starting the fire.
Babbitt was asked on NBC's ``Today'' show this morning whether there was criminal negligence in setting the fires. ``You don't prosecute people for making mistakes,'' he said. ``The answer is an emphatic no.''
``It was a systemic failure in the Park Service. I think we are going to have to go back as a result of this investigation and revamp the fire program from A to Z,'' he said. ``We owe that to the American people.''
The report said Bandelier employee Mike Powell, who directly oversaw the prescribed burn, notified firefighting dispatchers in Santa Fe the morning of May 4 that the burn was to take place that evening. A dispatcher expressed concern because the Forest Service had suspended prescribed burns as a result of high winds and dry weather.
The investigation found that the plan was not ``substantively reviewed'' before it was approved by Bandelier Superintendent Roy Weaver, who has taken responsibility for the blaze and been placed on leave.
``There's a tendency to rubber-stamp decisions made by people at the field level,'' Babbitt said. ``That is an unacceptable paradigm.''
Weaver has declined interviews and there was no answer Thursday at his home. There was no listing for Powell in northern New Mexico.
The stage was set for the fire's escape on May 7. Fire crew members started a backburn in a flat area full of dead wood in an attempt to rob the fire of fuel and halt its southward advance off the peak of Cerro Grande, where it was started.
Investigators said the ``burnout'' should have been set farther north, in an area with less fuel and steeper slopes.
Complicating the problem was the fact that Park Service officials had requested a spot weather report for the wrong day and were unaware that winds were predicted to increase, said John Snook, a Forest Service official who was one of the investigators. Those steady winds blew to the northeast and pushed the flames over a ridge, the report said.
Once the fire topped the ridge, winds carried embers outside the prescribed burn area and the fire established itself on the other side.
From there it moved steadily toward Los Alamos.
Shortly after the fire swept out of control, the National Weather Service said it had sent Bandelier officials a special forecast on May 4 indicating maximum potential for fire growth, with increasing wind and temperatures and lower-than-usual nighttime humidity.
The investigators made no mention of the weather report specifically but questioned the value of a measurement it quoted - the Haines Index, which describes the potential for fire growth. The report on May 4 said the Haines Index was at 6, its highest rating.
The Energy Department said Thursday it could cost as much as $150 million to clean up Los Alamos National Laboratory and reopen it.
``Los Alamos has been hit by an 18-wheeler, and the government was driving that 18-wheeler,'' Gov. Gary Johnson said at Babbitt's news conference. He asked the people of New Mexico to ``give the government a chance to make good on this.''
Hal and Judy DeHaven, who lost their home of 23 years, were at the bar with DeBacker.
``There was a lot of irresponsibility here,'' DeHaven said. ``They weren't prepared for what happened. This confirms our suspicion that they burned our houses down and they owe us something.''
---
Park Service Takes Heat for Wildfire
Washington Post
Friday, May 19, 2000; Page A14
By Paul Duggan Washington Post Staff Writer
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29788-2000May18.html
AUSTIN, May 18 -- Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said today that National Park Service personnel in New Mexico committed a "landslide" of mistakes, including poor planning and lax oversight, in managing a "prescribed" forest fire that whipped out of control, decimating the city of Los Alamos.
The still-raging fire, ignited May 4, has burned about 50,000 acres of forest and residential land.
As an estimated 1,200 firefighters continued to battle the massive blaze in the woodlands around Los Alamos, Babbitt released the results of a preliminary investigation, which cites an array of missteps by personnel involved in planning and supervising what was to have been a controlled fire at Bandelier National Monument near Los Alamos.
"This prescribed fire was based upon a flawed plan and required fire management policies were not followed," the report said. "Throughout the planning and implementation, critical mistakes were made."
The fire was started to burn away dried timber and brush in a 1,000-acre section of the national park, a routine practice meant to reinvigorate the environment and lessen the chance of future wildfires. But planners miscalculated the complexity of the project, and managers approved the plan without scrutinizing it carefully, causing "a cascading series of events" that ended in catastrophe, said Babbitt, who released the report at a news conference in Santa Fe, N.M.
"In all decision-making . . . the higher up you go, the more tendency there is for busy supervisory personnel with many other responsibilities to simply rubber-stamp decisions that are basically made by technical people at the field level," Babbitt said, referring to the prescribed fire plan that went disastrously awry hours after the blaze was set. He called that approval process "an unacceptable model for the use of fire, because fire is the most dangerous and unpredictable force that we deal with."
Los Alamos's 11,000 residents were forced to evacuate the city May 10, when the fire reached its most intense level, but most of those evacuees have returned. The blaze destroyed more than 200 homes and apartment buildings in the city and damaged parts of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the government's primary nuclear research facility.
In Washington today, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said the Clinton administration "will work to ensure that all of the sustained losses in this fire are fully compensated."
Last week, as flames were consuming Los Alamos, the National Weather Service said it warned officials at Bandelier of unsuitable atmospheric conditions well before the prescribed fire was set. The report released today also noted that atmospheric conditions, as measured by the Haines Index, indicated a "potential for large fire growth." But the report said those conditions did not contribute to the spread of the fire and suggested that officials "review the [future] usefulness of the Haines Index."
The report said "the prescribed fire planner did not receive sufficient oversight, guidance and support" in drafting a plan that was flawed in several ways. For example, in calculating the complexity of the burning project, planners "did not follow the National Park Service rating system," the report said. "This error in and of itself resulted in the prescribed fire being rated as low-moderate complexity by Bandelier staff rather than moderate-high when the correct values were used."
After the blaze was set, the report said, "there were a number of critical deviations from the prescription, actions, and procedures set forth in the prescribed fire plan, as well as standard fire practices."
Within hours of being ignited May 4, the fire began to "slop over" beyond the planned burning area and was declared a wildfire at 1 p.m. May 5. But planners, underestimating the complexity of the project, had not arranged for a sufficient number of firefighters to be standing by, the report said.
"The contingency plan inadequately identified actions needed to keep the prescribed fire within the prescribed parameters and necessary actions to be taken if it escaped," the report said.
Babbitt also noted the failure of officials at the 33,000-acre park to include other agencies in planning for the prescribed fire.
"The report makes it clear the Park Service failed on a large scale to bring in other agencies," Babbitt said. "This fire was conceived and put on the ground within [the Bandelier park]. The problem is, it's a small park, and it's surrounded by national forest. It is surrounded by Indian reservations, by the community of Los Alamos, by many other land managers."
The official responsible for authorizing the controlled burn, Superintendent Roy Weaver of Bandelier, was placed on administrative leave last week.
Babbitt said forest-management experts at the Interior Department and other agencies are working on a new way of carrying out prescribed fires, in which forests will be "thinned" before being ignited.
"We have a special obligation in our management of forests to deal with these safety issues, to avoid another Los Alamos," Babbitt said.
---
'Critical Mistakes' by Park Service Led to Los Alamos Fire
Disaster: Preliminary report finds officials failed to follow procedures.
White House says homeowners will be fully compensated.
Los Angeles Times
Friday, May 19, 2000
By ROBERT L. JACKSON, Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/asection/20000519/t000047353.html
WASHINGTON--National Park Service officials who deliberately ignited the fire that ravaged Los Alamos, N.M., did not follow proper procedures and failed to ensure that enough firefighters were available to control the blaze, according to a preliminary report by the Interior Department.
An investigative team appointed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt concluded Thursday that Park Service officials "failed to properly plan and implement" established procedures for a controlled burn. Throughout the process "critical mistakes were made," the team said.
White House officials, meanwhile, said hundreds of property owners who suffered losses when the New Mexico fire spread for six days would be "fully compensated," perhaps with a special appropriation by Congress.
White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart told reporters that White House Chief of Staff John Podesta is meeting with congressional leaders to determine the best plan for compensating victims of the fire.
As the blaze, which has burned more than 200 homes and 47,650 acres, was reported 70% contained Thursday, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) said that "basically the Park Service screwed up bad, and I don't know how it could be worse."
An estimated 1,200 firefighters--aided by lower temperatures and lighter winds--were working Thursday near Los Alamos. As they strengthened fire breaks, extinguished hot spots and attacked the fire's most dangerous, northwest flank, more residents returned to their homes.
Although Park Service officials have attributed the disaster to unexpectedly high winds, the Interior Department report was the first documentation of the government errors that were aggravated by the forces of nature.
The report said that when officials at Bandelier National Monument started the fire May 4 to burn underbrush, they failed to evaluate conditions in adjacent areas. They also failed to adequately consider the threat that would be posed to public safety if the fire spread, according to the document.
The report said Mike Powell, a Bandelier employee who supervised the prescribed burn, alerted fire dispatchers in Santa Fe several hours before the burn was to begin. The fire was ignited, investigators reported, despite a warning from a dispatcher that another federal agency--the U.S. Forest Service, part of the Agriculture Department--had already suspended controlled burning in the area because of adverse weather conditions.
The burn plan also should not have been approved by Bandelier Supt. Roy Weaver, the report said. Weaver, who has taken responsibility for the wildfire, has been placed on administrative leave.
Other "critical mistakes," according to investigators, were the Park Service's failure "to provide adequate contingency resources to successfully suppress the fire" and failure to obtain wind predictions in the forecast for May 7-9.
The report said that federal fire-control policies are still sound but that their success "depends upon strict adherence" to the thorough implementation of accepted procedures "throughout every agency and at every level."
At the White House, Lockhart declined to discuss what legal liability the government may have incurred in the blaze. "I don't want to get into a legal argument here," he said. "I think we're going to look at what's the best way to move forward in compensating."
---
Wen Ho Lee Case Said Poorly Handled
Associated Press
May 19, 2000 Filed at 9:56 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-China-Espionage.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncsfri02.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A highly classified Justice Department report concludes that the FBI failed to provide enough resources and supervision to the Wen Ho Lee spy case and focused so narrowly on the Los Alamos scientist that it may have missed other national security breaches, officials say.
The findings of the internal review conducted by federal prosecutor Randy Bellows were presented to Attorney General Janet Reno in the past week and echo prior congressional findings about the government's investigation into possible espionage at its nuclear labs.
The FBI and Justice Department have battled for months in public over whether the department's decision to decline an electronic surveillance warrant for the Lee case hampered agents' work.
The Bellows report, according to officials who have seen it, concludes that the department should have approved the warrant requested several times by the FBI.
But it adds that the FBI did not provide all the information it possessed that might help the department make the decision, the officials told The Associated Press, speaking only on condition of anonymity.
FBI spokesman John Collingwood declined comment late Thursday.
The officials added that the report concludes FBI agents spent so much time fighting for the surveillance warrant that they missed the opportunity to more quickly search Lee's work computer, where they say they belatedly found evidence he downloaded prized nuclear secrets from secure lab computers.
Bellows concludes the FBI did not need the warrant to conduct the search because Lee had no reasonable expectation of privacy on a government computer, the officials said.
The lengthy focus on Lee also kept the bureau from considering other possible China espionage suspects and other possible leaks of national security secrets, the report added.
After months of suggestions that Lee would be indicted for China espionage, the scientist was charged in December with lesser offenses of removing nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos lab with no suggestion he gave them to China.
Lee, who is awaiting trial, has denied wrongdoing.
The Associated Press first reported in December that documents showed the FBI began to doubt more than a year ago that Lee had given China one of America's most prized nuclear secrets as originally feared, but did not begin to refocus its investigation to other possible suspects until late last year.
The Bellows report, the officials said, blames the FBI for not providing enough leadership and resources to the espionage investigation in its early stages.
---
Report Faults FBI Over Its Handling of Nuclear Secrets Case
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
http://www.nytimes.com/00/05/19/news/washpol/fbi-lee.html
WASHINGTON -- The FBI gravely mishandled its inquiry into Wen Ho Lee, the nuclear scientist suspected of passing secrets to the Chinese government, by failing to dedicate sufficient resources to the task and focusing too narrowly on a single suspect, a secret Justice Department review has concluded.
In a report to Attorney General Janet Reno earlier this week, officials said, Randy Bellows, a department prosecutor, singled out the FBI for harsh criticism, even as he faulted other aspects of the government's inquiry into contentions of spying at its nuclear labs.
The findings marked the latest chapter in the increasing friction between Reno and Louis Freeh, the FBI director. On a separate matter, congressional investigators were studying a 1996 memo by Freeh in which he suggested that Reno had dropped an inquiry into Democratic fund-raising irregularities to protect her job.
A spokesman for the FBI declined to comment on the report, which has not yet been released to Congress. Reno ordered the review amid widespread public criticism of the government's handling of the Lee affair.
A government official who was briefed on the Bellows report, the contents of which were first reported on Thursday by The Associated Press, said: "It blames a lot of people. But it's harshest on the FBI."
The bureau, the official said, was faulted for moving too slowly and failing to devote sufficient resources to the inquiry.
The report faulted the Justice Department for failing to approve a search warrant sought by the FBI to conduct electronic surveillance on Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the nation's leading nuclear weapons lab.
But, Bellows concluded, FBI officials became so distracted by their pursuit of a search warrant that they missed an opportunity to search Lee's office computer, which would not have required a warrant. An examination of that computer later showed that someone had downloaded highly sensitive nuclear secrets.
The report also criticized the FBI for focusing so exclusively on Lee that it may have overlooked other suspects. Investigators did not widen the search beyond Lee until later last year.
Lee, who is 60, was never indicted on espionage charges. He faces 59 felony counts linked to the mishandling of nuclear secrets.
Lee, who was fired in March 1999, has maintained his innocence. He is now in solitary confinement in New Mexico, awaiting a trial scheduled to start in November.
---
The Government Takes Full Blame in Los Alamos Fire
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/051900nm-alamos.html
SANTA FE, N.M., May 18 -- With a scathing indictment of the federal response to fires that have now burned nearly 80 square miles of northern New Mexico and more than 400 houses and apartments, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said today that the government was wholly to blame and would do whatever possible to compensate victims.
"The calculations that went into this were seriously flawed," Mr. Babbitt said at a news conference in which federal officials described how a planned burn for a small section in Bandelier National Monument quickly raged out of control, overtaking wide areas beyond, including the city of Los Alamos and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons are designed.
Mr. Babbitt compared the combination of poor planning and bad decisions by people in the National Park Service and the Forest Service to "a cascading series of events, like a rock being dislodged down a hill, leading to a landslide."
Mistakes began with missing weather information and led to problems from a lack of firefighters, equipment and judgment about a situation that that grew increasingly dangerous by the hour.
Mr. Babbitt's remarks were timed with the release of the results of a federal investigation into what happened from the evening of May 4, when Park Service personnel at Bandelier National Monument ignited what officials call a "prescribed fire," or burn, a means commonly used to remove dead and dried underbrush in an effort to reduce the possibility of a catastrophic fire.
Investigators found that almost every aspect of the plan for the prescribed fire was poorly conceived and carried out, beginning with the critical omission of wind predictions for several days into the burn. For some reason, the investigators found, information was not passed along to officials responsible for authorizing the burn and for managing it.
Investigators also said the park official who was in charge of the burn, Mike Powell, lacked the proper experience to manage a fire once it raced out of control. Mr. Powell's boss, Roy Weaver, the superintendent of Bandelier National Monument, has been on administrative leave since the fires spread.
Mr. Powell is still working at the park.
Mr. Weaver, who has been with Park Service for 33 years, has been in charge of the national monument for 10 years. In that job, he has overseen two or three controlled burns a year.
"The technical and operational experience of the burn boss was not adequate," said Dick Bahr, a burn specialist with the Park Service from Boise, Idaho, who is one of the investigators. "He had not seen a fire of this complexity and size."
About 1,200 firefighters were still at work today, strengthening fire breaks, extinguishing hot spots and attacking the fire's northwestern flank, The Associated Press reported. It said the fire was about 70 percent contained.
As forceful as he was in ascribing blame, Mr. Babbitt was equally strong in saying that the federal government would accept full blame for the wildfire. He said Congress was developing emergency legislation that would compensate people who had lost their homes and businesses. A similar measure in 1976 helped people affected by a break in the Teton Dam in Idaho to receive compensation within three months.
Mr. Babbitt also said the Clinton administration was "on the wavelength" to sign the pending legislation, once it passed the House and the Senate, which he predicted was likely to happen soon.
In Washington, Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, said he and others in the state's Congressional delegation had met with administration officials, adding that they were planning to work together "to establish some principles that we ought to incorporate in a law that will permit us to pay damages to the New Mexicans and other institutions that have been damaged by this fire."
But Senator Domenici was also critical of what he called "this negligence" that led to the destruction, adding that "the people of New Mexico and this country deserve to be very, very upset and to demand a much better performance and to insist that we find a way to recompense the people in that area."
So far, the Cerro Grande Fire, as it is now known, has claimed 405 housing units and closed many businesses, most of them in the Los Alamos area, which is about 45 miles from Santa Fe, the state capital. Early estimates put the aggregate loss at more than $1 billion.
Several of New Mexico's leading elected officials here built on Mr. Babbitt's remarks to assuage fears of those who suffered losses from the fires. Gov. Gary E. Johnson, a Republican who spent much of the day with Mr. Babbitt, urged New Mexicans to "document, document, document your losses" to expedite the paperwork in making claims.
"The federal government could not have done a better job responding to a terrible situation," Mr. Johnson said. "Los Alamos was hit by an 18-wheeler, and the government was driving the 18-wheeler. But don't hire an attorney yet. Give the government a chance to make good on this."
The thrust of the report was to review how decisions were made leading to the initial burn, how the authorities responded, whether management personnel had proper training and experience and whether existing procedures were adequate to cover all contingencies once the fire spread.
The findings were nearly universal in their condemnation. These were some of the major conclusions:
The plan for the prescribed burn was inadequate in that federal personnel did not take into account the complexities of the terrain and the material to be burned.
No one analyzed the plan with a critical eye toward unexpected developments, which resulted in ignoring the possible need for additional firefighters and equipment if the fire went out of control. As the fire spread, state and local firefighters found themselves overwhelmed, with some people on the lines working 24 hours and longer without a break.
The plan did not take into account predictions of wind conditions over the three to five days after ignition. The information was missing in Mr. Weaver's assessment, and no one else he consulted mentioned it.
Coordination among federal, state and local agencies was lacking, and when other opinions were sought there was a lack of critical analysis. "You can't rubber stamp these things," Mr. Bahr said. "Everybody has got to be involved in everything."
Once the fire spread, suppression tactics that were used did not comply with federal standards in effect since 1995, a transgression that aided the fire's growth and threatened public safety. "The policy is sound," said Joe Stutler, a fire operations specialist from Redmond, Ore., who was a member of the investigation team. "But federal agencies working jointly did not put it together."
The report made public today is only the first step in assessing procedures that are routinely used throughout the West, which is highly susceptible to raging fires.
Mr. Babbitt has appointed a four-member board of inquiry that will take a harder look at what happened here, with technical experts possibly recommending administrative or punitive actions. That board, Mr. Babbitt said, is expected to complete its work by late next week.
---
Park Service blamed for N.M. fire
USA Today
05/18/00- Updated 04:27 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsthu05.htm
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - The National Park Service officials who started the fire that devastated Los Alamos did not follow proper procedures and did not have enough fire crews on hand to keep the blaze under control, according to a preliminary investigation by the Interior Department.
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., said today the investigation found flaws in the plan to burn underbrush at Bandelier National Monument. She also said it found that monument officials did not have weather reports that could have shown the fire was likely to get out of control.
''Basically, the Park Service screwed up bad, and I don't know how it could be worse,'' Wilson said.
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt was expected to release preliminary results of the investigation this afternoon.
Monument officials started the fire May 4 and high winds blew it out of control. The fire burned over 200 homes in Los Alamos and more than 47,000 acres. It also threatened the storied Los Alamos nuclear laboratory but spared the main buildings.
Wilson, in an interview from Washington, said the report found that the official supervising the prescribed burn ''wasn't qualified technically to do the job.'' She said that official did not review conditions at the fire site before starting the fire.
''They failed to follow safety policies for firefighters and the public,'' Wilson said.
Wilson did not say whether the report identified the official.
Roy Weaver, the park superintendent who took responsibility for igniting the blaze, has been placed on leave.
By today, the fire was 60% contained. There are still 1,200 firefighters active around Los Alamos, strengthening fire breaks, extinguishing hot spots and attacking the fire's still-active northwest flank.
''Things are looking up,'' said Scott Sticha, a fire spokesman. ''There's actually folks starting to head home.''
A team specially trained to rehabilitate burned areas arrived Monday, he said.
Weather was working in firefighters' favor - low temperatures and wind predicted to reach only 10-15 mph, Sticha said.
Some residents who lost their homes were angry at Weaver.
''We're hoping that if he's guilty, we can get something back. Everything we owned is gone,'' said Tracie Korth, 29, who is expecting twins in August. She and her husband lost their rented home and had no insurance.
As Gloria Brown combed through the rubble of her home Wednesday, she and her husband managed to salvage a couple of small ceramic pots. Little else was left of the 26 years they spent there.
''I'm not angry. I don't think it was intentionally done,'' she said. ''Maybe Roy Weaver used bad judgment, but he's human.''
---
Chopping Down the Forest Won't Save It
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By CHAD HANSON
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/19hans.html
PASADENA, Calif. -- Yesterday's release of the National Park Service plan for a "prescribed burn" in New Mexico -- the fire that went awry and destroyed homes and businesses in Los Alamos -- has added to calls for a re-evaluation of the service's fire policies. But some of these exhortations, coming from the timber industry's supporters in Congress, look more like opportunism than considered criticism of what went wrong in this fire.
For those who want more commercial logging of America's national forests, the Los Alamos tragedy plays into a stance that is already well rehearsed: that more logging can "reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires." It is an argument that doesn't hold up.
While Senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, and his allies in the timber industry talk about "thinning underbrush," the real interest of the industry is in gaining access to the last remaining mature forests on federal lands.
In April 1999, the General Accounting Office issued a report that raised serious questions about the use of timber sales as a tool of fire management. It noted that "most of the trees that need to be removed to reduce accumulated fuels are small in diameter" -- the very trees that have "little or no commercial value."
As it offers timber for sale to loggers, the Forest Service tends to "focus on areas with high-value commercial timber rather than on areas with high fire hazards," the report said. Its sales include "more large, commercially valuable trees" than are necessary to reduce the so-called accumulated fuels (in other words, the trees that are most likely to burn in a forest fire).
The Forest Service typically keeps about 90 percent of the revenue from these timber sales. The money has helped finance both the agency's budget and its preparations for more commercial logging. Meanwhile, the logging industry gets rich on cheap timber, and pro-timber members of Congress receive millions in campaign contributions as an incentive to keep this system going. Taxpayers take an enormous loss.
The truth is that timber sales are causing catastrophic wildfires on national forests, not alleviating them. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report, issued in 1996 by the federal government, found that "timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity." The reason goes back to the same conflict that the G.A.O. found: loggers want the big trees, not the little ones that act as fuel in forest fires.
After a "thinning" timber sale, a forest has far fewer of the large trees, which are naturally fire-resistant because of their thick bark; indeed, many of these trees are centuries old and have already survived many fires. Without them, there is less shade. The forest is drier and hotter, making the remaining, smaller trees more susceptible to burning. After logging, forests also have accumulations of flammable debris known as "slash piles" -- unsalable branches and limbs left by logging crews.
In 1994, Jack Ward Thomas, then chief of the Forest Service, said in congressional testimony that fires don't hurt the forest itself. Even fires that kill many trees "in an area from which you do not expect to extract timber" might be "perfectly acceptable," he said. He gave the example of Yellowstone National Park. "It burns up; it burns hot, and the system that's associated with it comes back," he said.
After several decades of federal management that suppressed fires -- with timber sales in mind -- some forests on federal lands have actually become more flammable, since they have been deprived of fire's important natural role of clearing brush under the big trees and returning nutrients to the soil.
Controlled burning has been used successfully for over a decade to reintroduce fire into forest ecosystems. The National Park Service reports that fewer than 1 percent of controlled burns result in "escapes" -- fires that cross their predesigned boundaries. Even then, people and property are almost never hurt.
This does not excuse any carelessness, of course, that may have led to the New Mexico fire, which clearly did escape, and tragically so.
But it would be an even bigger tragedy if we allowed the timber industry's allies in Congress to continue destroying our national forests under the self-serving guise of fire management. Ultimately, our public forests will be safe only when Congress passes legislation to end the timber sales within them.
Chad Hanson is executive director of the John Muir Project and a national director of the Sierra Club.
---
Opinionline What people are saying about the out-of-control blaze
USA Today
05/19/00- Updated 08:23 AM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/opline.htm
The Boston Globe in an editorial: "A professional decision by National Park Service authorities to clear up a brush problem using the standard 'prescribed burn' technique went badly awry in Los Alamos this month, when high winds spread the blaze over more than 44,000 acres of New Mexico woodlands, and incinerated 400 homes. The fires are, ironically, intended to reduce the danger of blazes by systematically eliminating underbrush that could be ignited by lightning or careless campers. ... Bad as this fire has been, it could have been worse, with loss of life and a risk to the integrity of nuclear facilities at Los Alamos. ... Not even well-structured safety procedures can provide an absolute guarantee that accidents will not happen as the result of human failings."
Morning Star, Wilmington, N.C., in an editorial: "It seems obvious that the National Park Service official who decided to set fire to dry underbrush in windy New Mexico must have been an idiot. But it isn't that simple. It has to be dry and windy for these 'prescribed burns' to work. ... It would be a mistake for politicians and the public to demand a halt to the program. Forests burn periodically, and fire plays an essential role in renewing them. When humans try to control that process, they are literally playing with fire. The alternative is to wait for fire to play with us."
San Francisco Chronicle in an editorial: "There's a political subtext to the burn-or-not debate. Timber companies claim tree-cutting could do much the same as fire. A trimmed-back forest could grow without the scorching side effects of fire, it's claimed. This is a self-serving argument for commercial timber-cutting, not a thoughtful way to restore healthy forests where fire danger exists. The careful use of fire should remain an option under the right conditions."
The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, in an editorial: "Keeping deliberately started fires in hand is not a sure thing, but neither are many other undertakings whose benefits far outweigh the chance of something going wrong. ... To end the practice because of the Los Alamos fire would be to close one door to a relatively small risk while opening another door to a much larger one."
The Denver Post in an editorial: "New Mexicans should be furious at the National Park Service. ... The National Weather Service warned that conditions would deteriorate, including the possibility of dangerous winds. But the Park Service inexplicably went ahead with the prescribed burn. ... Although no lives were lost, 260 homes were destroyed, 25,000 people were evacuated, ... major research at the nation's premiere nuclear lab was stalled, and $1 billion in damage was done to homes, businesses, government facilities, power lines and other utilities. ... Congressional hearings are warranted."
Las Vegas Review-Journal in an editorial: "Who's to blame for the blaze? The federal government. Environmentalists continually claim that private stewardship is an archaic notion, something that fell out of favor with the demise of hoop skirts and outhouses. Only the government, they say, has the selfless foresight to manage forests, deserts and wilderness. ... The fire at Los Alamos should call such claims into question. If a private company had started such a blaze, its corporate officers would face civil or possibly criminal liability. Its owners or shareholders would be expected to compensate residents and business owners for their losses. Taxpayers across the country will no doubt be tapped to repay the people of Los Alamos for the negligence or incompetence of federal bureaucrats. So much for government 'stewardship.'"
-------- ohio
House OKs nuclear-compensation resolution
Friday, May 19, 2000
Jonathan Riskind Dispatch Washington Bureau
http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House yesterday passed a resolution calling for federal compensation of nuclear workers in southern Ohio and elsewhere sickened by Cold War-era exposures to radiation and other hazardous substances.
The resolution was approved as a nonbinding addition to a defense authorization bill, but proponents say the voice vote puts the House on the record in support of compensating U.S. Department of Energy workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, and other nuclear sites nationwide.
"The civilian men and woman who performed duties uniquely related to the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons production and testing programs over the last 50 years should have efficient, uniform and adequate compensation,'' said the resolution co-authored by a half-dozen lawmakers, including Reps. Ted Strickland, D-Lucasville, and Edward Whitfield, R-Ky.
"The solution is sufficiently unique to the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons production and testing programs that it is appropriate for congressional action this year.''
The resolution does not carry a price tag, but such a compensation program presumably would be more expensive than the $500 million proposal unveiled last month by the Clinton administration.
The administration's plan contains federal payments of $100,000 or health-care benefits for cancers caused by radiation exposure, but not both. And that plan requires workers made ill by chronic contact with toxic chemicals to seek state workers' compensation benefits, excluding them from the federal compensation package.
Strickland and Sen. George V. Voinovich, R- Ohio, are authors of bills doubling the proposed payments to $200,000 per worker and offering lifetime health-care benefits, and includes federal compensation for illnesses caused by chemical exposures.
The House and Senate armed services committees so far have refused to allow the Strickland and Voinovich proposals to be included in the annual defense authorization bill. Strickland and Whitfield, who represents a district that includes Piketon's sister plant in Paducah, Ky., introduced the resolution to put members on the record on the issue.
"This legislation is not compensation itself,'' Strickland said. "But it is proof of the growing momentum for passing compensation for these workers who were exposed to some of the most dangerous substances on earth.''
Before the vote, several key House committee chairmen promised to hold hearings on the issue before the end of the year.
Richard Miller, an attorney for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union that represents many workers at Piketon and other nuclear sites, said progress is slowly being made.
The Energy Department is expected to soon release a report detailing decades of problems at Piketon, which now is run by USEC, a privatized federal corporation. The Piketon plant produced weapons-grade uranium during the Cold War, but now manufactures only material for commercial nuclear-power plants.
----
HOUSE OKS NUCLEAR-COMPENSATION RESOLUTION
Friday, May 19, 2000
Jonathan Riskind Dispatch Washington Bureau
http://libpub.dispatch.com/cgi-bin/slwebcli.pl?DBLIST=cd00&D
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House yesterday passed a resolution calling for federal compensation of nuclear workers in southern Ohio and elsewhere sickened by Cold War-era exposures to radiation and other hazardous substances.
The resolution was approved as a nonbinding addition to a defense authorization bill, but proponents say the voice vote puts the House on the record in support of compensating U.S. Department of Energy workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, and other nuclear sites nationwide.
"The civilian men and woman who performed duties uniquely related to the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons production and testing programs over the last 50 years should have efficient, uniform and adequate compensation,'' said the resolution co-authored by a half-dozen lawmakers, including Reps. Ted Strickland, D-Lucasville, and Edward Whitfield, R-Ky.
"The solution is sufficiently unique to the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons production and testing programs that it is appropriate for congressional action this year.''
The resolution does not carry a price tag, but such a compensation program presumably would be more expensive than the $500 million proposal unveiled last month by the Clinton administration.
The administration's plan contains federal payments of $100,000 or health-care benefits for cancers caused by radiation exposure, but not both. And that plan requires workers made ill by chronic contact with toxic chemicals to seek state workers' compensation benefits, excluding them from the federal compensation package.
Strickland and Sen. George V. Voinovich, R- Ohio, are authors of bills doubling the proposed payments to $200,000 per worker and offering lifetime health-care benefits, and includes federal compensation for illnesses caused by chemical exposures.
The House and Senate armed services committees so far have refused to allow the Strickland and Voinovich proposals to be included in the annual defense authorization bill. Strickland and Whitfield, who represents a district that includes Piketon's sister plant in Paducah, Ky., introduced the resolution to put members on the record on the issue.
"This legislation is not compensation itself,'' Strickland said. "But it is proof of the growing momentum for passing compensation for these workers who were exposed to some of the most dangerous substances on earth.''
Before the vote, several key House committee chairmen promised to hold hearings on the issue before the end of the year.
Richard Miller, an attorney for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union that represents many workers at Piketon and other nuclear sites, said progress is slowly being made.
The Energy Department is expected to soon release a report detailing decades of problems at Piketon, which now is run by USEC, a privatized federal corporation. The Piketon plant produced weapons-grade uranium during the Cold War, but now manufactures only material for commercial nuclear-power plants.
-------- utah
Town's incinerator fails to fire up locals
mike ritchey - rocky mountain ranger
By Mike Ritchey Denver Post Columnist, May 19, 2000
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ranger0519.htm
May 19 - TOOELE, Utah - Tooele, 30 minutes southwest of Salt Lake City, is a nice little town. As the visitor tops a rise on Skyline Drive on the east side, the wide, tree-lined streets and the Great Salt Lake, 15 minutes north, become visible, an oasis in an otherwise difficult land.
The cemetery on Skyline says a lot about Tooele (pronounced Two-ella). It is beautiful, clearly tended by survivors who care. Inviting. In the cool early mornings, old couples walk vigorously along the silent lanes among the headstones. Exercise.
Driving in from the southeast, though, through Rush Valley from Lehi, there is not much to see. Desert. A few cows. No tourist destinations at all, other than the historic Pony Express route that crosses Utah 36 near the Deseret Chemical Depot, where the only operational chemical-agent disposal facility in America burns nerve gas and scalds bombs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And to this point, it is a $1 billion program that will be torn down when all is said and done.
On Mother's Day, though, the facility was quiet. A tiny droplet of nerve gas no bigger than the head of a kitchen match had escaped cremation earlier in the week, and the contractor, hired by the Army to run the plant, shut it down until the escape cause could be discovered.
The news, as reported by Jeff Schmerker on the front page of Joel Dunn's Tooele Transcript-Bulletin, looked bad to someone from someplace else.
"It's nothing, nothing at all, a tiny drop this big," said Dunn. "Nothing, that is, except to outsiders who don't know anything about it."
Dunn, who is retired now, is tall and friendly, and a strong supporter of Tooele and the facility. He laughs when he says that Tooele has two problems, "nerve gas and outsiders."
"Of the two, we've learned that the gas is less problematic," Dunn said.
And over the course of a few days, Dunn's nonchalance about life lived alongside a valley full of nerve and mustard gas and other obsolete, never-used, leaking munitions proved to be the prevailing attitude.
Even questions about potential for catastrophe similar to the inferno that continued to rage in Los Alamos and across northern New Mexico did not inspire doubt.
"I'm not bothered by it at all," said Jenee Lewis. "You know why? After we had tremendous fires the first summer, I was here, and I saw the smoke blow out over Salt Lake and Lehi, away from us. I quit worrying about it."
Lewis has lived in Tooele for five years. She moved from Lincoln, Neb., to be with her husband, Gordon, who retired from the nearby Tooele Army Depot after 32 years on the job.
Gordon is 63 now, and he and Jenee were rushing about, getting ready to go to his mother's house for Mother's Day. Both his mother, 88, and his father are living, and both were born and raised in Tooele - just like Joel Dunn at the newspaper, just like Gordon Lewis himself.
The Army depot outside Tooele has been there for 60 years. Asked how long he'd owned the paper, Dunn said, "a hundred and five years." Dunn's grandfather bought the paper in 1894. Dunn's father published it. Now, Dunn has five sons and two granddaughters working there.
Down Main Street in the Tooele Chemical Stockpile Outreach Office, Clint Warby greets visitors with smiles and information about the incinerator. Warby works for Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc., a public relations company hired to set up the office five years ago, "just to help people understand what is going on out there."
"We, and the Army, feel that the more people know and understand, the less they'll worry," he said.
According to Army information, 87 percent of the risk has been eliminated through the incineration, which began in August 1996, even though only 31 percent of the total dump has been burned. That apparent incongruence is possible because the most dangerous elements were the first to be destroyed.
A treaty, signed in 1990, gives Tooele's facility until 2007 to get rid of all the gas and bombs. There is, Jeff Schmerker said, an extension clause that would stretch the date by five years if necessary.
"But the Army says it will meet the deadline," Schmerker said. "That seems optimistic."
And Schmerker echoed a statement made by everyone who was given the chance: "No one has ever been killed at the facility."
But in 1968, at Dugway, 20 air miles to the west, 6,400 sheep died almost instantly when a valve stuck on a plane that was spraying gas at the testing and proving grounds there.
That kind of mistake often results in tall and black headlines on front pages of newspapers all around the country. It is news that is hard to live down. And there are people in the vicinity who don't feel it should be forgotten.
"The people here have dealt with this since World War II," said Chip Ward, manager of development for the Utah State Library. "It's tradition. They're used to it. I know they don't mind, but I do and they should."
Ward, who lives and works in Grantsville, 10 miles west of Tooele, is called - among other less-pleasant things - an activist. He is a leader in the Families Against Incinerator Risk, a group that Ward said "has 3,000 members nationwide, but less than 50 of them are in this county." Ward and his colleagues have conducted surveys that, he said, found a higher incidence of all kinds of cancer, as well as other diseases, than the national average.
Still, the "everyday Tooelean," as reporter Schmerker puts it, "is too close to the danger to even think about it." And Joel Dunn scoffs at any charge that the area is physically threatening.
"I have friends, many of them, who've worked all their lives out there with that gas," he said. "They've been up to their waists in it. None of them is sick. None have died."
Added Schmerker: "I know it's perplexing, but this is a solid blue-collar kind of town. They get up in the morning and go to work. They are just glad they have work to do. They haven't always." Tooele County is virtually filled to overflowing with hazardous materials and dangerous jobs.
Schmerker pointed out that, chemical-disposal facility aside, the Magnesium Corporation of America, also located in the county, is a major polluter.
With that kind of resume, it is difficult to understand why so many are moving in. But they are. From Salt Lake City, mostly. Young couples wanting a starter home, perhaps. Whoever they are, they are making Tooele County the fastest-growing county in Utah.
The new census is expected to show 18,000, maybe 20,000 in Tooele and as many as 35,000 in the county. It was not that long ago that Tooele, with mines closed and depots shut down, was a whole lot smaller and poorer.
Chip Ward said he had concluded from his survey that "the longer a person lives here, the more danger he is in." Of course, Ward himself has lived in Grantsville for 21 years and raised three children there.
Contact Mike Ritchey at Mritchey@denverpost.com
-------- us nuc medicine
Risks Of Radiation May Outweigh Benefits In Some Breast Cancer Patients
May 19, 2000
Lancet 2000
Westport Newsroom 203 319 2700
http://ipn.intelihealth.com/IPN/ihtIPN?st=23883&t=7223&c=282516
WESTPORT (Reuters Health) - A meta-analysis of randomized trials of radiotherapy in breast cancer patients shows that the treatment is associated with reduced local recurrence and breast cancer mortality, but also with increased mortality due to other causes.
For older women as well as women of any age who have a low risk of recurrence, the risks of radiation may outweigh the benefits, researchers report in the May 20th issue of The Lancet.
Dr. Rory Collins, of the Clinical Trial Service Unit at Radcliffe Infirmary, in Oxford, England, and other members of the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group reviewed the 10-year and 20-year results of 40 unconfounded, randomized radiotherapy trials that included 19,582 women. All of the trials began before 1990.
Overall, radiation prevented about two thirds of local recurrence, regardless of patient characteristics or radiation type, Dr. Collins told Reuters Health. According to Dr. Collins, radiation therapy appears to translate into "moderate improvement in avoidance of breast cancer deaths." He noted that the benefits of radiation tended to be greater in node-positive women.
When the results of all studies were combined, women who received radiation did not have lower breast cancer mortality in the first 2 years, but after that, the annual breast cancer mortality was about 13% lower than that of women who did not undergo radiation, according to the report.
Despite the reduced breast cancer mortality associated with radiotherapy, however, overall mortality was actually higher in radiation-treated women. Beginning 2 years after randomization, the annual non-breast cancer mortality rate was 21.2% higher in women treated with radiation.
This increased mortality "appeared chiefly to involve an excess of vascular deaths, perhaps due to inadvertent irradiation of the coronary, carotid or other major arteries," the authors write.
Overall, the 20-year survival rate was 37.1% in women treated with radiation and 35.9% in controls.
Based on 20-year survival, "There's a modest benefit [of radiation] for younger women with node-positive disease under age 50," Dr. Collins said. "For women who are at low risk of local recurrence...any benefit is small, less than 1%."
According to Dr. Collins, for older women with node-positive cancer, deciding whether the benefits of radiation outweigh the hazards is difficult.
But in the report, the researchers state that if radiation techniques, including ones that reduce carotid and intrathoracic exposure "can be shown to yield most of the benefit while avoiding most of the hazard, 20-year survival could be moderately improved in a wider range of patients."
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. John M. Kurtz, of University Hospital in Geneva, Switzerland, notes that the radiation techniques used today differ greatly from those in the studies included in the review.
Despite the differences and the lower overall mortality associated with radiation in the review, Dr. Kurtz concludes that "the results of the overview should be considered good news for radiotherapy, since they firmly establish the reductions attainable in the risks of total recurrence...and breast cancer mortality."
He notes that the risk of vascular morbidity can probably be reduced by refinements in radiation technique.
However, Dr. Kurtz believes that the results of this meta-analysis "should not dissuade clinicians from continuing to favor conservation surgery and to provide patients with the advantages of breast irradiation with tangential photon beams, which have not been clearly implicated as a cause of vascular mortality."
-------- us nuc weapons
Ex-defense officials oppose missile plan
Chicago Sun-Times
May 19, 2000
BY ROBERTO SURO WASHINGTON POST
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/miss19.html
WASHINGTON--Three prominent former Pentagon officials who served in Democratic administrations are breaking ranks with President Clinton on missile defense, urging him to shelve his current proposal as expensive, unworkable and unnecessarily alienating to Russia.
The former officials are embracing instead an idea most forcefully promoted by conservative Republicans: Develop ships with advanced interceptor missiles that could be parked off the coast of North Korea, or other so-called rogue states.
Writing in the summer issue of the journal Foreign Policy, John Deutch and John White, who both served as deputy secretaries of defense under Clinton, and Harold Brown, who was Jimmy Carter's defense secretary, warned the president against moving forward too quickly with his missile shield.
Clinton is due to decide this fall whether to proceed with construction of a system comprised of a powerful targeting radar and 100 interceptor missiles based in Alaska. Flight tests and other assessments would continue even as the system is put together. The timing was dictated by intelligence estimates projecting that North Korea would be able to fire a missile at the United States by 2005.
Echoing concerns raised by a variety of Pentagon officials and defense experts, the former officials said, "We conclude that the development and testing of the system is not mature enough for the United States to make a confident deployment decision this year."
Both critics and defenders of the Alaska-based system agree that it faces vast technical difficulties because it would attempt to intercept enemy warheads high in space where they can easily be disguised among decoys. The former officials said that it would be "cheaper and technically less risky" to build a ship-based system that would fire at the "boost phase" when a warhead is still attached to a big flaming rocket that provides an easier target. Such a system could be developed quickly out of existing weapons, the officials said.
Finally, Deutch, Brown and White argue that a naval system aimed specifically at North Korea might be easier for the Russian government to accept than the Alaska-based system, which Moscow has rejected as a threat to its own nuclear deterrent and a blatant violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballisitic Missile Treaty.
The former officials contend that the limited system they propose "arguably would not violate the ABM Treaty." Failure to reach an understanding with Russia over the treaty, the officials said, "would worsen bilateral relations just as Russia's progress toward democratization and a market economy is especially fragile."
---
Foes poke holes in idea of missile defense system
San Francisco Examiner
00/05/19
By Keay Davidson OF THE EXAMINER STAFF
mailto:jdavid2355@aol.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/19/nuclear.dtl
A proposed national "shield" against enemy missiles wouldn't work, would waste tens of billions of dollars and might even trigger an accidental nuclear war, opponents say.
The proposed National Missile Defense "would almost surely start a new arms race," charged former Sen. Alan Cranston at a press conference held by foes of the proposed $60billion project.
Inauguration of the proposed defense system -- an array of rockets, satellites and ground- and air-based sensors -- could ironically be "very damaging to our security," partly by encouraging China to enlarge its small nuclear arsenal to boost its chances of penetrating the shield, veteran arms control negotiator and Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. said at the press conference at the World Affairs Council on Sutter Street.
The press conference was called by the Global Security Institute of San Francisco, an activist group that advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. Cranston, who represented California in the Senate from 1969 to 1993, is president of the institute, whose board of advisors includes former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
The defense system would be a waste of money partly because an enemy could easily evade it -- say, by delivering a nuclear weapon via a cruise missile that flies too low to be detected by radar or intercepted by rocket, said famed physicist Wolfgang Panofsky, former director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in Palo Alto.
Also, the defense system would have to be incredibly reliable to fulfill its mission, Panofsky said. Because of the explosive might of nuclear weapons, if only "20 percent of the other guys' weapons come through (the shield), it will be an unprecedented disaster."
President Clinton recently said he plans to decide by this autumn whether to deploy the defense system. It would supposedly track and shoot down incoming ballistic missiles before they could detonate their nuclear warheads.
The Air Force is conducting tests by launching rockets in an effort to shoot down bogus "enemy missiles." Even missile-defense buffs acknowledge that the test results have been mixed at best. Critics claim that the tests prove a full-scale system wouldn't work, and that the tests do not realistically simulate possible missile engagements.
The system is a smaller descendant of President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, popularly known as the "Star Wars" project. The Reagan project intended to protect against a sneak missile attack by the Soviet Union.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, missile defense advocates have pushed for a less ambitious system -- such as one that is able to guard against small-scale accidental launches or limited assaults by so-called rogue states like North Korea.
The institute held the press conference to publicize the release of the "White Paper on National Missile defense," prepared by the Lawyers Alliance for World Security in Washington, D.C. The group is run by Graham, whose three-plus decades of public service include working as Clinton's special representative for arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament from 1994 to 1997.
Graham noted that the United States has contemplated various missile-defense schemes for four decades. The Nixon administration built a small system in the early 1970s, but it was soon dismantled.
Both now and then, missile-defense planning has been plagued by similar concerns -- for example, the fear of "countermeasures." Graham pointed out that during a deliberate missile assault, an enemy could launch "decoy" or dummy targets, such as balloons, which would flood U.S. radar screens with false signals and fool anti-missile forces.
He suggested that popular support for missile defenses stems from many Americans' nostalgia for a now-vanished age, a century past, when the nation was protected from foreign assault by the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
"There is a belief by some, almost an ideological belief, in the value of (missile) defenses whether they work or not," Graham said.
---
Anti-missile supporters and foes see different things
Alabama Live
05/19/2000
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/May2000/14-e31298.html
WASHINGTON - In a recent science-fiction novel, the lead character has surgery on his eyes to make the world look like a 1940s-era black-and-white detective movie.
He lives in a harsh futuristic society, but that isn't what he wants to see, so he opts for the comforts of old movie sets and scenes.
Lots of people in Washington these days seem to have had a similar kind of surgery, particularly when it comes to the hot political topic of missile defenses.
Space & technology news
That issue has always brought out opposing opinions, but they're heating up now that President Clinton is coming closer to deciding whether to start putting that system in the field.
Clinton is supposed to make that decision this summer or early fall, after the National Missile Defense program goes through its third intercept test, currently slated for the end of June.
Everybody knows that deadline is coming up. Hardly anybody agrees on what it means for the country.
Many proponents on the right seem to have had eye surgery to make the world look like the Cold War is still happening.
White House officials are trying to negotiate with Russia to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow the Pentagon to begin fielding that system, if that's what he decides to do.
Some GOP members in Congress, however, want to scrap that key arms control treaty entirely and let the military build a more capable defense system, complete with space-based lasers and whatever other kind of technology comes along.
Some, like Sens. Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, have warned the White House they will oppose any efforts to amend a treaty that they want to kill outright.
They seem to have their eyes set to the mid-1980s, when the Reagan administration wanted to build a leak-proof missile shield that could repel even a large Soviet attack.
The White House does not see that kind of world at all. It sees threats from North Korea and maybe Iran and Iraq, and that's about it. The missile defense it wants to install (which is being handled largely by the Army in Huntsville) is aimed at knocking down just a few incoming missiles.
Actually, the White House has come to see this threat only recently. Just a few years ago, administration officials considered any threat to be 15 years away. Some revised intelligence estimates moved that timetable up considerably.
Opponents of the missile defense system see something else. They, too, see a Cold War, but it's not the old one. They fear a new arms race will erupt if the United States insists on moving ahead with a defense system.
They have complained that the missile threat is vastly overstated, as are the capabilities of the system that's supposed to defend against it. The system isn't being adequately tested and will be easily fooled by decoys, according to a new report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
''With so few tests planned before the deployment decision, there will be insufficient information to determine whether the system is reliable and effective,'' says another new report on the program, this one produced by the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers and the Council for a Livable World Education Fund.
Russian officials wear glasses that see a little bit of everything. They see no threat from North Korea, but they do see the potential for an arms race if the United States builds the shield.
They also see a return to the ''Star Wars'' days of the 1980s, because they don't believe America will be satisfied with a limited defense system.
---
Secret U.S. Report Says Missile Defense Plan Poses Global Peril
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, May 19, 2000
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/05/19/MN87342.DTL
http://www.latimes.com/news/asection/20000519/t000047344.html
Washington -- The U.S. intelligence community is writing a secret report warning the Clinton administration that construction of a national missile defense system could trigger a wave of destabilizing events around the world and possibly endanger relations with European allies, a U.S. intelligence official said yesterday.
The new National Intelligence Estimate will sketch an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects from the proposed U.S. deployment that would include a sharp buildup of strategic and medium-range nuclear-armed missiles by China, India and Pakistan and the further spread of missile technology in the Middle East.
A supplement to the highly classified report also will note that the threat of attack from North Korea has eased since last fall, when Pyongyang effectively froze its ballistic missile testing program in response to U.S. overtures.
Outside critics long have argued that the proposed national missile defense could backfire and actually diminish national security and global stability. But the CIA-led analysis and updated threat assessment is the first official evaluation of how the system could generate dangerous new threats.
The administration has pledged to decide this fall whether to proceed with an initial base of 100 ``interceptor'' missiles in Alaska, backed by ground-based phased radar stations and satellite-based infrared sensors, in a system designed to shield the continental United States from a limited missile attack.
Proponents of the system argue that North Korea, Iran or Iraq may threaten U.S. territory with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Critics argue that the threat is exaggerated, that the anti-missile technology is unproven and that deployment would undermine crucial nonproliferation regimes.
The intelligence official said Russia and China both would increase proliferation, including ``selling countermeasures for sure'' to such nations as North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Moreover, the official said, India is deemed likely to increase its nuclear-armed missile force if it detects a sharp buildup by China, its neighbor and longtime rival. That, in turn, probably would spur Pakistan, India's arch-enemy, to increase its own nuclear strike force, the official said.
Michael O'Hanlin, who tracks the missile defense issue at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that, however dramatic it may sound, a domino-style nuclear arms buildup would be a lesser threat to the United States than China's potential willingness to develop and sell missile defense countermeasures to countries such as North Korea.
``If they do that, it could defeat the entire purpose of the national missile defense,'' he said.
Further afield, the intelligence official said, America's allies in Europe and NATO could be angered if the United States is seen to be walling itself off from its allies under an anti-missile shield.
The White House requested the intelligence estimate as part of its decision-making review. The analysis is to be delivered next month.
In related developments yesterday:
-- Theodore A. Postol, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and leading critic of the proposed system, said that data brought to light by a Southern California whistle-blower proves that the Pentagon's proposed anti-missile system will not work and called for an investigation.
-- The Pentagon announced that a decisive test of the missile-defense system has again been delayed. The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization had planned to conduct the test on June 26, but late last month the project's managers discovered a wiring problem in the interceptor missiles to be tested, officials said. Because of required repairs, the scheduled test has now been pushed back at least another week and perhaps longer, officials said.
---
CNuclear Powers to Give Firmer Disarmament Pledge
Friday May 19 3:27 PM ET
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Criticized for paying lip service to nuclear disarmament, the five main nuclear powers have pledged ``an unequivocal undertaking'' to eliminate atomic weapons but avoided setting any timetables to do so.
Agreement on that key provision was reached hours before a month-long conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was to complete work late on Friday.
The meeting is to set goals for the 187 signatories to the 30-year-old NPT, the cornerstone of arms reduction treaties. The session is the first since the nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China -- convinced the rest of the world in 1995 to extend the treaty indefinitely in exchange for commitments toward disarmament.
With the main nuclear powers, in effect, having veto rights over a final text, timetables for disarmament measures had little chance of approval.
``But it is a first that the nuclear weapons states have committed to the total elimination of their arsenals,'' Felicity Hill, a disarmament expert with the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, told a news conference.
She and Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute, an arms control research group, praised the text for benchmarks that delegates can review over the next five years.
Those include a call to reduce tactical as well as strategic nuclear arms, to reveal how many bombs the nuclear states had and to cut the number of warheads on alert.
Jean McSorley of Greenpeace international said, however, that the document contained more words than action. She called the effort ``another face-off between countries who want the weapons states to abide by legally binding commitments and those who want to maintain their nuclear arsenals.''
Moscow and Washington are thought to have more than 30,000 strategic, tactical or stockpiled nuclear weapons between them. All five have thousands of warheads on hair-trigger alert.
The conference also calls or Washington and Moscow to implement fully the START II treaty that would cut long-range nuclear warheads from 6,000 to 3,500 on each side.
Non-nuclear states have harshly criticized the United States and Russia for moving far too slowly in cutting their arsenals over the past five years.
In response, the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China issued a statement on May 8 promising an ``unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons.''
Nuclear Weapons Elimination 'Obligation,' Not 'Goal'
But an influential group of moderate states, which two years ago organized a ``New Agenda Coalition,'' dismissed that. Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden said the total elimination of nuclear weapons was an obligation under the treaty and not an ``ultimate goal.''
Consequently, the five agreed on Thursday to ``an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all states parties are committed'' under the NPT.
Darach MacFhionnbhairr, Ireland's chief negotiator, said the coalition's agenda ``has become the agenda of this conference.'' He expected the final document to give a ``new life and dimension to the treaty'' it had not enjoyed in 30 years.
MacFhionnbhairr also believed that delegates, at a minimum, had been able to address issues that had hitherto been the preserve of NATO and nuclear weapons states.
Among the main nuclear weapon countries, only China has renounced a first-use strategy, and is holding up one paragraph of the document in an effort to include a reference to it.
Not mentioned in the text is the national missile defense program the United States intends to deploy against incoming missiles from so-called ``rogue states.'' Nearly every country in the world believes the U.S. cure is worse than the threat and could spur Russia and China to replenish its arsenals.
The U.N. undersecretary-general for disarmament, Jayantha Dhanapala, said, however, that the U.S. program was ``the invisible ghost'' of the conference, with Russia attempting to insert the code words ``strategic stability'' into every section.
Israel, which along with India, Pakistan and Cuba, has not signed the treaty, was singled out for the first time in a section on the Middle East, although in milder language than Egypt wanted.
The conference is expected to agree to appoint a special representative to ``conduct discussions'' with Israel, which has an undeclared nuclear capability, about joining the treaty.
Israel is now the only country in the Middle East that has not allowed its nuclear facilities to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
---------
Nuclear Panic Brings Surprise Deal
NPT Meetings Conclude with Unexpected Consensus
Press Advisory 19 May 2000
UNITED NATIONS, MAY 19 - The worldÕs nuclear-armed powers are moving slowly on nuclear disarmament, driven in large part by a fear that they are losing control of the bomb.
Not only are the nuclear powers squabbling about their own plans for nuclear forces, they also have failed to stop new nuclear powers from emerging. Nuclear war is actually more thinkable today than in the past decade, following nuclear testing and build-ups by India and Pakistan. The nuclear weapons states themselves, in part because of the U.S. drive to build an anti-missile missile network that threatens to start a new arms race, are arguing about how they handle their own strategic relations. Russia is showing a re-found enthusiasm for nuclear weapons, and China continues its modernization efforts.
With a strong kick from their non-nuclear partners, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States grudgingly have agreed to an agenda for incremental change under the 187-member Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The steps taken during the four-week conference here to review successes and setbacks during the five years since the treaty was made permanent were only baby steps to be sure. In fact, the final document could be seen as a retreat from some of the strong measures proposed earlier by a coalition of anti-nuclear countries: for example, a timetable for disarmament initiatives and a requirement that nuclear powers document their steps toward disarmament during the next five years was dropped.
The five nuclear havesÓ would not agree to tough language and measures, and gradually whittled the text to meet their desires to maintain their arsenals for reasons of promoting international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security.Ó They rejected concerns expressed in earlier drafts about the 35,000 nuclear weapons that remain on hair-trigger alert, and would not pledge to never use nuclear weapons first in a battle. In fact, even the best language emanating from the NPT conference does not constitute a blueprint for action. The paper is full of shouldsÓ, urgesÓ and oughts.Ó
Still, even baby steps toward a more secure planet are something to be smiled at. The concepts agreed at the review conference can be considered seeds for future progress, provided that supporters of non-proliferation and disarmament can maintain a concerted effort to nurture the Nuclear-Weapon States along.
The conferees agreed there should be an unequivocal undertaking by the Nuclear-Weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament.Ó
They collectively called for the opening of global negotiations aimed at banning nuclear weapons, as well as banning tests; and the pursuit of a global treaty to ban military production of radioactive material.
Russia and the United States were urged to implement the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II) and a follow-on START III while preserving and strengthening the [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.Ó In addition, the countries agreed the Nuclear-Weapon States should consider new unilateral cuts in their arsenals and moves to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons.Ó
Other new areas addressed include:
¥ Developing verification capabilities to provide assurance of complianceÓ with agreements;
¥ Making nuclear weapons capabilities and agreements more transparent;Ó making progress irreversible,Ó for example by cutting up rockets and making plutonium fuel unusable; and,
¥ Agreeing to a progress report for future review conferences, with the next opportunity 2002.
The conferees further reaffirmed that the strict observance of the provisions of the treaty remains central to achieving the shared objectives of preventing, under any circumstances, the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and preserving the treatyÕs vital contribution to peace and security.Ó
Overall, the conference has provided a prototype agenda for nationÕs to pursue. Attention must now turn to NATO, whose foreign ministers will meet next week. These ministers will be expected to begin to put this program into there military strategy.
----
Missile Shield Analysis Warns of Arms Buildup
Defense: U.S. system could lead other nuclear powers to enhance arsenals, spread technology, report says.
By BOB DROGIN, TYLER MARSHALL,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
Friday, May 19, 2000
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20000519/t000047344.html
WASHINGTON--The U.S. intelligence community is writing a secret report warning the Clinton administration that construction of a national missile defense could trigger a wave of destabilizing events around the world and possibly endanger relations with European allies, a U.S. intelligence official said Thursday. The new National Intelligence Estimate will sketch an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects from the proposed U.S. deployment that would include a sharp buildup of strategic and medium-range nuclear missiles by China, India and Pakistan and the further spread of missile technology in the Middle East. A supplement to the highly classified report will also note that the threat of attack from North Korea has eased since last fall, when Pyongyang effectively froze its ballistic-missile testing program in response to U.S. overtures. Outside critics have long argued that the proposed national missile defense could backfire and actually diminish national security and global stability. But the CIA-led analysis and updated threat assessment are the first official evaluation of how the system could generate new threats. The administration has pledged to decide this fall whether to proceed with an initial base of 100 "interceptor" missiles in Alaska, backed by ground-based phased radar stations and satellite-based infrared sensors, in a system designed to shield the continental United States from a limited missile attack. Proponents of the system argue that North Korea, Iran or Iraq may threaten U.S. territory with intercontinental ballistic missiles someday. Critics argue that the threat is exaggerated, that the antimissile technology is unproved and that deployment would undermine crucial arms control and nonproliferation regimes. CIA analysts believe that Russia would accept U.S. arguments that no system could protect against the number of missiles Moscow could launch and that its deterrent thus would be preserved. But China has only 20 CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missiles in vulnerable silos, and the analysts say that, after a U.S. deployment, Beijing would conclude that it had lost its deterrent force--and act accordingly. "We can tell the Russians that [the missile defense] won't affect the viability of their deterrent force," the intelligence official said. "I don't know how we can say that to the Chinese with a straight face."
If the U.S. system is built, the CIA believes, China would install multiple independent nuclear warheads on its missiles for the first time in an effort to overwhelm any missile shield. Beijing has possessed the technology for more than a decade but has not used it so far. In addition, Beijing is deemed likely to build several dozen mobile truck-based DF-31 missiles, which it first tested last year, to create a more survivable force. It also is likely to add such countermeasures as booster fragmentation, low-power jammers, chaff and simple decoys to confuse or evade U.S. interceptors. The intelligence official said that Russia and China both would increase proliferation, including "selling countermeasures for sure" to such nations as North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Moreover, the official said, India is deemed likely to increase its nuclear missile force if it detects a sharp buildup by China, its neighbor and longtime rival. That, in turn, likely would spur Pakistan, India's archenemy, to increase its own nuclear strike force, the official said. Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft called such a scenario "plausible" and expressed concern about its possible implications. "We ought to think whether we want the Chinese to change their very minimalist strategy," he said in a telephone interview.
"I'm not sure what the answer is, but this is certainly one of the possible consequences that, in a sense, is more serious than the Russian reaction might be."
The Likelihood of a Domino Effect Other specialists said that, while it is likely China would move to increase its intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal--now thought to be about 20 strong--it is questionable whether India and Pakistan would follow suit. "China has had a strategic capability for a long time relative to India, and India has hardly gone on a missile arms race to counter it," noted John E. Peters, an arms control specialist at Rand Corp., a Santa Monica-based think tank. Michael O'Hanlin, who tracks the missile defense issue at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, argued that, however dramatic it may sound, a domino-style nuclear arms buildup would be a lesser threat to the United States than China's potential willingness to develop and sell missile defense countermeasures to countries like North Korea. Arms control specialists have expressed strong concern that the missile defense system as designed would be incapable of overcoming relatively cheap and easy-to-deploy countermeasures, such as clusters of decoys. "If they do that, it could defeat the entire purpose of the national missile defense," O'Hanlin said. "That is the scenario that's very important." Further afield, the intelligence official who outlined the report said, America's allies in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could be angered if the United States is seen to be walling itself off from its allies with an antimissile shield.
N. Korea's Test Program Frozen The updated threat assessment notes that North Korea has frozen its program to test an intercontinental ballistic missile--the Taepo-Dong 2--since the administration proposed relaxing economic and diplomatic sanctions last year. The missile still could be tested on short notice, the official said, and related tests of the system's electronics, pumps, tanks and other equipment are still going on. CIA analysts, who warned last year that Iran may try to test an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2010, have detected little progress in Tehran's program. "We're not seeing some of the things we expected," the official said. "We're not seeing the threat advance." The White House requested the intelligence estimate as part of its decision-making review. The analysis, to be delivered next month, presents two different scenarios of how other nations are likely to react to a U.S. deployment. The first is based on the premise that Russia agrees to U.S. demands to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty of 1972 to allow a missile shield. The second assesses the effect if Russia refuses and Washington simply abandons the arms control process, as many Republicans have demanded. At the moment, Russia and China are the only potential adversaries capable of hitting the United States with nuclear missiles. Russia has about 1,000 strategic missiles and 4,500 warheads. The report pointedly declines to describe North Korea and other hostile states as "rogue" nations, since the argot suggests that their leaders are irrational. "The term rogue state almost predisposes you in favor of" the missile defense system, the intelligence official said. Moreover, the report warns that the missile defense shield would not protect Americans against what the official called "more accurate, more reliable and much cheaper" ways of delivering chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. These include ship-launched missiles, suitcase bombs and other covert means. "The joke here is, if you want to bring a nuclear weapon into the United States, just hide it in some drugs," the official said.
----
Chairman goes nuclear
Washington Times
May 19, 2000
Inside the Ring Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200051922399.htm
Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew his top last week following a report in The Washington Times that the military service chiefs and the commander of U.S. nuclear forces are opposing further strategic nuclear cuts - cuts proposed by Moscow and favored by the White House.
Gen. Shelton put the word out inside the Joint Staff that he wants "the head" of whoever disclosed internal discussions about the strategic nuclear force that took place inside the Pentagon's secret conference room known as "the tank." A search for the official, dubbed a "witch hunt" for the source, is said to be under way.
Adm. Richard Mies, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, based at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., informed the chiefs during one secret session that he opposes cutting U.S. nuclear warhead levels below 2,500 - the level agreed to in preliminary U.S.-Russian arms talks.
The four-star admiral explained that the United States would not be able to carry out its nuclear deterrence and war-fighting mission with less. The mission is outlined in the Single Integrated Operating Plan, or SIOP.
---
Proposed Junior Star Wars
A Threat to U.S. Security Defense missile system would hurt progress in nuclear weapons reductions
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, May 19, 2000
J.D. Jackson, Andrew M. Sessler
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/05/19/ED42385.DTL
FOR THREE DECADES, the United States and the Soviet Union -- and now Russia -- have been making halting progress in the mutual reduction of nuclear ballistic missiles. Now Bill Clinton and influential leaders in Congress are moving to jeopardize that progress.
The actual destruction of missiles has been slow, but the recent ratification of the Start II Treaty by the Russian Duma gives reason for hope for continued movement toward safer, if still excessive, numbers of missiles on both sides. We must keep assisting, pressuring and cajoling Russia to continue the reductions. Given the still fragile democracy there, it is irresponsible to ignore the potential future nuclear threat.
But President Clinton is scheduled to decide this year on the proposed National Missile Defense system, a.k.a. Junior Star Wars, with an initial deployment of 100 defensive missiles in Alaska to protect against hypothetical attacks from ``rogue'' states such as North Korea. Congressional leaders, meanwhile, are critical of the administration for dragging its feet. They are demanding that the long-standing Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty be abolished so that the United States can adopt the proposed National Missile Defense system. In addition, Congress wants to drastically change the scope to defend against Russian missiles. Recently, we learned that the Clinton administration was talking secretly with the Russians on ``reinterpreting'' the ABM treaty, signed by President Nixon in 1972.
Never mind that the research and development on the National Missile Defense system has yet to demonstrate its capability to strike down incoming missiles. Never mind that a recent report by a panel of knowledgeable experts from the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argued that simple countermeasures by an enemy could confound the system, even if the carefully orchestrated tests of the defense system later this year are successful.
Clinton and both Democrats and Re publicans in Congress are playing politics on the issue and are in danger of compromising the security of the United States, not enhancing it. Pushing forward on the defense system will lead to greater instability and increased danger of an accidental or erroneous nuclear catastrophe. Whatever the alarmists say, the threat from rogue states pales in comparison to the risk of our destruction by Russia's nuclear arsenal.
On the face of it, the National Missile Defense system violates the ABM treaty; Russia -- and more recently China -- is alarmed. To calm Russian fears, the Clinton administration, during talks with the Russians, argued that the initial phase of the National Missile Defense system is a ``modification'' rather than an abrogation of the ABM treaty. In exchange, we are offering an understanding that the Russians can retain up to 1,000 nuclear ballistic missiles in perpetuity and can continue their posture of ``launch on warning.'' Reducing the numbers of missiles to far below 1,000 on both sides is in our national interest.
``Launch on warning'' is dangerous in the extreme. This doctrine is based on the notion that a nation must launch its own missiles in retaliation before they are destroyed by the enemy's incoming first strike. The Russian early warning radars and satellites are deteriorating through lack of funds for maintenance and improvement. With paranoia prompted by a U.S. missile defense system and increasingly unreliable equipment, spurious signals from a flock of geese or some weather balloons could be interpreted as incoming missiles from the United States, causing a retaliatory launch of real Russian missiles toward the United States, with catastrophic consequences.
So why are both Congress and the administration willing to trade our strong negotiating position on reducing Russian nuclear missiles for a costly and poorly conceived defense against an imagined threat? Domestic political advantage? Whatever the reasons, the National Missile Defense system is surely a bad bet. Our best approach is to continue vigorously the reduction of nuclear armaments at home and abroad.
J.D. Jackson is professor emeritus of physics at UC Berkeley; Andrew M. Sessler is a senior scientist at and former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
---
Secret U.S. Report Says Missile Defense Plan Poses Global Peril
by Bob Drogin and Tyler Marshall
Friday, May 19, 2000
Los Angeles Times
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051900-02.htm
WASHINGTON--The U.S. intelligence community is writing a secret report warning the Clinton administration that construction of a national missile defense could trigger a wave of destabilizing events around the world and possibly endanger relations with European allies, a U.S. intelligence official said Thursday.
The new National Intelligence Estimate will sketch an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects from the proposed U.S. deployment that would include a sharp buildup of strategic and medium-range nuclear missiles by China, India and Pakistan and the further spread of missile technology in the Middle East.
A supplement to the highly classified report will also note that the threat of attack from North Korea has eased since last fall, when Pyongyang effectively froze its ballistic-missile testing program in response to U.S. overtures.
Outside critics have long argued that the proposed national missile defense could backfire and actually diminish national security and global stability. But the CIA-led analysis and updated threat assessment are the first official evaluation of how the system could generate new threats.
The administration has pledged to decide this fall whether to proceed with an initial base of 100 "interceptor" missiles in Alaska, backed by ground-based phased radar stations and satellite-based infrared sensors, in a system designed to shield the continental United States from a limited missile attack.
Proponents of the system argue that North Korea, Iran or Iraq may threaten U.S. territory with intercontinental ballistic missiles someday. Critics argue that the threat is exaggerated, that the antimissile technology is unproved and that deployment would undermine crucial arms control and nonproliferation regimes.
CIA analysts believe that Russia would accept U.S. arguments that no system could protect against the number of missiles Moscow could launch and that its deterrent thus would be preserved. But China has only 20 CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missiles in vulnerable silos, and the analysts say that, after a U.S. deployment, Beijing would conclude that it had lost its deterrent force--and act accordingly.
"We can tell the Russians that [the missile defense] won't affect the viability of their deterrent force," the intelligence official said. "I don't know how we can say that to the Chinese with a straight face."
If the U.S. system is built, the CIA believes, China would install multiple independent nuclear warheads on its missiles for the first time in an effort to overwhelm any missile shield. Beijing has possessed the technology for more than a decade but has not used it so far.
In addition, Beijing is deemed likely to build several dozen mobile truck-based DF-31 missiles, which it first tested last year, to create a more survivable force. It also is likely to add such countermeasures as booster fragmentation, low-power jammers, chaff and simple decoys to confuse or evade U.S. interceptors.
The intelligence official said that Russia and China both would increase proliferation, including "selling countermeasures for sure" to such nations as North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Moreover, the official said, India is deemed likely to increase its nuclear missile force if it detects a sharp buildup by China, its neighbor and longtime rival. That, in turn, likely would spur Pakistan, India's archenemy, to increase its own nuclear strike force, the official said.
Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft called such a scenario "plausible" and expressed concern about its possible implications.
"We ought to think whether we want the Chinese to change their very minimalist strategy," he said in a telephone interview. "I'm not sure what the answer is, but this is certainly one of the possible consequences that, in a sense, is more serious than the Russian reaction might be."
The Likelihood of a Domino Effect
Other specialists said that, while it is likely China would move to increase its intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal--now thought to be about 20 strong--it is questionable whether India and Pakistan would follow suit.
"China has had a strategic capability for a long time relative to India, and India has hardly gone on a missile arms race to counter it," noted John E. Peters, an arms control specialist at Rand Corp., a Santa Monica-based think tank.
Michael O'Hanlin, who tracks the missile defense issue at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, argued that, however dramatic it may sound, a domino-style nuclear arms buildup would be a lesser threat to the United States than China's potential willingness to develop and sell missile defense countermeasures to countries like North Korea. Arms control specialists have expressed strong concern that the missile defense system as designed would be incapable of overcoming relatively cheap and easy-to-deploy countermeasures, such as clusters of decoys.
"If they do that, it could defeat the entire purpose of the national missile defense," O'Hanlin said. "That is the scenario that's very important."
Further afield, the intelligence official who outlined the report said, America's allies in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could be angered if the United States is seen to be walling itself off from its allies with an antimissile shield.
N. Korea's Test Program Frozen
The updated threat assessment notes that North Korea has frozen its program to test an intercontinental ballistic missile--the Taepo-Dong 2--since the administration proposed relaxing economic and diplomatic sanctions last year.
The missile still could be tested on short notice, the official said, and related tests of the system's electronics, pumps, tanks and other equipment are still going on.
CIA analysts, who warned last year that Iran may try to test an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2010, have detected little progress in Tehran's program. "We're not seeing some of the things we expected," the official said. "We're not seeing the threat advance."
The White House requested the intelligence estimate as part of its decision-making review.
The analysis, to be delivered next month, presents two different scenarios of how other nations are likely to react to a U.S. deployment.
The first is based on the premise that Russia agrees to U.S. demands to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty of 1972 to allow a missile shield. The second assesses the effect if Russia refuses and Washington simply abandons the arms control process, as many Republicans have demanded.
At the moment, Russia and China are the only potential adversaries capable of hitting the United States with nuclear missiles. Russia has about 1,000 strategic missiles and 4,500 warheads.
The report pointedly declines to describe North Korea and other hostile states as "rogue" nations, since the argot suggests that their leaders are irrational.
"The term rogue state almost predisposes you in favor of" the missile defense system, the intelligence official said.
Moreover, the report warns that the missile defense shield would not protect Americans against what the official called "more accurate, more reliable and much cheaper" ways of delivering chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. These include ship-launched missiles, suitcase bombs and other covert means.
"The joke here is, if you want to bring a nuclear weapon into the United States, just hide it in some drugs," the official said.
----
U.S. Adviser Berger Visits Moscow
New York Times
May 18, 2000 Filed at 3:46 p.m. EDT
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-US.html
http://www.bergen.com/morenews/russia19200005198.htm
MOSCOW (AP) -- U.S. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger met Thursday with Russian President Vladimir Putin for closed-door talks on next month's U.S.-Russia summit, seeking compromise on a mounting dispute over nuclear arms control.
Russian officials gave few details of the talks. Russian Security Council chief Sergei Ivanov called them a promising first step in broaching differences over amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
``The beginning of talks was good,'' Ivanov said after a separate meeting with Berger later Thursday, according to the Interfax news agency. ``An understanding on some key issues, including the forthcoming Russian-U.S. summit, was reached.''
Putin, who was Berger's counterpart as Russia's Security Council chief just a year ago, mentioned their ``good personal and business relations.''
``We found common language very quickly, and that helped give a strong impetus to Russian-American cooperation,'' Putin said, welcoming Berger at the start of their talks in an ornate Kremlin hall.
Berger said President Clinton ``is looking forward to his meeting in Moscow'' with Putin.
Ivanov told reporters that the meeting focused on preparations for the June summit, specifically the burgeoning disagreement over the ABM treaty.
The United States wants to modify the treaty to develop defenses against missiles that could be launched by so-called rogue states, such as North Korea. The treaty banned nationwide anti-missile systems on the assumption that the threat of mutual destruction would prevent the United States and the Soviet Union from launching a first strike.
Moscow has vehemently opposed the U.S. plan to develop missile defenses, saying it would make Russian nuclear arsenals ineffective. It has dismissed U.S. arguments that the new system would be unable to fend off a massive missile attack of the kind Russia is capable of launching.
Putin and Berger also discussed the planned START III treaty that would further slash U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons and other nuclear nonproliferation issues, Ivanov said.
The Russian parliament recently approved START II, which would roughly halve U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to some 3,500 warheads each. Putin says he wants further deep cuts in START III, but has warned Moscow would abandon all arms agreements if the United States violates the ABM pact.
Military analysts have speculated that Russia may bargain for concessions on START III and other issues in exchange for its agreement to modifying the ABM treaty.
---
U.S. Considered A-Bomb on Moon
Associated Press
May 18, 2000 Filed at 1:34 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Moon-Bomb.html
A secret U.S. project in the 1950s called for detonating an atom bomb on the moon as a demonstration of the nation's Cold War might, according to a physicist involved in the plan.
The project, innocuously titled ``A Study of Lunar Research Flights,'' was never carried out. But its planning included calculations by the astronomer Carl Sagan -- then a young graduate student -- of the behavior of the dust and gas generated by the blast.
Viewing the nuclear flash from Earth might have intimidated the Soviet Union and boosted Americans' confidence after the launch of Sputnik, physicist Leonard Reiffel said Wednesday. He directed the project at the former Armour Research Foundation, now part of the Illinois Institute of Technology.
``Now it seems ridiculous and unthinkable,'' said Reiffel, 72, who later served as a deputy director at NASA during the Apollo program. ``But things were remarkably tense back then.''
Sagan went on to become a worldwide celebrity for popularizing science on television. He died in 1996.
Reiffel described the plan in a letter in the May 4 issue of the scientific journal Nature.
Nature published a review of two new Sagan biographies. The author of one of the books suggested that Sagan breached security in 1959 by revealing the classified project in an application for an academic fellowship. Reiffel concurred that Sagan probably released classified information.
The exchange in the scientific journal inadvertently shines a spotlight on a period when science in the United States was greatly influenced by Cold War politics.
The U.S. space program was sputtering while the Soviet Union had launched Sputnik and a pair of lunar probes.
The Eisenhower administration considered the lunar blast as a way to reassure Americans that the Soviet threat could be countered, while demonstrating to the Kremlin that the United States had an effective nuclear deterrent.
Under the scenario, a missile carrying a small nuclear device was to be launched from an undisclosed location and travel 238,000 miles to the moon, where it would be detonated upon impact. The planners decided it would have to be an atom bomb because a hydrogen bomb would have been too heavy for the missile.
Reiffel said the nation's young space program probably could have carried out the mission by 1959, when the Air Force deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Military officials apparently abandoned the idea because of the danger to people on Earth in case of a failure. The scientists also registered concerns about contaminating the moon with radioactive material, Reiffel said.
The Air Force has declined to comment on the project, pending a review of historical records.
``There was lots of talk on the part of the Air Force about the moon being `military high ground,''' Reiffel said.
---
New Delay for Test of U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/051900russia-us-arms.html
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Pentagon announced today that a decisive test of a national missile-defense system had again been delayed, increasing pressure on the project's managers to meet the Clinton administration's timetable for deciding whether to deploy the system.
The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization had planned to conduct the test on June 26, but late last month the project's managers discovered a wiring problem in the interceptor missiles to be tested, officials said. Because of required repairs, the scheduled test has now been pushed back at least another week and perhaps longer, officials said.
The missile office has still not scheduled a new date for the test, but the Pentagon's spokesman, Kenneth H. Bacon, said today that the delay "should not have any impact whatsoever" on the Clinton administration's timetable for making a decision on whether to deploy later this year.
The test has already suffered another delay, a longer one that pushed the timing of Mr. Clinton's decision into the heart of this year's presidential campaign. The administration's plans to proceed with testing the system and deciding on the deployment of it has provoked a highly partisan debate at home and a diplomatic furor abroad.
With a decision nearing, the administration's plans have become increasingly unsettling to the Russians and the Chinese, who view it as a threat to their own strategic nuclear deterrence, as well as some allies who fear it could upset decades of arms-control negotiations.
President Clinton is scheduled to meet next month with Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, to discuss amending the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1973 to allow the construction of a limited national missile defense. Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, met with Mr. Putin in Moscow today, and while the meeting was described as friendly, Mr. Berger evidently made little progress in overcoming Russia's opposition to the system.
If the Pentagon proceeds with the test -- the fourth and final one the military has planned before Mr. Clinton is to make his decision -- an interceptor missile will be launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands toward an intercontinental ballistic missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
In the last test in January, the first of a fully integrated system of missiles, radars and sensors, the interceptor approached the incoming missile but failed to hit it.
The latest delay, has created concern among Pentagon officials. Under an agreement with the Marshall Islands to protect fishermen, the Pentagon must suspend testing for a month beginning July 12. Thus the window for testing in July has narrowed considerably.
Further delays could postpone the test until August, making it unlikely that Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen would have time to review the test data, confer with the military and make a recommendation to Mr. Clinton before the fall.
The final test has already faced considerable delays, which the project's managers said they needed to correct a problem with the infrared sensors that caused the interceptor to miss its target during January's test.
The Pentagon and the administration have come under bipartisan pressure to slow down what officials acknowledge is a compressed testing schedule. Members of both parties have said the timetable is based on political rather than technological considerations, and called for delaying the decision. But Mr. Bacon reiterated today that Mr. Cohen was determined to make a recommendation to Mr. Clinton according to schedule.
Lt. Col. Richard Lehner of the Air Force, a spokesman for the missile organization, said the problem with the latest interceptor was discovered on April 30 during a test at Lockheed Martin's plant in Sunnyvale, Calif. The problem did not involve the interceptor missile itself, but rather a transmitter used to monitor the test.
Raytheon, which is building the interceptor's warhead, repaired the problem at its plant in Tucson. Once the warhead is reattached to its booster rocket, it will be flown to Kwajalein for final test preparations.
"Hopefully, we'll get the test done before the range closes," Colonel Lehner said.
It was unclear why officials disclosed the problem nearly three weeks after it was discovered. Mr. Bacon said the project's managers did not consider it a serious setback.
-------- us politics
NEWS ANALYSIS Do the Candidate's Internationalist Leanings Mean Trouble?
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By ALISON MITCHELL
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/051900kosovo-assess.html
AUSTIN, Tex., May 18 -- With his recent statements on China trade and the deployment of American troops in Kosovo, Gov. George W. Bush has placed himself squarely in a Republican tradition of favoring internationalism and presidential supremacy in foreign policy.
But the question is how much of a challenge he would face as president from his own party, which has been increasingly fractured over foreign policy in the post-cold war era between internationalists and an isolationist wing suspicious of many foreign entanglements?
Indeed, even though the Senate today by a vote of 53-47 shelved a measure -- opposed by President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and Mr. Bush alike -- that could have terminated American military participation in Kosovo next July, it was mostly Democrats who ensured the provision's defeat.
Only 15 of the 55 Senate Republicans heeded Mr. Bush's warnings that this was a "legislative overreach" that would step on the foreign policy prerogatives of the next president. Among those who voted to keep a Kosovo withdrawal deadline was the majority leader, Trent Lott.
Moreover, this is not an isolated vote. Even though most Congressional Republicans are rallying behind President Clinton on granting normalized trade relations with China, legislation that Mr. Bush also supports, this is an issue of paramount importance to Republicans' business constituency.
Across other areas of foreign policy, where business is less of a factor, there have been a host of occasions over the past years in which Congress has declared independence from the president on foreign policy and shown a suspicion of mutlilateral engagements. Certainly the idea -- which Mr. Bush was trying to re-establish in his statement on Kosovo -- that Congress bows to the president on foreign policy has long disappeared.
In December 1998 when the United States began bombing Iraq just as the House was about to vote to impeach President Clinton, Senator Lott refused to back the military action and questioned Mr. Clinton's motives, asking whether the timing of the raids was related to the impeachment vote.
Last spring, when Mr. Clinton was acting as the leader of the NATO airstrikes on Kosovo, many Republican lawmakers opposed his policy. And in the House, Representative Tom DeLay, the majority whip who is currently rounding up votes for China trade alongside Mr. Clinton, helped engineer the House defeat of a resolution endorsing the air campaign.
Next came the Senate defeat last fall of the nuclear test ban treaty, followed by Senator Jesse Helms's floor proclamation this year that he would block approval of any treaties negotiated by Mr. Clinton.
A key question is how much of this could come back to haunt Mr. Bush.
Politically it is advantageous for him right now to look like the new Republican who is trying to rein in the excesses of Congress. In a speech last fall, he warned that the protectionist wing of his party was pursuing "a shortcut to disaster," and he called for a policy of "decidedly American internationalism." But as president he would have to show that he could really define and carry out such a policy.
Many Republicans say that Mr. Bush would not face problems from a Republican Congress -- that many of these votes across the years have stemmed not from Republican isolationismbut from the poisonous relations between Congress and Mr. Clinton.
"What this is about on the Republican side is a deep dislike and distrust for President Clinton, '' said SenatorChuck Hagel of Nebraska, one of the 15 Republicans who joined with Democrats to defeat the time limit on funds for the deployment. Mr. Hagel had reached out last week to Mr. Bush's chief foreign policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to alert the Bush campaign of the implications of pending Kosovo vote and find out where Mr. Bush stood.
Mr. Hagel said today that he thought only eight of the Senate Republicans truly reject internationalism. "If you have a President Bush," he said "you'll find all this settle down considerably in the Republican caucus next year. There will be a new found trust and confidence that he's our guy. And if our guy says it's okay to be in Kosovo, that makes somewhat of a difference."
Moreover, Mr. Bush is more in sync with Republicans in Congress on a number of foreign policy issues. He is interested in building a robust antiballistic missile defense and like Mr. Helms has said he would rather leave it up to the next president, not Mr. Clinton, to negotiate with the Russians on the issue. He did not split with Senate Republicans when they voted down the test ban treaty last year.
And when Mr. Bush called for a "distinctly American internationalism" in a major foreign policy speech last year, he said that while America must be involved in the world, "that does not mean our military is the answer to every difficult foreign policy situation -- a substitute for strategy."
Ever since the Republicans took control of Congress, Democrats have often branded such views as isolationism. And the Republicans have certainly given them fodder, such as when Representative Dick Armey, the Texas Republican who is the House majority leader, once bragged about his disinterest in foreign travel. "I've been to Europe once," he told reporters in the Capitol. "I don't have to go again."
Vice President Al Gore has also wielded the isolationist label against Mr. Bush. The vice president recently accused him of being "stuck in a cold war mindset." Stressing Mr. Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, Mr. Gore added, "One has to assume that these gaps in Governor Bush's foreign policy views and experience will be filled by the ideologies and inveterate antipathies of his party -- the right-wing, partisan isolationism of the Republican Congressional leadership."
The Republicans take umbrage at such remarks. "It is far, far from an isolationist caucus," Mr. Hagel said speaking of Senate Republicans.
But there were signs today that some Republicans are ready to flex their muscles on foreign policy no matter who is President. "I'm in the legislative branch and I'm protecting my prerogatives," said Senator Tim Hutchinson, an Arkansas Republican who voted in favor of the time limit for funding the Kosovo deployment.
He said he had confidence that Mr. Bush, as president, would immediately set a time limit for disengagement in Kosovo. But if Mr. Bush did not do so, Mr. Hutchinson said, "I think you'd see efforts to set deadlines and Congres would move to try to disengage there regardless if there's a President Gore or a President Bush."
---
RETIREMENT PLANS Benefits and Drawbacks to Bush and Gore Proposals for Overhauling Social Security
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/051900social-security.html
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- Social Security is slowly going broke, says Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, and the best way to avoid painful benefit cuts or tax increases is to establish private investment accounts through which workers could seek higher returns on their contributions to the retirement system.
Social Security is slowly going broke, says Vice President Al Gore, and the best way to avoid painful benefit cuts or tax increases is to channel money from the federal budget surplus into the retirement system.
The differences between the presidential candidates are clear enough. But behind their approaches are complicated policy and political considerations regarding the problem and the possible solutions.
How the System Works
Benefits to current retirees are paid out of payroll taxes levied on nearly all workers and their employers. Because the work force at the moment is large relative to the number of people who have retired, those taxes generate more revenue than is needed to pay benefits, a surplus of about $150 billion this year and $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
The excess revenue goes into a trust fund out of which future benefits can be paid. But the trust fund is not quite what its name implies. Rather than accumulating cash, it contains bonds issued by the federal government to the retirement system, a promise to pay back to Social Security the surplus funds when they are needed.
In the meantime, the Social Security surplus goes to other purposes. For years, the government simply spent it.
More recently, Congress and the Clinton administration have agreed to use the excess cash only to reduce the $3.5 trillion in national debt held by the public.
The Looming Problem
The current surplus in Social Security could turn to a deficit because of a demographic shift. Right now there are more than three workers paying taxes to support each Social Security recipient. By 2030, as the population ages and the baby boom generation retires, the ratio will shrink to 2 to 1.
Under projections by Social Security's trustees, payroll taxes would no longer cover benefits starting around 2015, forcing the system to begin relying in part on the interest payments from the trillions of dollars worth of bonds in the trust fund. By around 2025, the system would have begun redeeming the bonds out of general tax revenues to cover benefit payments, and by 2037 the trust fund would be exhausted.
At that point, if no changes were made, Social Security would be able to pay less than three-quarters of promised benefits.
The projections could change with the economy. Over the past few years, the date of insolvency has been pushed back to 2037 from 2029 because of economic growth that was stronger than expected.
Given that the economic assumptions underlying the projections are quite conservative, defenders of the current system say the odds are strong that Social Security will weather the next three or four decades without needing any major surgery. But the leaders of both parties say it is prudent to assume there will be a financial squeeze, and to deal with it as soon as possible.
Finding a Solution
President Clinton put an overhaul of Social Security on the table in 1998. But the two parties were unable or unwilling to reach a compromise.
There are only three basic options: Cut benefits. Increase the revenues coming into the system. Or increase the rate of return on the money coming into the system.
Some members of both parties have been willing to support benefit cuts as part of a package of changes. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, has proposed reducing cost-of-living adjustments. Representatives Jim Kolbe, Republican of Arizona, and Charles W. Stenholm, Democrat of Texas, have proposed legislation that includes an increase in the normal retirement age, which is already rising to 67 from 65, to account for further increases in life expectancy.
There has been some talk of raising or eliminating the ceiling on earnings subject to payroll taxes (currently $76,200). But most politicians have steered clear of supporting higher taxes or lower benefits. Private Accounts
In supporting private investment accounts, Mr. Bush's approach centers on increasing the return on the money coming into the system.
Mr. Bush has not provided a detailed plan. But most privatization proposals call for diverting two percentage points of the 12.4 percent payroll tax into accounts that would be owned and controlled by individuals. A worker earning $50,000 a year would have $1,000 a year going to a private account.
In return for the chance to invest the money themselves, workers would accept a lower guaranteed benefit from Social Security at retirement.
The basic idea is that the guaranteed benefit could be reduced by more than the amount diverted into the personal accounts -- but that the returns generated for each worker by Wall Street would more than make up for the difference.
The Bush campaign notes that stocks earned an average annual return, after inflation, of 7.2 percent from 1926 to 1997. By contrast, workers born after 1963 can expect on average a return from their Social Security contributions of 1.9 percent, according to Social Security statistics cited by the Bush campaign.
Private accounts would provide a start on Social Security solvency over 75 years, the standard normally used in assessing the system's health, Mr. Bush has said. He has acknowledged that other steps, like benefit cuts, would be needed to finish closing the gap, but has not said what steps he would support.
Case Against the Accounts
However strong the performance of stocks in the past, there is no assurance that they will do well in the future. And even if they do match their historical performance, there will inevitably be ups and downs along the way.
People who retire and cash out their holdings in a bull market would do far better than people who have to sell while the market is depressed. And some people would no doubt make smarter investment decisions than others. Should large numbers of people lose money in the market, there would be tremendous political pressure to bail them out.
Some portion of any investment gain might be eaten up by the administrative costs of maintaining the accounts. And to the degree that payroll taxes are going into private accounts rather than to pay benefits to current retirees, the government would have to put additional money into the system, presumably by using the Social Security surplus.
That in turn would reduce the amount of money available for debt reduction.
A diversion of two percentage points of payroll tax revenue would equal just under $1 trillion over the next decade. By not using that money for debt reduction, the government would add $300 billion to its interest bill in that period. So about $1.3 trillion of the $2.3 trillion Social Security surplus over the next 10 years would be needed to finance a private accounts plan.
The Gore Approach
Mr. Gore starts with the premise that the current system should be left more or less intact. His plan is built on the idea that there should be a way to use the current budget surplus to help Social Security down the road. While the basic idea may be simple, the way the government handles its finances makes executing it quite complicated.
Since the Social Security system cannot keep big cash reserves of its own under the government system, the vice president wants to use all of the Social Security surplus and some of the general revenue surplus to eliminate, in 13 years, the $3.5 trillion in national debt held by the public.
Eliminating the debt would leave the government better able to borrow, if necessary, later on. By putting downward pressure on interest rates, debt reduction would also stimulate economic growth, creating jobs and producing more payroll tax revenue to help keep Social Security healthy.
Starting in 2011, Mr. Gore would funnel to Social Security an amount of money equal to the annual interest savings from debt reduction -- $100 billion a year at first, growing to more than $200 billion a year by 2015. Mr. Gore says the infusion would extend Social Security's solvency to 2054 from 2037 without having to cut benefits or otherwise alter the system.
Case Against the Gore Plan
While eliminating the debt would have substantial benefits, transferring the interest savings to Social Security would be little more than a paper shuffling exercise and would still leave taxpayers on the hook to pay for the shortfall in funds.
Since Social Security cannot hold cash, the transfers would be in the form of government bonds that would be redeemed at some point out of general tax revenue. In that sense, Mr. Gore's plan would in essence transform Social Security into a welfare program, Senator Moynihan said.
Mr. Gore's plan would do nothing to address the underlying imbalance between how much the system takes in and how much it has promised to pay in benefits.
---
By the numbers, Bush
Washington Times
EDITORIAL • May 19, 2000
http://208.246.212.80/op-ed/ed-house-2000519182849.htm
After weeks of attacks against presumptive Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush, Vice President Al Gore, the likely Democratic standard-bearer, has little to show for his effort. An ABC News/Washington Post poll reveals that Mr. Bush, who trailed Mr. Gore by three percentage points in early March after each candidate had effectively won his party's nomination, now leads the vice president by five percentage points. A Pew Research Center poll also reveals that Mr. Bush has pulled ahead of Mr. Gore.
Arguably the most ominous polling developments for Mr. Gore, however, were contained in a national survey of registered voters conducted by the Los Angeles Times. That poll reflected an eight-point advantage for the Texas Republican governor over Mr. Gore in a one-on-one contest (51 percent to 43 percent) and an eight-point margin (47 percent to 39 percent) in a hypothetical race including Pat Buchanan (4 percent) of the Reform Party and Ralph Nader (3 percent) of the Green Party. It wasn't so much the bottom-line difference between the two major party candidates that was so surprising. Rather, it was the broad demographic appeal that Mr. Bush had generated and the inroads he seems to be making among core Democratic constituencies.
According to the Times poll, Mr. Bush enjoyed a commanding 21-point advantage among married voters. While decisively leading Mr. Gore among married men, as expected, Mr. Bush also received a significant majority of support among married women. Although President Clinton narrowly carried the 1996 vote of married women, who comprise two-thirds of all female voters, the Times' poll reported that Mr. Bush was leading Mr. Gore by 14 points among all married women and among married women with children, the so-called "soccer mom" cohort. So large was Mr. Bush's margin among married women that it more than canceled Mr. Gore's expected lead among single women. Indeed, Mr. Bush led Mr. Gore among all women by a margin of 48 percent to 46 percent.
Equally worrisome to Mr. Gore must be the fact that the huge, and growing, 16-point margin (55 percent to 39 percent) Mr. Bush enjoys among men comes in part from his ability to attract nearly one-fifth of self-proclaimed Democratic male voters. Among self-described independents, moreover, Mr. Bush leads by a 16-point margin. To build the eight-point snapshot lead six months before the election, Mr. Bush displayed wide-ranging appeal. Although voters 65 and older narrowly prefer Mr. Gore, Mr. Bush has built leads in all other age groups. Apart from families earning $20,000 to $40,000 per year, which are only narrowly favoring Mr. Gore, the Times poll shows Mr. Bush leading among all other income groups. And Mr. Bush has opened leads among voters at every education level, including the traditional Democratic stronghold of high school graduates.
More good news arrived at Bush headquarters recently. The governor received the endorsement of former GOP primary opponent John McCain, who promised to campaign on behalf of the GOP nominee among the independents and moderate Democrats who helped Mr. McCain win seven primaries. Thus, in addition to having virtually unified the Republican base, Mr. Bush has at the same time begun to reassemble important segments of the Republican coalition that produced five victories in the six presidential contests from 1968 through 1988. Mr. Gore has good reason to be worried.
---
THE AD CAMPAIGNS Bush's Advisers Pledge the High Road in Radio and TV Messages
New York Times
May 19, 2000
PETER MARKS
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/051900wh-bush-ads.html
AUSTIN, Tex. -- The words echo across the highly suspect political road of good intentions. "We're not going to run that kind of race," insisted Stuart Stevens, one of Gov. George W. Bush's advertising people. "Tonally, we will run another kind of race."
If the Gore campaign does get vicious, the Bush image-makers say, it will not be because the mud was slung first from Austin. "They're planning on running a mean, nasty, negative race," said Mr. Stevens's colleague, Russell Schriefer.
The view was repeated in the agency's headquarters here as if it were a mantra. "Gore has always run negative campaigns," said Mark McKinnon, the Bush camp's chief ad maker. To which Mr. Stevens added, "They would take offense if you accused them of running a positive one."
Not for nothing do the members of Maverick Media, the organization assembled for the express goal of cultivating Mr. Bush's appeal on radio and television, operate out of a basement warren of offices they call the bunker: the first steady, 30-second barrages of the general election have not even been set off yet, and already the Bush message people are crying foul.
Tactically, it is reminiscent of the primary campaign, during which the major candidates of both parties were accusing one another of running low-down, dirty commercials, when, for the most part, the spots were fairly tame.
But the pre-emptive protests may also indicate a certain jitteriness among the half-dozen principal members of the Maverick team, some of whom are working on a national presidential media campaign for the first time.
There is an inside-the-bunker air of a group of well-mannered folks who have stumbled into the toughest neighborhood in town.
In a cutthroat business, Mr. McKinnon is admired for his decency.
"He's known for running very fair campaigns," said John Weaver, who was political director for Senator John McCain's unsuccessful primary campaign.
But when the opposition consists of the likes of Carter Eskew and Robert Shrum, veteran media strategists for Vice President Al Gore who have take-no-prisoners reputations, the question arises: Does Mr. Bush need a team that plays by the Marquess of Queensberry rules, or by Mike Tyson's? Can Maverick avoid the errors made in Bill Bradley's political advertising, which never adequately answered Mr. Gore's incessant criticisms?
Mr. McKinnon, in fact, acknowledges that he would much rather paint a portrait than have to slash someone else's. "It's much more powerful and compelling to create a positive vision than it is to tear somebody down," he said.
That sensibility is reflected in many of the spots Mr. McKinnon creates for Mr. Bush, warm and fuzzy images reminiscent of the upbeat advertisements for Ronald Reagan. The McKinnon style is more documentary; the innovation Maverick introduced in the primaries was the "crash ad," filmed, edited and on the air in 24 hours.
And his spots feature lots of shimmering boilerplate: shots of Mr. Bush wading into smiling crowds, posed in dazzling sunshine with his wife, Laura, or offering his family-sampler takes on heart-tugging issues. "I believe every child can learn," he said in one education spot.
Mr. McKinnon and company know they cannot run their campaign on happy talk; indeed, alongside the sunny spots, Mr. Bush and his allies ran some of the harshest commercials of the primaries, including attack ads that portrayed Senator McCain as an enemy of the environment and breast cancer research.
And the question of tone is not their only challenge. Although Mr. Bush is an immensely likable candidate, questions about his grasp of foreign affairs and other issues could be magnified in comparisons with Mr. Gore, and some political observers wonder if Maverick will be able to fill in the gaps.
"Here's the hard thing," said Paul Begala, a former adviser to President Clinton who has known and liked Mr. McKinnon since their days together at the University of Texas. "Mark's greatest strength is style, and Bush has a style that meshes well with Mark's. In small settings Bush is very charming: the most charming politician to come down the pike since Clinton. Mark does an excellent job of capturing that. But at the end of the day there is no filter that can be put on a camera to add gray matter."
The question of depth is clearly one of the candidate's most vexing image problems. The governor's media advisers, though, maintain that such doubts about Mr. Bush exist in a land where political commentators reside, but not the voters.
As he sat in a windowless conference room ringed with television sets, the affable Mr. McKinnon would not be coaxed into a meditation on any of Mr. Bush's perceived weaknesses. If it seemed a function of a political advertising man's natural inclination to project only the bright side, it also reflected what those who know him say is Mr. McKinnon's genuine belief in Mr. Bush, a deep and abiding affection characteristic of those in the governor's inner circle.
Former Mayor Bob Lanier of Houston, for whom Mr. McKinnon made commercials in all three of his successful mayoral campaigns, says there can be only one explanation for Mr. McKinnon's signing up: "If he's supporting George Bush, it's because he thinks George Bush would make a good president."
If there are conventional routes to making commercials for this potential president, Mr. McKinnon did not take them. For one thing, he climbed the wrong ladder: he was a longtime Democratic media strategist before signing up with Mr. Bush, working on the campaigns of, among others, former Gov. Ann W. Richards of Texas and former Gov. Buddy Roemer of Louisiana.
In fact, Mr. McKinnon, a Colorado-born musician who in his younger days was invited to Nashville to write songs for Kris Kristofferson, had dropped out of politics entirely by the time he fell into a long conversation with Mr. Bush in a chance encounter at a dinner in Austin in 1997. The year before, Mr. McKinnon confessed in a most public way -- a first-person article for Texas Monthly -- that after 15 years of politics, he was burned out.
"Maybe I got tired of candidates' asking me what their firmly held convictions should be," he wrote.
"Maybe I got tired of accusing opponents of being right-wing extremists who wanted to cut Social Security benefits."
At that Austin dinner, though, Mr. McKinnon's head was turned. Mr. Bush seemed to him to evince an honest interest in education, an issue dear to Mr. McKinnon; he was making a documentary about the inspirational founder of a Houston charter school. "I was amazed, blown away, by how much attention he paid," Mr. McKinnon said of the governor, and before long he had signed up to handle media in Mr. Bush's 1998 campaign for re-election as governor.
Mr. McKinnon did not win friends among Texas Democrats for his defection; he is unfazed. "What does it say about me, my values?" he asked. "I think what attracted me to him is what is going to attract a lot of independents and Democrats. I came to the conclusion that in the end, good politics is about good people."
He also has a reputation for not going for the jugular.
"I can't recall any campaign where I've worked against him where he even got close to crossing the line," Mr. Weaver said.
That is high praise from a McCain aide, considering how aggrieved his boss felt by some of the commercials Mr. Bush ran in South Carolina.
The Bush campaign had been expecting the most intense media battering to come from the campaign of another primary-election opponent, Steve Forbes, but it was Mr. McCain who surprised Mr. Bush with the harder hitting commercials, including one in New Hampshire in which Mr. McCain said Mr. Bush's tax cuts would mostly benefit the wealthy. Some of Mr. Bush's advisers believe that their failure to answer the commercial was a major factor in their sobering early loss in New Hampshire.
But by South Carolina they had learned from their mistake. In one of the most effective strategies of the primary season, Mr. Bush was able to turn Mr. McCain's clean-campaign vows against him. In an advertisement shot at a fishing camp in South Carolina, a serious-looking Mr. Bush responded to a McCain commercial in which the senator accused the governor of twisting the truth, "like Clinton."
"Disagree with me, fine," Mr. Bush intoned in his advertisement of reply. "But do not challenge my integrity."
It was a subtle and successful lesson in the art of the double-negative commercial: suggest that an opponent was unworthy because he said something mean.
"Everywhere we ran that ad, the numbers moved," said Matthew Dowd, another member of the Maverick team.
"Mark made the best ad of the primaries when Bush looked into the camera and said, 'He compared me to Clinton,' " said Mr. Begala, now a commentator on CNBC's "Equal Time." "It gave Bush carte blanche to turn his guns on McCain."
Vast amounts of money will be spent on political commercials at all levels this year -- $600 million, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising -- and a lot of it by the Bush and Gore campaigns.
Still, Mr. McKinnon does not think the 2000 election will be decided inside the bunker.
"I just believe there are so many other facets in the campaign that are so much more important," he said. "The media, the free press, is the wind that fills the sails. The advertising acts as a rudder, to steer a little bit."
-------- genetic engineering
Europeans Learn They're Inadvertently Growing Genetically Altered Plants for Canola
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/051900sci-gm-europe.html
PARIS, May 18 -- If Europe is virtually allergic to the genetically modified seeds that are so popular with North American farmers, it got a reason this week to sneeze with fury.
Hundreds of farmers in England, France, Germany and Sweden are finding that they have unwittingly planted rapeseed oil crops for two years from bags of Canadian seed that inadvertently contained a scattering of genetically modified seeds for the plant used to make canola.
European governments have emphasized that there is no health risk from the oil produced from last year's crop or environmental risk from the plants that are now growing. Less than 1 percent of one company's seeds had bioengineered genes, meaning that just some individual plants in the millions of acres of rapeseed would be involved.
But European newspapers are referring to fields as tainted and contaminated, and environmental groups are calling for all the farmers who bought the company's seed to be tracked down and their fields burned before the crops mature and produce pollen that could blow to other plants.
The seed company, the papers say, should pay for the destroyed crops.
"This may seem extreme to Americans, but there are a lot of people in Europe who don't want to eat G.M. food under any circumstances," said Harry Hadaway of the Soil Association of Great Britain, an organic-farming group.
The company, Advanta of the Netherlands, said that it did not intend to import any modified seeds and that it had broken no laws, because none govern the genetic content of seeds.
Advanta says testing for biotech material at concentrations of less than 1 percent is technically difficult and expensive. But it has halted all its European sales of one variety of rapeseed and asked European governments to create reasonable standards that it can meet.
According to a spokesman for the company, Kees Noome, the problem was found last month, when the German government conducted random checks of seed.
Advanta is not sure what "impurity" the seeds have, Mr. Noome said, but the company presumes that it is a resistance to weed killer, a trait that is legal and sought after by many American and Canadian farmers. Advanta also presumes that the trait entered some seeds when pollen blew from other fields. The pollen, Mr. Noome said, would have to have blown "hundreds of meters," because the company "wouldn't buy seeds from a farmer whose direct neighbor grew the crop."
Even nonbiotech seeds, he added, need to be grown as far as feasible from accidental pollination, because farmers buy seeds for particular crossbred traits like disease resistance.
In Britain, the finding occurred at an awkward moment. Prince Charles lectured on the BBC this week on "the sacred trust between mankind and our Creator" and cautioned against "the artificial and uncontained transfer of genes between species of plants and animals."
In The Independent newspaper today, a text of his speech was printed near a prominent commentary that accused the prince of denigrating science and suggesting that the strictly organic methods that he uses on his farms in Cornwall could produce only enough food to feed a world of four billion people, leaving the remaining two billion to starve.
In the more conventionally testy political arena, a member of parliament called for the resignation of the agriculture minister for failing to protect the food supply against genetically modified seeds.
In France, where 1,500 acres have the Advanta seeds, the government said there was nothing that it could legally do. European regulations say only that food with more than 1 percent genetically modified content has to be labeled. A spokesman for the Confederation Paysanne, a farmers' group that opposes biotech crops, said the government was "treating citizens like imbeciles."
---
THE GOVERNOR'S SPEECH
Bush's Words to Staunchly Conservative Group Remain a Mystery
New York Times
May 19, 2000
By JIM YARDLEY
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/051900wh-gop-bush.html
HOUSTON, May 18 -- The Council for National Policy is a little known group whose members are often very well known and very conservative. There are radio personalities like Oliver L. North and James C. Dobson; religious broadcasters like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell; and lawmakers like Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Representative Dick Armey of Texas.
It is the sort of group a Republican presidential hopeful would presumably want to address, which is exactly what Gov. George W. Bush of Texas did last October when the council held a two-day conference in San Antonio. But what exactly did Mr. Bush say?
Skipp Porteous has tried to find out, though as yet without success. Mr. Porteous is national director of the Institute for First Amendment Studies, a Massachusetts-based group with about 3,000 members nationwide that tries to keep watch on the council. He regards the council as a secretive umbrella group plotting strategy for the Republican right.
The council says such talk is silly. It calls itself a nonpartisan educational foundation.
In recent years, Mr. Porteous said his group had planted a spy in several meetings.
But he found his group shut out when the council met in San Antonio.
Eager to know what Mr. Bush might say in private to conservative leaders, Mr. Porteous sent for audiotapes of the conference. The council sells audiotapes of conferences to members only, but the institute had obtained an order form from the company, Skynet Media, that handles the recording.
So when a package arrived earlier this year, Mr. Porteous thought success was at hand. But the tape of Mr. Bush's speech was not included.
Morton C. Blackwell, the council's executive director, said all speakers were asked for permission to include their remarks on the tapes and that the Bush campaign had declined.
"The Bush entourage said they preferred that the tape not go out, though I could not see any reason why they shouldn't," he said.
He added: "It was a standard speech, basically the same one. Basically everything he said, he's said before, and I've heard since."
Ari Fleischer, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said if anyone was "hoping to hear something that the governor would say that he hasn't said publicly, then they're on a wild goose chase." He declined to characterize the speech, saying, "When we go to meetings that are private, they remain private."
In fact, Mr. Fleischer said, "as far as we know, there is no tape."
But Mr. Blackwell said the Bush campaign should have a copy.
Curt Morse, president of the recording company, Skynet Media, said that he had a copy and that one was provided to the campaign after the speech.
"Maybe they lost it," he said.
He offered to make them a copy.
-------- genetics
Something About That Colorful Salmon To the Editor:
New York Times
May 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l19fis.html
Your May 14 editorial about genetically altered salmon -- "hormonally hyperactive creatures" -- brought to mind a collateral issue: the lack of regulations requiring disclosure pertaining to the feedstuffs on which farm-raised fish are grown.
I was shocked to learn from my fish seller, for example, that the "normal" farm-raised salmon I had been buying had obtained its beautiful red-orange hue from food dyes.
What other surprises lurk within the flesh of the fish that the health gurus have, of late, been so urgently urging us to consume?
ELLEN SCHNEIDER Fort Lauderdale, Fla., May 14, 2000
To the Editor:
Your May 14 editorial "Coping With Supersalmon" incorrectly emphasizes risks involved in the development of transgenic salmon.
First, fully mature transgenic salmon are no bigger than those in the wild. They simply grow faster, reaching market size in one-third to one-half the time of conventional salmon. This will enable fish farmers, who produce 95 percent of all salmon eaten in the United States, to meet increasing consumer demand without increasing production facilities or using coastal waters.
Second, the salmon, if they were to escape into the wild, could not dilute the genetic makeup of conventional salmon. The transgenic salmon are sterile.
The Food and Drug Administration, in regulating the salmon, has established strict requirements. Those using the technology must prove its efficacy, must prove that the fish swim, eat and live normally, and that they are safe for human consumption and the environment.
CARL B. FELDBAUM President, Biotechnology Industry Organization Washington, May 15, 2000
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.