Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
-------- africa
African Nations Learn How to Refuse Entry to Dangerous Chemicals
By Naftali Mungai
June 14, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2000/2000L-06-14-02.html
NAIROBI, Kenya, Delegates from 20 African countries are attending a regional awareness raising workshop here to focus on hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.
The workshop on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure mandated by the Rotterdam Convention began Tuesday in Nairobi. It is aimed at ensuring that African nations are aware that they have the legal right to be informed of any plans to ship hazardous substances that are subject to national bans or severe restrictions into their countries. They have the legal right to refuse these shipments.
International concern over the risks resulting from uncontrolled trade in extremely hazardous chemicals and pesticides led to the adoption of the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade - the Rotterdam Convention.
The legally binding treaty, adopted at Rotterdam, the Netherlands in September 1998, has now been signed by 80 countries and ratified by three.
(Photo courtesy International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT))
The Rotterdam Convention helps protect farmers, workers and consumers in developing countries from exposure to highly toxic pesticides. The treaty controls the trade in hazardous chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) used by industry and in harmful pesticides, such as lindane, parathion, DDT and aldrin, used in agriculture.
The core of the treaty is the PIC provision which states that 29 listed chemicals must not be exported from any PIC member country unless the shipment is agreed to by the importing country.
The convention legally requires exporters to notify recipient countries of exports of hazardous substances subject to national bans or severe restrictions. It is expected that more industrial chemicals and pesticides will be added to the 29 currently included in the PIC procedure.
The global market for pesticides continues to grow, with the fastest growing markets in developing countries. African farmers are increasingly using pesticides on export crops.
Workers in Malawi pack dahl lentils for export (Photo courtesy ICRISAT)
"With some 70,000 different chemicals on the market and 1,500 new ones being introduced every year, many governments are unable to monitor and manage the many potentially dangerous substances crossing their borders every day," said Klaus Toepfer, excecutive directorof the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Many chemicals and pesticides are harmful to humans, domestic animals and ecosystems. They may cause cancer or birth defects, or enter the food chain and accumulate in the tissues of people or animals. Chemicals such as asbestos which is still exported around the world, are now known to be carcinogenic.
According to UNEP, the past use and trade of these chemicals has left a legacy of lasting problems. Several PIC substances whose use has been banned and phased out in industrialized countries are still widely used in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization warns that many pesticides, such as DDT, chlordane and heptachlor, which have been banned or whose use has been severely restricted in Europe and North America, are still marketed and used in African countries. Also, many old, often highly toxic, organophosphorus pesticide formulations continue to be used in Africa because of their low price.
Pesticides are used to combat the tsetse fly. Flies like this one transmit a parasite that causes the fatal sleeping sickness, trypanosomiasis. Tsetse fly disease, or nagana, affects cattle, horses, and goats in southern and central Africa. (Photo courtesy )
The World Health Organization estimates that one million people woldwide are affected by pesticide poisoning yearly and that about 20,000 people die every year from using pesticides.
Inadequate control of imported pesticides often results in improperly labelled pesticide containers, pesticides of inferior quality, misuse and overuse of pesticides and poisoning of humans and animals.
Many countries in Africa have reported acute poisoning because highly toxic pesticide formulations cannot be handled safely.
Protective clothing is often too expensive and, in many cases, there is reluctance to use it because of the hot and humid climate in these countries.
The Rotterdam Convention aims to create a first line of defense against chemical risks by empowering governments with the information and procedures they need to monitor and control cross-border trade in these substances.
Pesticide sprayer at work (Photo courtesy Virginia Tech Pesticide Programs)
At the national level further measures are required to reduce the risks involved in the use and transport of pesticides. The challenge for global agriculture is to produce more food with less pesticides, in a sustainable way.
The PIC list includes the following hazardous pesticides: 2,4,5-T, aldrin, binapacryl, captafol, chlordane, chlordimeform, chlorobenzilate, DDT, dieldrin, dinoseb, 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB), fluoroacetamide, HCH, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mercury compounds, pentachlorophenol, toxaphene, and certain formulations of monocrotophos, methamidophos, phosphamidon, methyl-parathion, and parathion.
The industrial chemicals are: crocidolite, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polychlorinated terphenyls (PCT), and tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate.
Twelve of these chemicals - the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) - are also the subject of negotiations to minimize emissions and releases into the environment.
The ongoing negotiations also address the accumulation of unwanted and obsolete stockpiles of pesticides and toxic chemicals, particularly in developing countries. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee is focusing on a list of 12 POPs grouped into three categories:
1.Pesticide POPs: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex and toxaphene 2.Industrial chemical POPs: hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 3.POPs that are unintended byproducts of industrial processes: dioxins and furans
More information about the Rotterdam Convention is available online at: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FaoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/PIC/pichome.htm
A detailed outline of international negotiations towards managment of hazardous chemicals is online at: http://www.iisd.ca/chemical/chemicalsintro.html
----
Nuclear Winter Study
I have had some positive feedback from the Federation of American Scientists in regard to organizing a new study on the environmental/biological effects of the current global nuclear arsenals. Dr. Helen Caldicott has given me permission to use her name in connection with this proposal.
I have enclosed a copy of the letter to the new president of the FAS, which I sent last week, at the suggestion of an FAS staff member, Dr. Charles Feguson. I wil let you know any positive news in regard to my efforts.
Best wishes, and feel free to ask me any questions you like.
Steven Starr
9030 County Rd. 389
New Bloomfield, MO 65063
573-491-3687 (home)
573-875-9189 (office, Mon.-Thur., noon to 10:30 pm, CST)
shadesahoy@socket.net
6/14/00
---
Dear Dr. Kelly,
Dr. Helen Caldicott and your colleague Dr. Charles Ferguson have both suggested that I contact you, to ask for your advice and assistance in creating an updated study on the threat to the biosphere posed by current global nuclear arsenals.
More than ten years have passed since the last extensive investigations on nuclear winter were conducted (during the period 1983 - 1989). The composition of American and Russian nuclear arsenals has changed significantly since the 1980's studies, with substantial reductions occurring both in the numbers and yields of strategic weapons. Yet no one has asked: Is nuclear winter still a likely outcome should existing or projected nuclear arsenals be detonated in a major nuclear war?
Major advances in computer modeling and in the atmospheric sciences have also taken place during the last decade. One of the scientists who participated in the original TTAPS study recently told me that more accurate predictions could now be made about the atmospheric effects of nuclear war on the Northern and the Southern Hemispheres.
Perhaps the most disquieting finding of the TTAPS study was that ³Relatively large climatic effects could result even from relatively small nuclear exchanges (100 to 1000 MT) if urban areas were heavily targeted, because as little as 100 MT is sufficient to devastate and burn several hundred of the world¹s major urban centers. Such a low threshold yield for massive smoke emissions, although scenario dependent, implies that even limited nuclear exchanges could trigger severe aftereffects.² (See enclosed references.)
For example, the TTAPS study (from ³Case 14²) examined the effects of one thousand 100 kiloton warheads exploded over 100 large cities, creating a ³Class III² nuclear winter. Consider that U.S. Trident subs carry 3,072 W76/Mk4 100 kiloton warheads, which are aimed at ³urban-industrial² targets in Russia (targeting and warhead information from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan./Feb. 2000, p, 53).
Here is Sagan¹s and Turco¹s description of a Class III "Nominal" nuclear winter: "It carries in its wake significant cooling and darkening, drought, massive quantities of pyrotoxins generated, widespread radioactive fallout, and other atmospheric perturbations. Average land temperature drops would be about 10 degrees C. At noon, the Sun would have about one-third its usual brightness. Months later, sunlight would return to more than its usual intensity, enhanced in the ultraviolet by depletion of the high-altitude ozone layer. Collapse of agriculture, and famine, could be widespread. Within the warring nations, these effects might generate casualties approaching those from the prompt effects of the war. Crop failure--from lowered temperatures, failure of the monsoons, and other causes--are expected in many noncombatant nations in the first growing season following the conflict. The most likely such failures would be in India, China, some African nations, and perhaps Japan. Worldwide, as many as 1 to 2 billion people could be placed in jeopardy of starvation." (See enclosed Chapter 14, ³Darkness at Noon².)
Even under the proposed START III treaty, the United States and Russia will indefinitely keep 3000 to 5000 nuclear warheads on launch-ready status. Should an updated study confirm that nuclear winter is still likely with these arsenals in place, it would have great value in undermining the legitimacy of maintaining this level of weaponry. Perhaps a vivid description of ³Darkness at Noon² might also serve to awaken the American public from the curious sense of complacency with which it now seemingly regards the threat of nuclear war.
Most of the high-yield weapons in the megaton range have been eliminated from the first-strike arsenals evaluated by the 1980¹s studies on nuclear winter. The fireballs from the earlier high-yield weapons would have risen almost completely into the stratosphere, whereas the sub-megaton yields from most of the weapons in the current first-strike arsenals would leave a substantial portion of the radioactive cloud in the troposphere. Thus, a large portion of the fallout from the newer weapons would fall quickly back to earth, greatly enhancing the effects of the shorter lived radioactive isotopes. Would this significantly change earlier predictions concerning the effects of fallout on the biosphere?
Other important points which a new study could address would include the danger posed by (1), an expanded nuclear arsenal in China (if the U.S. NMD triggers a new arms race), (2) dangers posed by Israel¹s nuclear arsenal should it be targeted at oil refineries in the Middle East, and (3), dangers posed by the arms race in Southeast Asia, as well as potential proliferation dangers should more nations choose to develop nuclear weapons.
Dr. Ferguson informed me that the NRDC is going to release a comprehensive report detailing the U.S. SIOP, which apparently will include fairly specific targeting and weapons information. This report could be used as the basis of a study evaluating the effects of the weapons it describes.
It would not be necessary to repeat much of the basic scientific work which has already been done concerning the biological and environmental effects of nuclear weapons. What is sorely needed is an evaluation of the potential for destruction posed by the current strategic arsenals.
I believe that some of the scientists and organizations which conducted the nuclear winter studies of the 1980¹s might be interested in pursuing new research on this issue (e.g., the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the International Council of Scientific Unions, the World Health Organization, the World Meteorological Organization, the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, etc.). Dr. Caldicott believes that the W. Alton Jones Foundation would also be likely to fund a new study (they provided the grant which funded the 1983 Conference on the Longterm Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War).
However, I am convinced that the likelihood of convincing these organizations to seriously consider such a proposition would be greatly increased if the proposal was made by the Federation of American Scientists, rather than by an individual such as myself.
I truly thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven Starr 6/14/00#
--
Nuclear Winter information
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:39:37 -0500
From: "Steven Starr" <shadesahoy@socket.net>
The first studies describing the phemonena came out in 1982 (in AMBIO 11:114, a publication of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) and 1983 (the TTAPS study, an acronym for Sagan, Turco, Toon, Ackerman and Pollack, in Science 222:1283-92). Further studies were done by the World Health Organization in 1983, ("The Effects of Nuclear War on Health and Health Services", publication No. A36.12), the World Meteorlogical Organization (1986, "Possible Climatic Consequences of a Major Nuclear War", World Climatic Program Report WCP-142; 1987, "Possible Climatic Consequences of a Major Nuclear War" WMO Technical Document 201); a huge study was done by SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the International Council of Scientific Unions) Report 28, "Environmental Effects of Nuclear War", two volumes in 1985 and 1986, "Physical and Atmospheric Effects" and "Ecological and Agricultural Effects"; another by the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, "Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange" (Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1985), and finally a "Study on the Climatic and Other Effects of Nuclear War: Report of the Secretary General", United Nations General Assembly Document A/43/351, 5 May 1988. There were also other large studies done in Moscow and Canada, which I can give you references on.
In 1989, the authors of the original TTAPS study published a revised appraisal of their first 1983 study, entitled "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter" in Science 247, 166-176. After six years of international peer review and a multitude of studies, no significant changes were made to their original estimations on the nature and effects of "nuclear winter". Also, in 1990, Carl Sagan and Richard Turco (authors from the TTAPS studies), published a book entitled "A Path No Man Thought", (Random House), which more thoroughly reviewed and critiqued all the studies done on nuclear winter, and went into great detail about most aspects of the subject. This book, and the 1984 book "The Cold and The Dark" (by Paul Ehrlich, Carl Sagan, Donald kennedy and Walter Roberts, published by Norton & Co.) are probably the two most valuable books on the subject.
I sent photocopies of several chapters from "A Path No Man Thought" and "The Cold and The Dark" to Bill Smirnow. If you are unable to obtain copies of these books (they are out of print, but may be available at a good library), I would be glad to send you similar copies.
In particular, I focused on several points made by TTAPS. First and foremost, the severity of environmental effects is incredibly pronounced when large cities and petroleum refineries are targeted (see Chapter 14, "Darkness at Noon", pages 200-201, from "A Path No Man Thought"). Here is a quote, "The industrial, urban, and petroleum targets are characterized by combustible materials highly concentrated at relatively few sites; this is why global nuclear winter may be generated with only a few hundred detonations or less".
The1983 TTAPS study, in ³Case 14², examined the effects of 1000 100 kiloton warheads exploded over 100 large cities, creating a ³Class III² nuclear winter. This scenario could be caused by one-third of the 3,072 W76/Mk4 100 kiloton warheads now carried by U.S. Trident subs, which are aimed at ³urban-industrial² targets in Russia (this warhead and targeting information from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan/Feb 2000, "That Old Designing Fever,page 53).
Here is a quote from chapter 14 of Sagan and Turco's 1990 book, "A Path No Man Thought": "Class III. "Nominal" nuclear winter: "It carries in its wake significant cooling and darkening, drought, massive quantities of pyrotoxins generated, widespread radioactive fallout, and other atmospheric perturbations. Average land temperature drops would be about 10 degrees C. At noon, the Sun would have about one-third its usual brightness. Months later, sunlight would return to more than its usual intensity, enhanced in the ultraviolet by depletion of the high-altitude ozone layer. Collapse of agriculture, and famine, could be widespread. Within the warring nations, these effects might generate casualties approaching those from the prompt effects of the war. Crop failure--from lowered temperatures, failure of the monsoons, and other causes--are expected in many noncombatant nations in the first growing season following the conflict. The most likely such failures would be in India, China, some African nations, and perhaps Japan. Worldwide, as many as 1 to 2 billion people could be placed in jeopardy of starvation."
The ISCU¹s Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) study, involved hundreds of scientists from more than a dozen countries working over three years. Meetings were held in Australia, Canada, China, England, France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., and Venezuela.
This is a quote from the 1985 SCOPE document, ³Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War². . . "The total loss of human agricultural and societal support systems would result in the loss of almost all humans on Earth, essentially equally among combatant and non-combatant countries alike. . . .this vulnerability is an aspect not currently a part of the understanding of nuclear war; not only are the major combatant countries in danger, but virtually the entire human population is being held hostage to the large scale use of nuclear weapons . . ." (a review of the SCOPE assessment was done by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which confirmed these findings, and even stated that the SCOPE analysis had been too conservative.)
I have been dismayed by the fact that no significant studies on nuclear winter, or the biological and environmental effects of nuclear war, have been done since the late 1980's. The end of the Cold War and misleading statements by government officials has fostered a general feeling among many people (scientists included) that there is no longer any real danger of nuclear war. However, the START treaties will keep many thousands of nuclear warheads on launch-ready status for the indefinite future.
Thus, it is my strong belief that another updated study, similar to those done over ten years ago, is sorely needed, to help reconstitute an awareness of the danger we still face. Also, there are significant scientific reasons to do such a study.
The composition of the strategic arsenals has changed substantially since the 1980's studies, in that most of the high-yield weapons in the megaton range have been eliminated from the first-strike arsenals. The fireball from high-yield weapons reaches completely into the stratosphere, whereas the 100 to 300 kiloton weapons leave a substantial portion of the radioactive cloud in the troposphere. Thus, a large portion of the fallout falls quickly back to earth, greatly enhancing the effects of the shorter lived radioactive isotopes.
Furthermore, computer modeling has come a long way in the last ten years.
The NRDC is about to release an unclassified version of the U.S. Strategic Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), the nuclear war-fighting plans of America. With this information, it should be possible to do an extremely accurate study of the effects of a nuclear first-strike.
I think that the W. Alton Jones Foundation would make funds available for such a study. However, they only fund non-profit organizations, not individuals. Thus, I am in the process of contacting the organizations, and some of the scientists, who were involved in the 1980's studies on nuclear winter.
I can use all the help I can get. Are you interested?
Let me know if you need photocopies or any help evaluating the literature I listed.
Sincerely, Steven Starr
-------- china
Lockheed Martin Settles Fed Lawsuit
June 14, 2000
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Lockheed-Fine.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Lockheed Martin Corp. is being fined $13 million and will give the federal government closer scrutiny of its overseas activities to settle a case involving the sale of satellite technology to China in 1994.
Lockheed will be required to pay $8 million over four years, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday. The remaining $5 million in penalties was suspended and will be used by the company to take remedial measures to improve security, including construction of a comprehensive computer control system, he said.
The agreement requires that the State Department and Pentagon be given access to the system over the next four years. The system will keep track of all the company's overseas activities involving missiles and space subject to regulation under the Arms Export Control Act.
``We certainly think that these remedial measures and better oversight measures are necessary to ensure that violations don't occur in the future,'' Boucher said.
The settlement is only $2 million short of the maximum penalty of $15 million for violation of the arms export laws.
It is also believed to be the largest penalty ever assessed under the Arms Export Control Act and could offset criticism of the administration's stand on technology deals with China.
James Fetig, spokesman for Lockheed, said Wednesday, ``We have reached a settlement agreement the resolves the AsiaSat matter.''
Fetig said Lockheed neither admitted nor denied it was guilty of violating the law. ``We stand on previous statements,'' he said.
In the past Lockheed denied any wrongdoing and suggested there was no evidence any information given to AsiaSat ever reached the Chinese government.
AsiaSat, a satellite company based in Hong Kong, was a client of Martin Marietta Aerospace, which was acquired later by Lockheed.
In April, the then-State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said ``any assistance to Chinese technical capability in space launch has the potential to be applied to missile development.''
The administration is generally considered friendly toward China's efforts to achieve top-level standing internationally in technology.
At issue were exchanges between rocket experts at Lockheed Martin and the Chinese about kick motors, which are used to lift a satellite into final orbit. Some administration officials were concerned that the same technology could help China launch military spy satellites.
An account of the settlement appeared in Wednesday's editions of the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.
Related Information From Hoover's Inc. Lockheed Martin Corp
-------- depleted uranium
DU and alopecia universalis
From: "Daniel Ramírez" banderaroja@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:23:16 PDT
In Vieques, Puerto Rico we are dealing with people suffering from cancer or other illness. The US Navy has been forced to aknowledge that depleted uranium has been used in the firing zone in this island. Does anyone have information about alopecia universalis been diagnosed in communities, workers or veterans exposed to depleted uranium or other military toxics? Your help will be appreciated.
Pablo Soto Bandera Roja Puerto Rico
----
FORMER HEAD OF PENTAGON'S DEPLETED URANIUM PROJECT CONDEMNS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION OF VIEQUES, PUERTO RICO, AN ISLAND OF CLOSE TO 10,000 U.S. CITIZENS
(For more information, please access www.viequeslibre.org)
From: "Nancy A. Hey" cattynancy@hotmail.com
PRESS RELEASE- FORMER HEAD OF PENTAGON'S DEPLETED URANIUM PROJECT AND ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF PENTAGON'S PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION OF FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES CONDEMNS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION OF VIEQUES CAUSED BY U.S. NAVY OPERATIONS.
Jacksonville, Alabama- Professor Doug Rokke, Ph.D., former Director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project and one of the authors of Pentagon's program for environmental remediation of formerly used defense sites, denounced the U.S. Navy's use of Vieques for many years as a training and test ground for military munitions. Navy officers and enlisted personnel under orders and as part of Navy operations have fired conventional and depleted uranium munitions into the Vieques range resulting in serious adverse health and environmental effects. After a civilian guard was killed in April 1999, Navy officials acknowledged that they willfully violated "the requirements of the Navy's radioactive materials by firing depleted uranium munitions which specify that depleted uranium ammunition is to be used strictly during combat or approved tests and are prohibited from peacetime or training use", according to Luis Reyes in a letter he sent to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's Secretary of Health Carmen Melecio dated 1 February 2000.
Mr. Reyes added that Navy officers in Vieques failed to "follow written procedures for issuance and use of ammunition". Moreover, a report prepared by scientists from the University of Georgia revealed that they found barrels containing unknown and potentially hazardous chemicals on ships deliberately sunk off of the coast of Vieques in 15' - 20' of water. These ships were shot up.
"It is imperative that complete environmental remediation of all affected terrain and medical care be provided for all affected residents of Vieques.", Dr. Rokke stated.
Depleted uranium (DU) or uranium-238 is made from uranium hexaflouride which is the non-fissionable by-product of the uranium enrichment process used to obtain uranium-235 for reactor fuel and nuclear bombs. A surprising announcement by U.S. Department of Energy officials on January 29, 2000 acknowledged, after many years of denial, that employees of their facilities had significantly higher incident rates for leukemia; Hodgkin's lymphoma; and cancers of the prostrate, kidney, liver, salivary glands, and lungs. Previous announcements acknowledged respiratory problems at the Paducah, Kentucky facility. These revelations and acknowledgments reinforce the suspected health and environmental hazards of depleted uranium which is manufactured from the main byproduct, uranium hexaflouride, of each of these facilities. It is even more disturbing that in a memorandum dated October 30, 1943, senior scientists assigned to the Manhattan Project suggested that uranium could be used as an air and terrain contaminant. According to the letter sent by the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee on the "Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon" to General Groves (October 30, 1943) inhalation of uranium would result in "bronchial irritation coming on in a few hours to a few days". This is exactly what happened to individuals who inhaled DU dust during Operation Desert Storm.
The subcommittee went on further to state that "Beta emitting products could get into the gastrointestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. From the air, they would get on the mucus of the nose, throat, bronchi, etc. and be swallowed. The effects would be local irritation just as in the bronchi and exposures of the same amount would be required. The stomach, caecum and rectum, where contents remain for longer periods than elsewhere would be most likely affected. It is conceivable that ulcers and perforations of the gut followed by death could be produced, even without an general effects from radiation". Today many who inhaled or ingested DU have bouts of explosive diarrhea and other problems. Today, most of health effects predicted by the subcommittee in 1943 are observed in those exposed to DU during ODS.
According to the U.S. Army's official "RESPOND TO DEPLETED URANIUM/LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (DULLRAM) HAZARDS" task number "031-503-1017: Contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption." This direct quote verifies that the military still is aware as they always have been been since 1943 that serious hazards exist from uranium (DU) contamination.
Dr. Rokke stated that each day reveals more evidence that the United States' willful distribution of uranium in Puerto Rico and other locations around the world poses serious risks. Although it is difficult to verify that health effects were caused by DU exposure, accumulating evidence indicates that health effects include: reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones, chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation, night vision losses, gum tissue problems, lymphoma, leukemia, other cancers, neuro-psychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction, gastro-intestinal problems, and birth defects in offspring.
Responsibility for DU exposures will be elusive while U.S. officials deny or delay medical treatment to all individuals who inhaled, ingested, or have wound contamination. Exposures will continue until removal of all DU contamination is completed. Still, Dr. Rokke added that Department of Defense officials continue to deny any responsibility for this travesty of environmental justice. Dr. Rokke recommended that, the citizens of Vieques and the world must insist that:
1. All individuals who may have inhaled, ingested, or had wound contamination must receive medical assessment and treatment for adverse health effects.
2. All depleted uranium penetrator fragments, contaminated equipment, and oxide contamination must be removed and disposed of to prevent further adverse health and environmental effects.
3. The use of depleted uranium munitions must be banned.
The residue caused by the use of conventional munitions also poses serious health and environmental risks. Conventional munitions residue consists of unstable and unexploded ordnance, heavy metal shrapnel, organic compound residues, and inorganic chemical compound residues. The unanswered question is whether any chemical warfare or biological warfare agents have been used on Vieques. Conventional munitions residues may consist of phosphorous or other pyrophoric materials; napalm; triethalum metal incendiaries; lead styphnate; lead azide; nitroglycerin; mercury azide; mercury fulminate; PETN; Compositions A, B, C; Tetryl; TNT; RDX; HBX; black powder; ammonium nitrate; Favier explosives (reference U.S. Corps of Engineers Missouri River Division, February 10, 1993); HMX; TNB; DNB; NB; 2,4 DNT; 2,6 DNT; 2NT; 3 NT, 4NT; 4-Am-DNT; and 2-am-DNT (reference U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District December 12, 1996); picrates; nitrocellulose; AP; and nitroaromatics (reference SAIC May, 6, 1997).
In addition to these contaminants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (reference "Approaches for the Remediation of Federal Facility Sites Contaminated with Explosives or Radioactive Wastes", EPA/625/R-93/013, September 1993) identified similar and additional contaminants. The probable adverse health and environmental effects based on physical and chemical characteristics of these conventional munitions residues mandate a complete analysis followed by thorough environmental remediation of all affected areas on the island or in the surrounding waters of Vieques. Medical care also must be provided for these exposures.
Professor Rokke stated that the recent finding of ships sunk with potential hazardous materials in leaking barrels off the coast of Vieques in 15' to 20' is disturbing. Probable water and thus food chain contamination from these leaking barrels with unknown chemicals and decay of ship construction materials also mandates a thorough analysis of contamination, completion of environmental remediation, and health care for all affected individuals.
Dr. Rokke also denounced the fact that almost [a year] has passed since the Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on June 16, 1999 from all the US military branches, requesting any and all information about the use of DU on Vieques and the Committee has yet to receive substantive response. "The Navy was forced to admit that they fired DU on Vieques on February 1999. But the fact that it's taken so long for the Armed Forces to categorically admit or deny others uses of DU on Vieques raises suspicion that there have been other uses of DU on Vieques. This wouldn't surprise me, since the Armed Forces have treated Vieques and its citizens as guinea pigs." said Dr. Rokke.
Finally, Dr. Rokke added that environmental contamination caused by deliberate U.S. Navy actions resulting in air, water, and soil contamination with consequent adverse health effects is a crime gainst humanity and must be immediately corrected. He stated: "All citizens of Vieques, Puerto Rico, the United States, and all other nations of the world must unite to protect our fragile environment and the health of all living things. We also must demand the cessation of all Naval activities on Vieques to prevent further problems in the name of GOD and for the citizens of the world."
-------- environment
straight to the source
USA Today,
Debbie Howlitt,
06.14.00
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20000614/2360151s.htm
The Clean Air Network, a coalition of nearly 1,000 enviro groups, called on the U.S. EPA yesterday to require some 600 old, coal-burning power plants to reduce their mercury emissions by 90 percent. The aging plants, which were exempted from most pollution controls under the 1970 Clean Air Act, emit as much as 51 tons of mercury into the air each year, about one-third of all mercury emissions in the U.S. Mercury pollution is such a problem that 41 states have issued warnings about eating mercury-tainted fish, which can cause brain damage. The EPA is expected to decide in December whether it will close the loophole that lets coal-fired plants pollute excessively. Separately, enviros hope to push through a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-Vt.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) that would clamp down on the dirty plants.
-------- europe
Eurotech Ltd. Shareholders Informed of Growing Acceptance for EKOR Technology At Annual Meeting
Management describes strategies for marketing Eurotech's cornerstone technology, EKOR
June 14, 2000
Company Press Release
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000614/dc_eurotec.html
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 14, 2000-- Eurotech (OTC BB:EURO - news), the US based incubator of emerging international technologies, held its annual meeting yesterday where it reviewed its marketing plans for EKOR, a composite material utilized in the encapsulation and isolation of nuclear waste. EKOR, a leading technology within Eurotech's portfolio of industrial and environmental solutions, is poised to become the technology of choice in the immobilization, transport, disposal and storage of nuclear waste worldwide. In response to the market potential for EKOR, over 97% of the shares represented at the meeting were voted in favor of management's proposal to increase the number of authorized shares and thereby enhance management's flexibility in pursuing further development strategies for the company. However, the shareholders will reconvene on June 20, 2000 in order to vote again on this measure, as the two thirds vote of all issued shares required by the District of Columbia incorporation laws was not met. This will allow those proxy ballots that were not yet received time to be recorded.
Board of Directors member and Executive Vice President Dr. Randolph Graves, who served on the White House's Office of Scientific and Technology Policy Committee and was the Director of Aerodynamics at NASA, opened the meeting by outlining the history of Eurotech. He pointed to Eurotech Founder and principal shareholder Peter Gulko's acquisition of the rights to the EKOR technology as the impetus for the company's founding. Heralding Eurotech's decision to ``acquire or license advanced technologies for which there is a ready market,'' Dr. Graves called Eurotech ``the model for the future of technology transfer--a focused high potential technology portfolio with a ready commercial market.''
In his remarks, President and Chief Executive Officer Don Hahnfeldt described how Eurotech has strengthened its position over the past year. Foremost among Eurotech's advances, Mr. Hahnfeldt said, ``was gaining full control of the potential revenue for EKOR.'' In December 1999, Eurotech swapped equity with Kurchatov Research Holdings Ltd. (KRHL) and agreed to assume $1.1 of KRHL's debt in exchange for 100% of the profits deriving from the EKOR material. Eurotech will pay KRHL 2% of the royalties from EKOR's gross revenues. Prior to the agreement, KRHL would have received a 50% share in EKOR's net profits. Additionally, Mr. Hahnfeldt arranged last year for EKOR to be tested at Chernobyl. Mr. Hahnfeldt described how ``This application and the subsequent performance of EKOR was an outstanding success. To date, EKOR, by covering the largest fuel-containing mass at Chernobyl, has prevented radioactive dust from migrating into the environment for far longer than any other material. Even under the highly radioactive conditions of the Chernobyl sarcophagus, EKOR shows no signs of degradation.''
To help speed the time to market of EKOR, Eurotech has consolidated its management team as well. The addition of Jeffery Stephen as Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer and Jon Dowie as CFO promises to advance the commercialization of Eurotech's portfolio of technologies. Added Mr. Hahnfeldt, ``The commercialization of EKOR for the containment of nuclear waste is on the horizon. We demonstrated EKOR at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State and have begun the government certification process. Eurotech also signed a manufacturing agreement with NuSil Technology, a company specializing in the development and manufacture of advanced technology silicone products for the aerospace, health care and other high technology industries.''
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Jeffrey Stephen described how he has strengthened the company's infrastructure. He announced the appointment of Paul Childress as the acting Director of Nuclear Business, emphasizing Mr. Childress's wide experience in nuclear environmental services. Engaging Mr. Childress, Mr. Stephen explained, ``will help jump-start our efforts to market EKOR and will increase Eurotech's visibility with the Department of Energy, nuclear waste contractors, and key influencers in the field.'' Mr. Childress joins a growing team of Eurotech consultants, including Mancini Marketing and Golin/Harris International. ``Last week,'' Mr. Stephen told the assembled shareholders, ``Eurotech also engaged international management consultants, Deloitte and Touche, to work with us to evaluate our technology portfolio.'' Noting that Eurotech now has ``an infrastructure to match the excellence of the researchers and scientists working in our labs,'' Mr. Stephen said that ``It is time to accelerate the development of the business system and get down to generating revenue.''
Chief Financial Officer Jon Dowie emphasized the dramatically improved financial position of the company. Total assets of the company increased to $11.5 million at the end of 1999 compared to only $77,000 a year before. Despite a small increase in debt, Mr. Dowie said, ``Our shareholder deficiency of $8.8 million in 1998 became a shareholder equity of $1.1 million at the end of 1999.'' Mr. Dowie noted that the loss per share continued to decrease rapidly (from $0.40 per share in 1998 to $0.27 per share for fiscal 1999). Positive trends accelerated during the first quarter of 2000, when a significant reduction in liabilities resulted in a present total line of credit of $75 million.
Chairman Chad Verdi echoed the confidence of his colleagues in both Eurotech and EKOR: ``EKOR will be a very successful product. Far more important, it's going to address a serious problem that has perplexed scientists and worried environmentalists for years.'' Stating ``Eurotech technologies should generate significant sales over the next decade,'' Mr. Verdi also stressed that Eurotech is not resting on its laurels, noting ``We will increase our technology base through either an acquisition of a technology company or by obtaining technologies direct from the inventors.'' Mr. Verdi added, ``The Company is currently in negotiations to commercialize two of its technologies. We are negotiating the sale of the continuous action reactor technology and putting together a joint venture for our polyadditives technologies.''
At the meeting, Randolph Graves, Don Hahnfeldt and Chad Verdi were each re-elected directors for another term. Simon Nemzov, who has served as a consultant and director to a number of philanthropic and industrial institutions, and Dr. Leonid Khotin, an expert on Eastern European and Slavic affairs, were newly elected to the board. The shareholders approved a management proposal to appoint Tabb, Conigliaro & McGann as Eurotech's independent accountants for the year 2000. The shareholders also approved Eurotech's 1999 Incentive Stock Option Plan. The shareholders voted to reconvene on June 20, 2000 in an effort to gather the two thirds vote necessary to pass management's proposal to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock from 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 shares and to increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock from 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 shares.
ABOUT EUROTECH:
A diversified technology holding company, Eurotech has acquired a portfolio of advanced technologies developed by prominent research institutes and individual researchers. Acting as an incubator for innovative solutions to environmental and technological problems, Eurotech seeks out and commercializes patented and propriety intellectual assets with significant market potential. Eurotech's established relationships with scientists from the Russian Federation and Israel have helped to position the company as the preeminent ``brain trust'' or technology incubator. Among their many technologies, EKOR, a highly radiation-resistant material utilized in the encapsulation of nuclear waste, is poised to change the protocol for nuclear waste management. Confirmed on the proving ground of Chernobyl, Eurotech's EKOR can successfully isolate nuclear waste and provide long-term storage solutions. For more information, visit www.eurotechltd.com on the Internet.
----
Schroeder to meet firms on German nuke pull-out
GERMANY: June 14, 2000
Story by Clifford Coonan
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=7098
BERLIN - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and senior representatives of the German nuclear industry will meet on today to discuss a controversial plan to abandon atomic energy, a government spokeswoman said yesterday.
The government discussed the terms of the meeting over the weekend, the spokeswoman said. The talks are aimed at finding a compromise between the government and industry about closing Germany's 19 nuclear plants.
"The result of this meeting was such that the meeting can take place," the spokeswoman said, but declined to offer any more details.
Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, a member of the Greens ecologist party which is junior coalition partner to Schroeder's Social Democrats, and Economics Minister Werner Mueller will also take part in the talks.
A key issue at the talks is likely to be the length of time it takes to abandon nuclear power.
The government wants a 30-year phase-out, while industry demands that the country's nuclear plants only be decommissioned after at least 35 years of full-volume operation.
Abandoning nuclear power has caused a number of spats between the Social Democrats and the Greens.
There have been signs for some time that talks between the government and the leaders of the four major plant operators negotiating the pull-out - RWE AG, Veba AG, Viag AG and EnBW - were close to a deal.
The four utilities together produce around one third of Germany's power needs.
Schroeder has said he expects a deal before the summer recess in July but has warned that if the two sides do not reach consensus by then, the government will introduce legislation to shut down the plants.
The energy industry has threatened huge legal claims for any financial damages caused by being forced to abandon nuclear power, prompting the government to seek to manage the move in consensus with the firms involved.
Negotiations were also hampered by further rows over a ban on the transport of nuclear waste.
The government said in January a two-year ban on transporting nuclear waste, introduced by the last government after it emerged that nuclear fuel containers had been leaking radiation for years, would be lifted in August this year.
-------- imf / world bank
From the Bretton Woods Project - London, UK
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:05:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Weissman - rob@essential.org
Attached and below is our statement on the resignation of Ravi Kanbur as lead author of the World Bank's forthcoming World Development Report on Poverty. This is apparently over a policy row on globalisation issues.
I hope you will be able inform others about this, ie NGOs, researchers and press.
Please let us know if you find out other information.
--
14 June 2000
Contact: Alex Wilks: 0207 523 2170 (daytime), or 0207 284 1886 (evening)
Ravi Kanbur's resignation as World Development Report lead author: a serious blow for the World Bank and for sensible discussion of globalisation
Ravi Kanbur, lead author of the World Bank's forthcoming World Development Report (WDR) on Poverty, has tendered his resignation. He has sent a letter to senior Bank management expressing his concerns about what he saw as unreasonable pressure to tone down WDR sections on globalisation. Reliable Washington sources indicate that US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has got directly involved in re-writing the globalisation sections of this report, which is likely to be extremely prominent in future discussions of international issues and in guiding aid interventions.
Ravi Kanbur, T.H. Lee Professor of World Affairs, Cornell University, was appointed by the Bank in Spring 1998 to lead the team writing this report. His writings and the genuine efforts he made to commission research from and consult a range of groups across the world have won him much respect. Many people had hoped the World Bank's report for this year might break new ground compared to its predecessors and open up debates on issues such as free trade and political disempowerment. Kanbur was at pains to stress that policy-makers must examine the detailed, disaggregated impacts on different population groups, rather than relying on general formulae. The organisations which have fed into this report are very concerned to know what will happen to it now that Kanbur has been forced out.
Alex Wilks, Coordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, commented: "The resignation of the lead author of this flagship Bank report confirms our view that the World Bank is unable to accept dissenting views, whether from insiders or outsiders. Coming soon after Joe Stiglitz departed as Chief Economist this is a major blow for an institution trying to position itself as a 'knowledge Bank' and a 'listening Bank'" "It raises questions of who really calls the shots at the Bank and what evidence or opinions about the impacts of globalisation they are trying to suppress".
At Ravi Kanbur's request, the Bretton Woods Project and New Policy Institue ran an electronic conference to discuss the WDR first draft which (a first for the Bank) was disseminated in January this year. The conference attracted 1,523 people from over 80 countries. Many respondents felt that the draft WDR 2000/01 reflected real progress compared to its predecessors, with a increased examination of non-income dimensions of poverty and recognition of insecurity, voicelessness and powerlessness. It moved beyond national average figures on poverty incidence to examine the many factors which influence poverty outcomes for vulnerable population groups. A number of contributors, however, urged the WDR to be bolder in its conclusions, particularly on the political obstacles to implementing pro-poor policies, and the need for a rights-based approach to press Northern countries to do more on trade and environmental degradation. In his 19 May response to the conference, Kanbur said that his team was looking to strengthen their lines on some of these issues, in particular to: "revise the concluding recommendations to bring global actions to center stage".
BACKGROUND NOTES
Kanbur statement on process integrity In a letter to the Bretton Woods Project of 17 July 1998 Kanbur stated: "since you asked for my views, I wanted to let you know my own personal philosophy and perspective as we go into the processes leading up to the Poverty WDR. First and foremost, I want to stress that I would stand behind any Report that I put my name to, and would not submit to any substantive editing I did not agree with".
UK government funding, research input Many UK organisations were involved in submitting research or engaging in consultations on the WDR. The UK government gave the Bank an additional grant of £750,000, aiming to help the report team "give a voice to poor people in the preparation of the World Bank's millenium World Development Report" [DFID News Release, 4 December, 1998]. A number of UK organisations, including Oxfam, IDS, ODI, Christian Aid and CREDIT contributed research to the report. The WDR's findings are likely to be influential on the drafting of the UK government's white paper on globalisation, due this November.
About the WDR The Bank produces World Development Reports every year. The ones at the start of each decade, however, are the most influential as they take an overall look at the 1990 report was very influential in the Bank and for many aid agencies and researchers across the world. This WDR is due to be signed off by the Bank Board this month, then printed in time to be launched in mid-September, just before the World Bank/IMF annual meetings in Prague.
WDR's are officially not documents of the Executive Board of the World Bank, and is thus not an official policy document, it is a document prepared by the Chief Economist's staff, and therefore ultimately represents the views of staff and management. At the same time, the process of preparation of WDRs to become more consultative, to include views of outsiders.
"There is no doubt that wide ranging consultation does indeed influence the team's thinking and perspective as alternative views are encountered and debated." Newsletter Update on WDR 2000/01, No. 1, January 1999 [http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/newsl/newsl]
Bank President James Wolfensohn, stated in a letter to the Bretton Woods Project of 26 August, 1998 that "I view WDRs as being one of the Bank's critical instruments for dialogue with the development community at large. I have also emphasized that we should not just be reciting generic answers but raising fundamental questions to which there are no easy answers".
About Ravi Kanbur Ravi Kanbur, the T.H. Lee Professor of World Affairs at Cornell University is on leave of absence from his post for the academic year 1999-2000 to lead this report. A UK citizen, Kanbur was on the staff of the World Bank from 1989 to 1997, serving successively as Adviser, Senior Adviser, Resident Representative in Ghana, Chief Economist for Africa, and Principal Adviser to the Chief Economist.
About the Bretton Woods Project The Bretton Woods Project works with UK-based NGOs to monitor the World Bank and IMF. Groups in the network which established the Project include Christian Aid, WWF, New Economics Foundation and World Development Movement. See: www.brettonwoodsproject.org
Resources available:
For more information on the e-conference, including a full archive of contributions, see: www.worldbank.org/devforum/forum_poverty.html
For more general background on the WDR, see: www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty.
The letters and documents mentioned in this statement are all also available from the Bretton Woods Project by fax or post.
----
China asks World Bank to delay project
World Scene
Washington Times
June 14, 2000
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-2000614215411.htm
After criticism that a controversial World Bank-funded project in western China will force people from their homes, Beijing has asked the bank to delay a decision on the project.
Called "Poverty Reduction in Western China," the project will involve the displacement of 58,000 residents of overpopulated regions in Qinghai province near the eastern border of Tibet to the interior of the province.
The Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank, who already gave the green light to the project, will examine the report of a 10-month panel study that was completed in April. The report favors objections by human rights organizations that the displacement might dilute the region's Tibetan population.
-------- india / pakistan
NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARMED WITH HAIR TRIGGERS
by Christopher Kremmer
Sydney Morning Herald
14 June 2000 Page 15
A border incident in Kashmir rapidly escalates into war, with Indian armoured divisions driving deep into Pakistan. Facing imminent defeat, Islamabad gives New Delhi four hours to pull back its troops or face a nuclear attack.
It's only a scenario, but two years after the Subcontinent went nuclear, Kashmir where a Muslim uprising backed by Pakistan has cost 25,000 lives in a decade remains the burning fuse of a potential holocaust.
The nuclear arsenals lack sophisticated early warning systems, and experts say delivery systems are more advanced than previously thought. The nuclear arms race is not restrained by treaties, which India and Pakistan have not signed, and missile flight times between major cities are as short as three minutes.
``Apart from the Cuban missile crisis in the early '60s, the world has probably never experienced such a dangerously hair-trigger nuclear environment,'' says Praful Bidwai, a New Delhi researcher and critic of nuclearisation.
In May 1999, a year after both countries tested nuclear weapons, hundreds of Indian and Pakistan-based troops were dying in a bitter battle for mountainous terrain in the Kargil sector of Kashmir. Says Bidwai: ``On no fewer than 13 occasions during Kargil, senior politicians on both sides made public statements suggesting they were ready for a wider even a nuclear war.''
Among the cheerleaders was India's Defence Minister, George Fernandes, who earlier this year said nuclear weapons would not preclude a conventional war, which India would win ``any time, anywhere''. He knows the dangers of escalation, but India's size has encouraged a belief that it can fight and win a nuclear war. ``Senior Indian officials regularly tell us that a nuclear exchange would devastate Pakistan but India would survive, even if Delhi and Bombay were destroyed,'' said a Western diplomat in New Delhi.
Despite the bombast, it was Indian restraint that prevented the Kargil conflict sliding into general war, reaping rich diplomatic dividends for New Delhi.
In March, visiting US President Bill Clinton sealed the West's acceptance of India's primacy in the region, based on economic potential and democratic traditions. Australia followed, agreeing to resume defence co-operation during a visit by the Foreign Minister, Mr Downer, who, unlike Mr Clinton did not visit Pakistan.
Critics of that approach say it has inspired smugness in India, and desperation in Pakistan, which feels isolated and wronged. The Kargil debacle saw Pakistan's Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, toppled in a coup on October 13. Since then India has refused to talk to Islamabad unless Pakistan stops aiding and abetting the Muslim uprising in Kashmir.
``India's stand is understandable, but frankly untenable. There is no justification for refusing talks,'' says Kanti Bajpai, visiting fellow at the Kroc Institute at the University of Notre Dame. ``Even without Pakistan, violence in Kashmir will go on.'' Pakistan's military leader, General Pervaiz Musharraf, confronts an economy dependent on drip-feed finance from the International Monetary Fund, and a defiant fundamentalist movement which continues to export Islamic extremism to Kashmir and elsewhere and regards accused terrorist Osama bin Laden as a hero. Western diplomats believe Musharraf is a tough, straightforward moderate. But his doubtful political skills and the prospects of Pakistan disintegrating are vigorously discussed in the local press, which remains uncensored.
The Supreme Court has given Musharraf three years to root out corrupt politicians, revive the economy and return the country to democracy. If he fails, the reins of power and control over Pakistan's nukes could by default fall to the fundamentalists.
American influence and the global non-proliferation regime has been damaged by Washington's own push for an anti- ballistic missile screen and its failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. India once regarded with suspicion as a Cold War fence-sitter now finds itself expected to play a greater role in maintaining regional security. Yet in Sri Lanka, where a weak central government battles to save the northern town of Jaffna from falling to the world's most ruthlesslessly efficient guerilla army and terrorist organisation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, New Delhi has dithered. Domestically, India's broad-based coalition government has decentralised power and kept a check on Hindu hardliners in the largest coalition partner, the Bharatiya Janata Party. But a weakened centre is unable to restrain the financial mismanagement of the States, with many on the edge of bankruptcy. Without continued economic reform and growth, India's aspirations to be a great power could be as illusory as the former Soviet Union's, its unity as fragile as Indonesia's. Defence spending is rising faster than national income.
The continued health of 76-year-old Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, will also be crucial. It is his steady hand which has given an air of stability to what is otherwise a dangerously volatile region.
-----
INDIA : RADIOACTIVE CARGO IN GUTTED MSIL GODOWN?
by A.A. Harichandan Kasturi & Sons
The Hindu 14 June 2000
BANGALORE, JUNE 13. Radioactive material imported by a Peenya-based company was part of the cargo in the MSIL air cargo godown that was gutted recently, according to sources.
Tritium activated zinc sulphide was being imported by the company. The cargo, with airway bill number 098-7249-5150 and IGM number 1289-2000, was stored in the godown during the fire at the MSIL air cargo complex on June 4. However, the company has denied any knowledge of such cargo imported by it. According to sources, in a letter to the General Manager of MSIL on June 3, the company stated that the cargo of tritium activated zinc sulphide must not be disposed of as ordinary waste, but should be treated as nuclear radioactive waste. The company is also said to have forwarded a copy of the letter to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai. Sources say that the temperature inside the godown was high enough to melt the lead containers of the radioactive material, and expose it. However, it is not known if the concentration of tritium in the cargo was high enough to be dangerous. The scientific officers from the Forensic Sciences Laboratories, who are investigating the fire, collected evidence from the air cargo godown over two days. It is not known if they were exposed to any radioactivity. When contacted, the Director of the laboratories, Dr. B.M.Mohan, said that the FSL was not equipped to handle radioactive material, and the disposal of the cargo must be handled by competent professionals. An expert on aspects of safety relating to atomic energy told The Hindu that the actual quantity of tritium was usually too low in the case of tritium activated zinc sulphide for it to be harmful. The radioactive concentration of tritium that may be present was also low in this case, he said.
Further, there is the possibility of the tritium being locked-in by the melting lead pots which would solidify into single units. Tritium gets easily mixed in the atmosphere. If ingested, it gets eliminated in the normal process in two to six days in the Indian conditions where people drink a lot of water. Tritium activated zinc sulphide, a phosphorescent material, is used in the manufacture of dials. Tritium is being phased out from the process in favour of promethium, which is less harmful.
----
India Calls Pakistan's Talks Offer 'Propaganda'
Reuters
June 14, 2000 Filed at 10:00 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-india-p.html
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India Wednesday termed Pakistan's offer to include New Delhi in a nuclear security dialogue as ''propaganda'' and said Islamabad would have to create a proper environment for talks to resume between the arch-rivals.
``It is for Pakistan to create a proper environment for the process to start. It could start only if Pakistan stops cross border terrorism and avoids anti-India propaganda,'' an Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman told reporters.
Pakistan and the United States are scheduled to resume talks on nuclear security and security issues in Washington this week and Islamabad had said Tuesday it could consider any reciprocal nuclear restraint with India.
A statement issued by Pakistan's foreign office Tuesday said Islamabad has repeatedly called for an Indo-Pakistan ``strategic restraint regime'' to avoid a nuclear or conventional arms race.
It said Pakistan was willing to consider any restraint arrangement on a reciprocal basis with India.
``There is nothing new in the Pakistan proposal which is essentially propagandist in nature. India's security concerns extend much beyond south Asia,'' the Indian foreign office spokesman said.
India and Pakistan conducted tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998, earning both countries international condemnation and sanctions and stepped up fears of a nuclear arms race in the restive region.
The spokesman said a road map for a composite dialogue process had been included in the ``memorandum of understanding'' signed between the countries during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's historic trip to Lahore by bus in February 1999.
The spokesman said the composite dialogue process was derailed by Pakistan after it drew India into a border conflict over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.
He said in the nuclear field India was committed to no-first use, a moratorium on nuclear testing, avoiding an arms race and the concept of a credible minimum nuclear deterrent.
The spokesman said deposed Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had reconfirmed that the Pakistani army was behind the conflict in Kashmir's Kargil sector last summer.
Monday, Sharif said that the Pakistani army did not consult him about last year's Kargil confrontation which brought the India and Pakistan to the brink of a fourth war.
-------- israel
$250 million for Israel is threatened
June 14, 2000
By John Godfrey
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2000614233637.htm
Rep. Sonny Callahan, Alabama Republican, will seek to withhold $250 million in aid to Israel if that nation insists upon selling a high-technology airborne warning and control system (AWACS) to China.
The Clinton administration objects to the congressman's plan, but congressional aides from both parties say there is growing concern over the sale and the trend it portends. Conversely, opponents of the plan - and even some proponents - worry that a heavy-handed slap at Israel would be ill-timed given the Mideast peace talks and Prime Minister Ehud Barak's shaky coalition in the Knesset, or parliament.
"If the secretary [of defense] tells us the sale is not a threat, then the issue is over," Mr. Callahan said yesterday of the $250 million sale to China of an AWACS built with an Israeli-made Phalcon radar system.
Mr. Callahan, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, would make release of the $250 million contingent upon certification by the U.S. secretary of defense that the sale would not jeopardize national security.
The provision, set to match the sale price of the AWACS, could be part of the 2001 spending bill for foreign aid Mr. Callahan's subcommittee is scheduled to mark up today.
Mr. Callahan would also withhold from the bill a provision that gives Israel all of its aid within 30 days of the beginning of the fiscal year. Last year, Israel received about $3 billion in economic and military assistance. Other countries do not get this so-called early dispersal, and instead have their aid spread throughout the year.
The early dispersal provision could be added as the foreign aid bill progresses through Congress, but the threat of withholding the privilege will be a "hammer" that could fall at any time, Mr. Callahan said.
The chairman in charge of the Senate bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said that the sale is "worthy of concern," but that he has not yet had time to consider Mr. Callahan's proposal.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Democrat, who serves on Mr. McConnell's committee, said the Phalcon sale by Israel was not appropriate, but in light of Middle East peace negotiations, "it is not the time to be schoolmarmish."
Nonetheless, Mr. Callahan has strong and diverse allies, including Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young, and Reps. David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat, and Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Illinois Democrat.
"I totally agree with Sonny," said Mr. Obey, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Obey called the sale a threat to national security but said he would withhold backing for the Callahan plan "for the moment" if the administration felt the plan would be counterproductive or send mixed signals to the peace process.
But "if the sale goes forward, then all bets are off," Mr. Obey said.
Mr. Young said he does not necessarily support the specific proposal, but absolutely shares Mr. Callahan's concerns.
It is not in the nation's interest to provide support that "might find its way to an adversary," Mr. Young said. "It wouldn't be the same money," Mr. Young said of the $250 million Mr. Callahan would withhold, "but money is fungible," or interchangeable.
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright has said the administration opposes Mr. Callahan's proposals.
"Although the United States has real concerns about the proposed Israeli sale of Phalcon aircraft to China - and we are discussing the matter with the Israeli government - we do not believe that linking this issue to our assistance to Israel is the appropriate way to proceed," Mrs. Albright told reporters before departing for the Middle East.
A statement released yesterday by the State Department said the administration wants to "work in close consultation with Congress to resolve this in a way that is consistent with our close strategic relationship with Israel."
The sale was announced in 1996, but the actual outfitting of the plane, a Russian Il-76, with the Israeli-made Phalcon radar system was not detected until last October.
The aircraft will boost the Chinese military's capability to target enemy forces with "over-the-horizon" surveillance. U.S. defense experts view the sale with alarm because it could be used to directly threaten U.S. aircraft carriers and naval forces in the Pacific should they be called to defend Taiwan.
In April, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen urged the Israeli prime minister not to go through with the deal.
"We are aware of the sensitivity in the United States with regard to China," Mr. Barak told Mr. Cohen. But Mr. Barak added, "We are, of course, aware also of our commitment in the contracts that we have signed."
China could buy between three and seven additional aircraft.
Some say the short-term impact of the sale on the security of Taiwan is less important than the long-term impact of the transfer of sensitive technologies. The United States would face the prospect of China's developing even more sophisticated weapons and possibly selling them to U.S. enemies, congressional aides and defense experts said yesterday.
Israel has insisted that the Phalcon system built by Israel Aircraft Industries contains no U.S. technology.
That argument is backed by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is "vehemently opposed" to tying Israel's aid to the Phalcon sale.
The groups says the proposal would set a dangerous precedent.
"Once it starts, it never stops," said Ken Bricker, spokesman for AIPAC.
"Israel played by the rules" when it announced the sale, but suddenly finds itself under attack now that U.S.-Sino relations have cooled, Mr. Bricker said.
He also noted that the Senate had passed its version of the foreign aid bill with no strings attached.
-------- korea
Letter leads to nuclear stash
Korea special report
Jonathan Watts in Tokyo
Wednesday June 14, 2000
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,331714,00.html
A mildly radioactive letter sent to the Japanese prime minister, Yoshiro Mori, led police to a warehouse full of a material associated with the extraction of uranium yesterday. The discovery of 15 tons of monazite came after an anonymous tip-off that dangerous radioactive material was being smuggled from Japan to North Korea.
The claim was made in a letter sent on June 6 to Mr Mori and the heads of eight government bodies, including the police and defence agencies.
Each envelope contained three grams of monazite, a mineral phosphate mined and processed to recover uranium.
Monazite, which is not controlled by international treaties, also includes thorium, which can be used in nuclear bombs and reactors.
The sand-like yellow substance was found to be radioactive, though officials said the level was not harmful.
According to the Kyodo news agency, a hand-written note in the envelope warned: "Uranium is being sent to North Korea and police should investigate because it is dangerous."
The sender said the smuggling was being carried out by the president of an education ministry foundation, whose name has been withheld.
The police found the monazite stockpile during a search of properties owned by the foundation near Tokyo and in central Japan. According to science agency officials, there were no harmful levels of radioactivity at the sites.
In interviews with domestic media, the president said he had imported 50 tons of monazite from Thailand about 20 years ago with the intention of selling it on to hot-spring resort operators, who strive to offer unique mixes of minerals in bath waters.
The president said he had sold most of his original stock and the remaining 15 tons was securely stored.
The police are investigating whether he broke nuclear-related laws by importing or storing the monazite.
Attention is also focused on the intentions of the sender of the radioactive letters. One theory is that the warning was designed to raise fear about the North Korean capital Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme before yesterday's historic summit between the leaders of North and South Korea.
----
S. Koreans watch - and welcome - summit
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 10:07 AM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwswed07.htm
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Vendors at Seoul's wholesale markets measured out lengths of silk and weighed buttons as usual Wednesday, but kept their television sets tuned to summit talks in Pyongyang.
''I watched it yesterday as I was working and then I rushed home to watch it again with my family,'' said Chang Ki-chul, 62, who sells men's suits. ''I could watch it over and over and it's still amazing to me.''
As the second day of summit talks got under way, South Korea was keeping watch - by television, by radio and by newspaper. Taxi drivers listened as they navigated Seoul's notoriously busy traffic; office workers and commuters gathered around TV monitors at banks and train stations.
Chang rushed to a bank around the corner to watch South Korean President Kim Dae Jung step off his plane Tuesday to a surprisingly warm welcome by the North's leader, Kim Jong Il.
Oh Kyung-soo, a 29-year-old college student, watched at home with relatives, including some in-laws with family in the North who cried as the two leaders shook hands. Schools broadcast the meeting on monitors for a live history lesson.
''Everybody was going crazy yesterday,'' said Chang, who had a newspaper account of the visit spread before him. ''We've been enemies for 55 years and now, finally, our leaders are meeting to discuss peace - that's a historic moment for the whole world.''
Within hours, the rustle of newspaper filled Seoul's subway trains as commuters flocked to newsstands displaying the first dispatches from the groundbreaking meeting.
''There are no parties or celebrations, really, but everyone is interested,'' said Hwang Hye-yon, 55, a wool and gabardine vendor who took advantage of a quiet moment at the bustling Tongdaemun market to watch the broadcast on a small television.
One former North Korean, singer Kim Yong, celebrated the summit talks by offering cold noodles - Pyongyang's specialty - for free at the chain of restaurants he opened after defecting. Another business symbolically poured South Korean and North Korean drinking water into the same vat, and Seoul's young pop singers and hip-hop duos performed at commemorative concerts.
For residents of the South's capital, the broadcasts are a rare, fascinating glimpse into the isolated North. Footage showed the women of Pyongyang in traditional hanbok dresses, which South Korean women wear only on special occasions. Here, shorts and T-shirts and cell phones hanging around the neck are standard issue.
''The way the women were dressed seemed a bit old-fashioned and the way they were cheering so enthusiastically was strange to me,'' said Lee Chung-ho, 36, a banker who had a TV monitor on at his branch. ''And the expression on the faces of the children singing seemed so practiced.''
Though buoyed by Kim Jong Il's gracious greeting, most South Koreans reserved judgment Wednesday on what might come out of the three-day talks.
''The summit talks aren't a complete success yet - we're only halfway there. Kim Jong Il needs to come to Seoul next,'' said Kim Jung Yon, a 21-year-old architecture student at Yonsei University.
Before even considering reunification, the two sides must negotiate permanent peace and reuniting divided families, some said.
''If they can agree on letting families reunite, that would be the biggest gift that Kim Dae Jung could bring back from Pyongyang,'' said Lee Chung-ho.
---
Korean leaders sign summit agreement
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 07:39 PM ET
By Paul Wiseman, USA TODAY
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwswed01.htm
SEOUL, South Korea - The leaders of North and South Korea reached a historic agreement late Wednesday that could signal the end of the Cold War on the Korean peninsula.
South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il pledged to allow meetings between families divided after the Korean War, cooperate on everything from economic development to the environment and work toward eventual reunification.
The North Korean leader also agreed to make a return visit to the southern capital Seoul "at an appropriate time."
The pact is the centerpiece of an astonishing summit this week in the northern capital Pyongyang. It comes almost exactly one year after North and South Korean warships clashed in the Yellow Sea. Though the leaders had never met, this week Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jong Il joked, held hands and behaved like partners, not sworn enemies.
"They've got a lot of work to do and it's just the first step," said President Clinton, referring to the summit accord. "But it's clearly a move in the right direction and everyone else in the world should be encouraged by this. This is a good thing."
Korea has been divided into the communist North and capitalist South since the end of World War II. The two countries fought a bloody war from 1950 to 1953 and never signed a peace treaty. There have been sporadic conflicts along the tense border ever since, and the United States has 37,000 troops in South Korea to keep the peace.
Wednesday's deal came after more than three hours of face-to-face talks. After they signed the agreement in the Baekhwawon State Guesthouse in Pyongyang, the two Kims clasped hands and raised their arms in triumph.
The leaders toasted the agreement with champagne. They agreed to:
Let an unspecified number of divided families meet around Aug. 15, a holiday celebrated in both North and South Korea marking the peninsula's liberation from Japanese rule in 1945. Millions of South Koreans are believed to have relatives in the North they haven't seen in 50 years. South Korea also agreed to "resolve" the issue of North Korean spies released from South Korean prisons but not allowed to go home.
Promote economic development. Although no details were included in the deal, it seems to call for the South to increase assistance to North Korea's devastated economy.
Conduct exchanges in sports, the arts and the environment. In a separate development, sports officials from both countries talked about fielding a joint team in the Sydney Olympics, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.
Work "independently" toward reunification, seeking common ground. Almost everyone agrees, though, that reunification would be so costly and complex that it will take at least a decade or a lot longer.
---
U.S. tempered about Korean summit
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 01:37 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwswed08.htm
WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration on Wednesday commended the leaders of North and South Korea for their historic agreement toward eventual reunification, but expressed cautious optimism about future relations on the Korean Peninsula. ''I think we need to look at what the process will be coming out of this meeting,'' White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said. ''We've had some false starts before and it's certainly our hope that they can find some way to build on the success of the last two days.'' South Korea President Kim Dae Jung and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, closed their summit Wednesday by signing an agreement to work toward eventual reunification. The agreement did not mention North Korea's demand did not mention North Korea's demand that the United States withdraw its 37,000 troops from South Korea. Lockhart declined to comment on how the agreement might affect American troops there. Lockhart declined to comment on how the agreement might affect American troops there.
---
North Korea a genial host to the South
Washington Times
June 14, 2000
By Edward Neilan
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-200061423458.htm
SEOUL - North Korea's unpredictable and heretofore reclusive leader, Kim Jong-il, surprised his South Korean counterpart, Kim Dae-jung, with a massive welcoming turnout yesterday and pledged to open a "dialogue without reserve."
The cheering crowds, which displayed the characteristic fervor and discipline of communist societies, marked the opening of an unprecedented three-day summit in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital.
Western correspondents, barred from joining the historic event, which was open only to Korean journalists, were forced to chronicle the proceedings from their hotel room television sets in Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
Nevertheless, the day's demonstration of congeniality drew praise from Kim Dae-jung, as well as from the United States, Russia and the United Nations.
A South Korean spokesman said today's discussions will be conducted through an "expanded summit." He did not elaborate, but left the distinct impression that it will be a "nuts and bolts" session as ministers with specific responsibilities and detailed knowledge join the leaders in dialogue.
The spokesman also dampened speculation that the two Kims would agree to set up a hot line to communicate in periods of tension.
Swept along yesterday by the upbeat summit moment, which he himself had worked so hard to bring about, the South Korean guest told his host he was tremendously moved by the welcome, especially as he had not expected to be able to make a visit to the North so soon.
He pledged to work toward eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula, divided into a communist North and a Western-aligned South after World War II. After decades of Japanese colonial subjugation before the war, Korea became a microcosm of the ideological bitterness spawned by the Cold War. From 1950 to 1953, it became a savage battleground.
For the short term, South Korea's leader appealed for reunions of divided families and an opening of land, sea and air routes between the two rivals, whose border has remained sealed nearly 50 years.
"Let us open up the road that has been blocked off for half a century," Kim Dae-jung said.
"Let us open new sea lanes of communication and air routes, too.
"When that happens, all Koreans will be able to travel freely between the two sides and work toward reconciliation, cooperation and eventual reunification," he said.
The summit began with a surprise welcome by Kim Jong-il at the airport on the outskirts of Pyongyang.
The 58-year-old North Korean leader, shedding his dour image, appeared relaxed and smiling. He held hands with his guest during a limousine ride into the North's capital, traveling along avenues lined with hundreds of thousands of people waving bouquets of pink paper flowers.
Then he offered a curious assessment of his expectations for the meetings:
"The world is closely watching us. Why President Kim came to North Korea and why I accepted is a question mark," the North Korean leader said.
"We have to give the answer to this question during the two nights and three days" of the summit, the pool quoted him as saying. "I ask not only President Kim, but also [accompanying] ministers to make contributions to this."
In Washington, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart underscored the importance of the summit, saying the Clinton administration was "heartened to see the warm welcome that Kim Dae-jung received."
He said he didn't want to speculate about what, if any, concrete results would come out of the meeting, adding, "It's obviously . . . an important part of the process that they have been brought together in this forum to have discussions directly."
The Russian Foreign Ministry also welcomed the summit, being held just weeks before President Vladimir Putin's own planned visit to the isolated North.
"We are pleased that this awaited meeting has taken place," Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov told Interfax news agency. "It encourages hopes for a constructive dialogue between the two countries."
At U.N. headquarters in New York, Secretary-General Kofi Annan warmly welcomed the historic summit and said he hoped it would mark a turning point toward peace, stability and reunification.
"The secretary-general wholeheartedly welcomes the historic inter-Korean summit, which began today in Pyongyang," a statement issued through a U.N. spokesman said yesterday.
"He salutes the vision and wisdom of General Secretary Kim Jong-il and President Kim Dae-jung in opening this dialogue at the highest level," the statement added.
The reuniting of families strikes a deep emotional chord with virtually all Koreans.
An estimated 10 million, or nearly one in four South Koreans, have relatives in North Korea they have not seen in the half-century since the Korean War.
"Many of the family members are passing away due to their advanced age. We have to attend to their lifelong wishes," Kim Dae-jung said in a banquet speech at the end of the first day of talks.
Despite the congenialities of the moment, huge substantive problems that have bedeviled Korean leaders and their respective communist and free-world allies for decades are waiting to be addressed.
At least three big topics lie ahead: • North Korea's missile and nuclear programs. Kim Dae-jung has promised the United States and Japan he would raise the issue. But analysts believe he will avoid raising the ire of his host.
• Kim Jong-il's demand that 37,000 American troops be removed from the South. He says that progress toward reunification of the two Koreas is impossible unless U.S. forces are first withdrawn.
• A reciprocal visit by Kim Jong-il to Seoul. An agreement here would define the summit as a success. The secretive North Korean leader is known to have traveled outside his country only three times in his life, most recently on a secret trip to Beijing last month in preparation for this week's meetings.
Speculation in Seoul centers on an October visit.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
---
2 Korean Leaders Speak of Making 'a Day in History'
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/061400korea-summit.html
SEOUL, South Korea, June 13 -- During a 40-minute limousine ride into the North Korean capital from Pyongyang's airport on Tuesday, the leaders of North and South Korea, who had never met before, had this extraordinary exchange:
"June 13 will be a day recorded in history," the reclusive North Korean president, Kim Jong Il, said to his southern counterpart after they arrived together at his state guesthouse. "Let's get on," replied Kim Dae Jung, "and make that history."
Then, in words that managed to be both hopeful and enigmatic, the northern leader, in only his second known meeting with another head of state after six years in power, said, "I will try not to be too proud, and you will not be disappointed."
The dialogue was reported by South Korean journalists traveling with their president, who were told of it by a government official.
In fact, disappointment appeared to be far from the spirit of either man at the start of a summit meeting whose opening formalities seemed surprisingly relaxed, exceeding the expectations of many people, including perhaps those of the principals themselves.
Indeed, whether reviewing goose-stepping northern troops or chatting easily with his cherubic junior, there was the 75-year-old South Korean leader, barely able to suppress his pleasure at realizing a cherished wish of setting foot in the north.
The triumph of restoring dialogue across the world's most heavily armed border will certainly seal the place of Kim Dae Jung, already a heroic champion of democracy in his country, as a huge force for change in modern Korean history.
During the meeting on Tuesday, the two leaders discussed setting up a hotline. "From now on, let's directly contact each other," Kim Jong Il was reported to have said.
The talks today are expected to be the first to deal in depth with problems that divide the two countries. One topic brought up today was the possibility of setting up representatives offices in each country, according to pool reports from Pyongyang.
In South Korea, where the meeting was banner news and was broadcast and rebroadcast in schools, offices and on the huge television screens displayed from many buildings in central Seoul, people clapped, gasped and even cried at the sight of the two Kims shaking hands.
"When I saw the two leaders greet each other, my heart raced with excitement," a 38-year-old woman told The Korea Herald. "At that moment, I was convinced that even if reunification doesn't happen right away, we may see it happen in the near future."
North Korea's state-controlled media were more subdued, but by its unusual standards, extraordinarily positive about engagement with the south. "The Great Leader Kim Jong Il warmly greeted President Kim Dae Jung at the airport," Radio Pyongyang announced. Later it reported that the meeting represented "a landmark turning point in the road toward national reconciliation, cooperation, peace and unification."
The South Korean president is now expected to press for an easing by northern officials of the harsh restrictions on communications and travel that prevent the estimated 1.8 million survivors of the 1950-53 war with relatives in the north from making contact with their families.
After inheriting power from his Communist father and presiding over his nation's worst economic catastrophe, the little-known Kim Jong Il, meanwhile, has sealed his emergence from the shadows by confidently acting as a host to his elder guest at a summit meeting that seemed largely conducted according to his vague and secretive terms.
The younger leader's expression as he reviewed the troops upon Mr. Kim's arrival, balancing his slightly visible paunch on his elevated heels, was one of satisfaction that comes from success at gamesmanship with missiles and rumors about nuclear weapons that brought an erstwhile enemy to town bearing lavish gifts.
As an inducement for the famine-stricken and impoverished north, the South Korean government pledged large quantities of fertilizer to Pyongyang when they first agreed to the summit meeting after secret negotiations in China last April. Providing a further lubricant, the South Korean leader traveled with heads of his country's biggest conglomerates, all eager for a foothold in the north.
In another enigmatic comment by the host, Mr. Kim told the South Korean president: "The world is closely watching us. Why President Kim came to North Korea and why I accepted is a question mark. We have to give the answer to this question during the two nights and three days, and I ask not only President Kim but also ministers to make contributions to this."
Enigma has long been a trademark of North Korean leaders, starting with the country's founder, Kim Il Sung, who combined Stalinism with almost cult-like leader worship in four decades of power.
The event on Tuesday confirmed that the founder's son also relishes surprise. "Today was a demonstration of Kim Jong Il's new ruling style," said Dr. Yu Suk Ryul at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in Seoul. "In the recent past, he paid a surprise visit to the Chinese Embassy in Pyongyang. During a previous visit by Chung Ju Yung, the honorary chairman of the Hyundai Group, Kim paid a surprise courtesy call to the Baekhwawon State Guest House where he was staying in Pyongyang. Looking at such actions, it makes sense that Kim Jong Il came out to personally greet President Kim Dae Jung."
Before taking off from Seoul on Tuesday morning, in a final comment that betrayed his wariness about the north, the South Korean leader told his nation to pray for his safe return.
Moments earlier, in his departure speech, he said that he would work on "the easy things" with his counterpart, seeking momentum-building accomplishments, instead of great leaps forward on security issues and other sticky questions.
In that spirit, the first day was indeed heavy on ceremony and short on detail, at least announced details. After their surprising ride together to the state guest house, past hundreds of thousands of North Koreans who mostly chanted their own leader's name and waved colorful fronds, the two presidents met together for 27 minutes.
Their meeting was followed by a lunch at which the head of the North Korean Workers' Party acted as host. Then, after a traditional dance performance, and more rubbing of elbows by the two delegations, there was an evening banquet.
At the insistence of the northern organizers, the talks lack a formal agenda, and even the schedule of events has been kept a closely held secret. In addition to the car ride together on Tuesday and the brief meeting afterward, the two leaders were expected to meet by themelves one more time, and to attend a gathering of the two delegations.
Kim Dae Jung is expected to return to Seoul by motorcade by crossing at the the heavily guarded border village of Panmunjom. "The threshold of success for this summit meeting was a picture of the two men together, some material goods for the north for Kim Jong Il to show off, and some news for Kim Dae Jung to bring home about separated families," said Marcus Noland, a North Korea expert at the Institute for International Economics in Washington.
Mr. Noland said that most of this agenda had been quickly achieved in the first hours of the day, but that the family issue will prove much harder to resolve because reunification threatens the ideological purity of North Koreans, who live under constant indoctrination.
But in his remarks at the evening banquet, Kim Dae Jung persisted with his dream of untrammeled contact, even proposing the re-opening of road and rail links after more than a half-century of barbed wires, heavily armed border guards and frequent defections.
"When that happens," Mr. Kim said "all Koreans will be able to travel freely between the two sides and work toward reconciliation, cooperation and eventual reunification."
---
Two Koreas Reach Agreement to Ease Cold War Tensions
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/14cnd-korea-summit.html
SEOUL, South Korea, June 14 -- After more than three hours of talks between their presidents on the second day of a historic summit, North and South Korea achieved agreement today on a multi-point program of national reconciliation.
The agreement, which was signed and toasted with champagne by the two leaders, who shook hands vigorously and smiled broadly, was more a general statement of common principles than a detailed roadmap for the future.
But if kept deliberately vague, it covered many of the basic points that have long been seen as keys to ending the Cold War on the Korean peninsula.
These included reconciliation and unification; the establishment of peace; allowing members of separated families to exchange visits, starting in August; and increasing cultural exchanges.
In addition, it was agreed that the northern leader, Kim Jong Il, would visit Seoul "at the earliest appropriate moment." The two sides are also known to have discussed the creation of offices in each other's capitals, and establishing a hot line between their leaders.
"At this very hour, the attention of the 70 million Korean people is drawn to Pyongyang, and the eyes of the entire world are riveted to this place," the South Korean President, Kim Dae Jung, said in a banquet prior to the signing.
"Chairman Kim Jong Il and I have successfully concluded the summit," he said. "For the first time, the Korean people can see a bright future as a dawn of hope for reconciliation, cooperation and unification is breaking."
In reply to Mr. Kim's toast, Kim Young Nam, the second-ranking figure in North Korea, said: "History gives us opportunities only once. Reunification is not for the future but for the present."
Interjecting a note of mystery into a summit meeting that has already had a few surprises, no statement was immediately available from North Korea about the agreement. News of the agreement was broadcast in the south an hour after it was signed. It was not immediately known how the news was broadcast to the North Korean people.
"It is important to remember the symbolic importance of this meeting," said a Western diplomat who spoke on the basis of anonymity.
"Hopefully, things will continue to proceed from here, but this has already been an unexpected success."
The long elusive and little known Kim Jong Il, 58, was frequently on view for the second consecutive day today, as he was shown talking in a relaxed and self-confident manner with his southern counterpart.
Mr. Kim even joked about his reputation as a recluse. "Westerners seem to have been very anxious about why I live like a hermit," he said in an informal chat with Kim Dae Jung, moments before the two leaders went into a two hour and 20 minute meeting. "And now, with your visit, they've got the answer."
Seeking to dispel this image, the North Korean leader said he had traveled to China and Indonesia many times, but said that he had done so in secret.
South Koreans expressed surprise today about the warm and apparently relaxed atmosphere surrounding the talks, which began with Kim Jong Il unexpectedly greeting Kim Dae Jung upon his arrival at the airport near Pyongyang.
Many people said they were impressed by how normal and personable the mysterious northern leader was, after years of state-sponsored stories in the south that portrayed him as a crackpot dictator and hard-living playboy.
"This will change the relationship between the two countries," said Park Han Sung, a clerk at an eyeglass shop in downtown Seoul. "Maybe nothing dramatic will happen right away, but most people would agree that a surprising amount of progress and understanding has been achieved already."
If they are confirmed by the north and followed up on, the four points of agreement would advance critical interests on both sides, as well as of regional parties to the 50-year-old Korean conflict.
For Pyongyang, there was little doubt that increased exchanges meant a boost in aid and investment from the south, which northern leaders hope would prop up their spectacularly failing economy, the only industrialized one that has experienced famine in peacetime.
The southern delegation, for its part, has rushed to leave little doubt of its willingness to help, reportedly offering today to provide $450 million in economic assistance, through its ministry of unification, and speed its delivery of 200,000 tons of fertilizer.
For Kim Dae Jung, progress on the reunion of seven million of his compatriots with their relatives in the north was seen by many as a bottom-line gauge of success for the summit. "Many of the family members are passing away due to their advanced age," Mr. Kim said in a speech intended to give a clear sense of urgency. "We have to attend to their life-long wishes."
While both sides clearly have interests in the matter, reconciliation and reaching a peace agreement to finally end the state of war that formally persists between the two countries is also something keenly supported by other countries with interests as disparate as the United States, China and Japan.
With surprising bluntness, Kim Dae Jung told his counterpart that for this to happen, "it is important to improve your relations with the United States and Japan."
---
Past Korean Accords Have Failed
Associated Press
June 14, 2000 Filed at 3:24 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Koreas-Summit-Past-Accords.html
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- Since 1971, North and South Korea have held many rounds of talks to discuss issues such as the reunion of families and political and sports exchanges. Twice before agreements promoting the peninsula's reunification have failed.
------
Aug. 12, 1971: Red Cross officials of the two Koreas begin talks to reunite tens of thousands of families separated by their closed border. After 300 sessions over 14 years, they agree to grant temporary reunions for only 100 family members.
July 4, 1972: South Korea's intelligence chief and a confidant of North Korean leader Kim Il Sung sign a joint communique pledging to work toward reunification of the peninsula. Hailed as a major peace document, the accord is scrapped one year later when Pyongyang criticizes Seoul for having its secret agents capture a South Korean opposition leader overseas and bring him home to be prosecuted for anti-government activities.
Sept. 4, 1990: North and South Korean prime ministers start talks that lead to a Dec. 13, 1991, agreement promoting peace and eventual reunification. It is never put into practice, partly because of a dispute over the North's suspected development of nuclear weapons.
-------- kosovo
KOSOVO ON THE VERGE OF ECOLOGICAL CRISIS
June 14, 2000 (I-Net)
Morning news edited by Nikola Stan
AIM (Academic Information Network),
Belgrade, June 14, 2000 12:00
http://www.aim.ac.yu/cgi-bin/f_news.pl?id=1#4
PRISTINA, Group of French doctors, confirmed to daily "Glas javnosti" news reporter, that ecological catastrophe is threatening Kosovo. Adducing on the researches that have been done by their colleagues during the last 12 months, they claimed that the percent of radioactive elements in air, water and soil is very high.
They confirmed doubts that there is a nuclear waste storage in the Bondstill American Military Base, near Urosevac. The second storage is said to be located in Salkovac village, near Pristina, near the water refinery which supplies Pristina with drinking water. "This is one of the reasons why soldiers from western countries flee Kosovo, and drink only bottled water imported from abroad."
-------- npt
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
Statement on the Conclusion of the 2000 NPT Review Conference
From: "Merav Datan" mdatan@ippnw.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:27:11 -0400
For four weeks in April and May, the 187 state parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) met in New York for the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The parties meet every five years to review the status of international efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, assess compliance by the parties with their treaty obligations, and to chart future courses of action to realize the goals of the treaty, among them the elimination of nuclear weapons.
At the conclusion of this year's NPT Review Conference, the first since the NPT was indefinitely extended in 1995, a considerably detailed final consensus document was issued by the parties to the NPT. This document, which followed long and difficult negotiations, provides an important basis for measuring the success, and/or shortcomings, of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. In our view, the Review Conference produced some modest victories for those who advocate the prompt and complete abolition of nuclear weapons. It was also, for reasons explained below, a political success for the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), a group of middle powers (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden) seeking to advance the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world.
Deeds, not words, however, will ultimately determine whether the 2000 NPT Review Conference, and indeed the NPT itself, has succeeded in its avowed purpose. Some aspects of the final document are very encouraging. Advocates of abolition, both NGOs and states, must now use the leverage provided by the final document to push, prod and compel all NPT parties to fulfill their commitments.
We are also cautious in our appraisal of the NPT Review Conference at this stage because of an issue that loomed over the conference without being addressed directly in the final document, and that is the possible U.S. deployment of a national missile defense system (NMD). Russia, China and even many NATO allies are firmly opposed to NMD. Indeed, Russia has threatened to withdraw from all existing nuclear arms control treaties if the U.S. proceeds with deployment and has made its recent ratification of START II conditional on non-deployment. We are, therefore, mindful that any progress on non-proliferation and disarmament that may have been made in New York could be undone if U.S. President Clinton, or his successor, decides to proceed with NMD.
Enforcing compliance with Article VI of the treaty is particularly important to IPPNW. Article VI contains the core promise, the essential quid pro quo, that lies at the heart of the NPT: a promise from the nuclear states (the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China) to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals in exchange for the non-nuclear weapon states' pledge not to acquire nuclear weapons.
Below is a brief overview of what we consider to be the key elements of the 2000 NPT Review Conference final document.
1. Unequivocal Undertaking
Throughout much of the NPT's history the nuclear powers, especially the United States, have stated that the abolition of nuclear weapons was an "ultimate goal." These words, "ultimate goal," were used as a rhetorical shield by the nuclear weapon states against accusations that nuclear disarmament was not proceeding quickly enough. They allowed the nuclear status quo to remain in effect for three decades and had the effect of postponing, perhaps indefinitely, the principal objective of the NPT: the establishment of a world without nuclear weapons.
The word "ultimate" was dropped from the Review Conference final document to describe the goal of elimination of nuclear weapons. Instead, the final document, in referring to Article VI, speaks of "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals..." This is the strongest political statement on abolition by the nuclear weapon states to date. While no timetable is established, this wording narrows the "wiggle room" available to the nuclear powers, particularly the U.S., to indefinitely defer their full compliance with Article VI. The statement further asserts that "the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons." Again, however, deeds, not words, are needed to turn rhetoric into reality.
2. Preserving and Strengthening the ABM Treaty
NMD was implicitly addressed at the NPT Review Conference when the parties called in the final document, again referring to implementation of Article VI, for "preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty." Without modifications, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would prohibit NMD and the U.S. is seeking to negotiate such modifications with Russia. The language of the document ("preserving and strengthening") is ambiguous in that it allows Russia and the vast majority of NPT state parties to argue that the ABM Treaty must remain unchanged. Our concern, however, is that the U.S. might argue that modifying the ABM Treaty qualifies as "preserving and strengthening" -- a transparent and, in our judgment, disingenuous argument that would undermine the basis of consensus that led to the final document. Abolition advocates, and opponents of NMD, must vigorously support the majority view.
3. Nuclear Doctrines
The final document also included an unprecedented commitment toward "a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination." This provides a basis for challenging the nuclear doctrines of the nuclear weapon states and NATO.
4. Irreversibility
Another first for the NPT was agreement on the "principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures." This means that once weapons are dismantled or destroyed they should not be rebuilt or replaced.
5. Increased Transparency
The final document calls, for the first time in the history of the NPT, for "increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to their nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to Article VI..." Although there are no specific examples of how the nuclear weapons states are to fulfill this obligation, there is now a bona fide basis for demanding it.
6. Further Reductions of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Again, for the first time, the NPT parties have explicitly called for the "further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives..." This part of the final document explicitly asserts the expectation of the parties that the nuclear weapons states will move unilaterally to reduce tactical or theater nuclear weapons. This assertion takes on particular significance in light of current NATO practice as well as Russia's new nuclear doctrine, which lowers the threshold for nuclear weapons use to deflect a conventional attack on its territory, and the potential introduction of tactical nuclear weapons into regional conflicts. Again, the language provides leverage for pushing the nuclear weapons states to act on their own to reduce non-strategic nuclear arsenals.
7. De-alerting
IPPNW, as a member of the Back from the Brink Campaign, has been advocating that the nuclear states should take a variety of measures to take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Although the final document does not explicitly call for the de-alerting of nuclear weapons now on high alert, it does call for "concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems." This is, effectively, a call for de-alerting nuclear weapons to help avoid nuclear war by accident or miscalculation. This language provides potential leverage for abolition advocates who view de-alerting, as we do, as a high priority.
8. De-linking Nuclear and General Disarmament
The nuclear weapon states, and the U.S. in particular, have historically argued that the language of Article VI only contemplates nuclear disarmament in the context of general and complete disarmament. This interpretation has allowed the nuclear weapon states to essentially defer forever their obligation to eliminate their nuclear arsenals since general and complete international disarmament is, at best, a goal that may only be achieved in an unforseeable future. The final document now clearly de-links nuclear disarmament from general disarmament while re-affirming "that the ultimate objective of the efforts of the States in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control."
9. Universality
The final document urges all states not party to the NPT (Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan) to accede as non-nuclear weapon states "promptly and without condition." The document also explicitly states that despite their nuclear test explosions in 1998, India and Pakistan are not considered by the NPT state parties to be nuclear weapon states, and it calls upon India, Pakistan, and Israel to place their nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The final document also calls upon India and Pakistan to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (which Israel has signed).
10. Fissile Materials Ban
The final document recognizes that fulfillment of NPT Article VI requires a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices..." and "regrets that negotiations have not been pursued on this issue." Progress in the Conference on Disarmament on a fissile materials cut-off treaty has been non-existent since 1995, when the NPT Review and Extension Conference recommended such negotiations.
11. Nuclear Weapons Free Zones
In several paragraphs the final document reaffirms the importance of nuclear weapon free zones in the nuclear disarmament process and urges the continued creation of such zones "around the globe."
* In our view, these are among the most significant developments to arise from the 2000 NPT Review Conference. We see the final consensus document as further support for the view that abolition is a legitimate and achievable goal and that possession, use, and threatened use of nuclear weapons are, as the World Court has said, illegitimate and illegal under international law. We believe the final document provides rhetorical and political leverage for our efforts to de-alert nuclear weapons, to prevent deployment of NMD, to bring about prompt, dramatic reductions in nuclear arsenals, and, most importantly, to advance the complete elimination of nuclear weapons through negotiation and implementation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
At the same time, we recognize that the signing of the NPT some thirty years ago raised similar hopes that were dashed as the years passed. Nuclear disarmament has proven an elusive goal. Accordingly, we take a guardedly optimistic view of the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The NPT remains intact and the parties have evinced a commitment to try and realize its full promise. For that promise to be fulfilled, however, IPPNW and other NGOs, as well as the non-nuclear parties to the NPT must be prepared to wage a constant and energetic campaign.
The 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons, which IPPNW was instrumental in securing, played a significant role in the deliberations of the 2000 NPT Review Conference and is cited in the final document as a legal basis for some of the commitments the parties have agreed to undertake with regard to nuclear disarmament. The New Agenda Coalition (NAC) countries provided critical leadership at the Review Conference in the face of nuclear weapon states' pressure on non-nuclear weapon states during the deliberations. The NAC countries were steadfastly outspoken advocates of the need to move more quickly towards complete nuclear disarmament. IPPNW has supported the NAC directly and through the Middle Powers Initiative, which is headquartered at IPPNW's headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
In summary, the 2000 NPT Review Conference produced a final document that reflects many important and favorable developments. Since the late 1980s, IPPNW has been a staunch advocate of the abolition of nuclear weapons. Our understanding of the health and environmental consequences of nuclear warfare, and our solemn obligation as physicians to protect and preserve life and health make abolition, for us, a moral imperative. Thousands of nuclear warheads remain on hair-trigger alert and tens of thousands more could be launched in hours. Just one of these weapons is capable of slaughtering millions. And explosion of just a few could have devastating and long-lasting effects on the environment, disrupt transportation and delivery of food, fuel, and medical supplies, and possibly trigger famine and mass starvation.
The NPT remains vitally important to efforts not only to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but to achieve a nuclear weapons free world. It is now up to IPPNW, the NGO community, and sympathetic state parties to the NPT to make the abolition of nuclear weapons, the promise of the NPT, a reality.
-------- russia
Russia: No Progress in ABM Talks
Wednesday June 14 9:25 AM ET
From: "Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space" globalnet@mindspring.com
MOSCOW (AP) - A top Russian general on Wednesday accused the United States of trying to ``demonize'' North Korea and said that there was absolutely no missile threat from so-called rogue states.
``We evaluate the threats, the true missile threat, to the United States as being nil,'' Gen. Leonid Ivashov, head of the Defense Ministry's Department for International Cooperation, told reporters.
``As far as we know, North Korea has no intention of forcing the United States to its knees.''
Ivashov's comments followed talks Tuesday between U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen and Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev on U.S. proposals to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to permit the United States to build a limited national missile defense.
The United States says it wants to defend against attack from states such as North Korea. Ivashov said that the historic summit meeting this week between North Korea and South Korea ``was a major step toward lifting the concerns of the United States.''
Russia's top missile officer, Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, said Cohen hadn't managed to get Russia to budge from its opposition to the U.S. proposal.
Yakovlev, head of the Strategic Rocket Forces, reiterated Russia's conviction that such a system would upset the strategic balance and start a new arms race.
``What is being done in the United States is an invitation to both countries of the nuclear club and the so-called threshold countries to build up their nuclear potential and ability to overcome ABM systems,'' Yakovlev was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 90083 Gainesville, FL. 32607 (352) 337-9274 http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk globalnet@mindspring.com
----
Russia-US missile warning center to be in place in 2001.
Itar-Tass
June 14, 2000
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=v0613073.2ts&level3=139501&date=20000614
MOSCOW, June 13 (Itar-Tass) via NewsEdge Corporation - The Russian-American missile launch warning center will start working at full capacity in 2001, the commander of Russian Strategic Troops, Vladimir akovlev, told reporters on Tuesday.
The center will be located in Podlipki, a city near Moscow. Yakovlev said "work on setting up the center is already going - groups of programme specialists are being formed, the software is being worked up".
Three lines of the center's operation will be exchange of information about launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles, rapid task-solving in unclear situations and formation of a database on launches of missiles and booster rockets.
Yakovlev said the "talk is in particular about interaction in case of errors in work of systems of the Missile Attack Warning System and unsanctioned missile launches".
He said the center would help the "development of Russian-Ameircan dialogue from the perspective of a right understanding of existing and predicted dangers".
In prospect, "other members of the nuclear club can join in this process on the condition of dialogue development and effective work of the center, as there should be full openness and understanding here", Yakovlev said.
---
Russian Officials Flesh Out Alternative Antimissile Proposal
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
MOSCOW, June 13 -- Russian officials have told the United States that they are developing a system that is capable of shooting down ballistic missiles soon after they are launched, a senior United States official said today.
Moscow has yet to provide details about the new system, but after weeks of vague and confusing statements, the Russians have finally begun to flesh out their plan in meetings here with Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.
"Things have become a bit clearer," a senior Pentagon official said. "The Russians claim they have a new system under development that focuses on intercepting missiles in the boost phase," or shortly after they have been launched.
The two sides, however, still have strong and potentially unbridgeable differences about how to defend against a missile threat posed by nations like North Korea, Iran and Iraq, and the seriousness of the threat.
The Russian plan, first floated as an idea by President Vladimir V. Putin on the eve of a summit meeting with President Clinton, represents an important evolution in Moscow's political strategy to counter the Clinton administration's antimissile defense plan.
The Kremlin has steadfastly opposed Washington's proposal to deploy 100 interceptors and a battle-management radar system in Alaska and has insisted that it would violate the Antiballistic Missile Treaty the United States signed with the Soviet Union in 1972.
On that point the Clinton administration agrees, but it has asked the Russian government to amend the treaty to accommodate the American plan. While Washington insists that its plan could not neutralize Russia's large nuclear force, Moscow fears that it is a first step toward a grander American antimissile scheme.
Recently, however, Moscow decided that the best way to argue against the American position was not simply to give a flat "no," but to propose an alternative -- one which would have little ability against Russian strategic forces but which would still protect the United States from emerging missile threats.
At first, United States officials complained that the Russian plan was distressingly vague. But President Putin and Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev clarified the Russian thinking today with Secretary Cohen. According to Mr. Cohen, there are two main elements to the Russian plan. One would create a system to protect American and Russian territory by shooting down missiles as they are launched. In the case of North Korea, for example, antimissile interceptors would be deployed near the Korean peninsula and destroy North Korean missiles as they ascend.
The second element of the Russian plan would use "theater" antimissile systems to protect Europe. These are systems that are allowed by the 1972 treaty, and which are used to shoot down short- and medium-range missiles.
Regarding the so-called boost-phase approach, the Russians say they are developing a new defensive system. And some American scientists, including Richard L. Garwin of the Council on Foreign Relations, have also argued that such an approach is more promising than the Clinton administration's plan.
They say it is easier to hit a large missile as it ascends than to intercept fast-flying warheads in space, as the White House has proposed. And they have also argued that a boost-phase approach could be the basis of a political compromise between Moscow and Washington.
Still, the Pentagon remains skeptical. Mr. Cohen said he doubted that the Russian system could be developed by 2005, the deadline for the first phase of the antimissile program planned by the Clinton administration. "We are willing to listen to proposals about a boost-phase intercept system, but our understanding is that it requires a great deal of technical challenge," he said.
Among the difficulties, Mr. Cohen asserted that it would be hard to develop an interceptor that could distinguish between a missile's flame and the missile itself and hit it in time.
American and Russian experts plan to meet to discuss antimissile technology in more detail. Pentagon officials insist that the discussions indicate that the two sides are approaching the missile defense issue in a business-like manner.
But Moscow and Washington still have huge differences. For one thing, the Russians view their plans a substitute for the American system, while the Pentagon says that it is, at best, a supplement.
For another, Russia continues to oppose the Clinton administration's insistence that the ABM treaty be amended to permit the testing and deployment of a national missile defense system. The Russians also say the two sides should put more emphasis on political efforts to dissuade thi