-------- NUCLEAR (by country)

Pentagon fears Russia, China helping Iran build ballistic missile

CNN
July 19, 2000
CNN National Security Producer Chris Plante
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/07/19/iran.missile.test/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pentagon officials have expressed serious concern that Russia and perhaps China are helping Iran in its development of longer-range, ballistic missiles.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/07/19/iran.missile.test/maryland.washington.d.c.jpg

Their reaction follows a successful test launch Saturday by Iran of the Shahab-3 missile.

The Shahab-3 has a range of up to 900 miles, said Department of Defense spokesman Kenneth Bacon. Other versions thought to be in development would have an even greater range.

"We're very concerned about help they've (Iran) been getting on a variety of programs, some from Russia, and some, we believe, from China as well," Bacon said. "And we've voiced our concern both to the governments of Russia and China about this. And we will continue to voice our concern about efforts that aid the proliferation of missiles."

The missile "puts Iran in a position to strike concentrations of our troops in the Middle East and also to strike other countries in the Middle East," he said.

"It could also put Iran in a position to strike parts of Russia, depending on where the missile would be based," Bacon warned.

Iran cites defensive needs

Iran said Tuesday the latest missile test was only for defensive purposes.

The Shahab-3 is modeled mainly on North Korea's Nodong-1 and has been improved with Russian technology.

Stymied by a Western embargo since its 1980-1988 war with Iraq, Iran has embarked on a strategy of copying and developing military hardware.

"As it was announced before, the test was done to boost the country's defensive capability and as a deterring force," said Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi.

Test could raise stakes for U.S. defense system

Saturday's test likely will aggravate debate over U.S. interest in building a national missile defense system.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen said the test demonstrates why the United States should create its own defense network.

But the proposed system has been widely criticized by leaders in Europe as well as Russia and China. Some fear that if the United States goes ahead with such a system, it will alter the delicate nuclear balance of power now in place in the world.

U.S. also worries about intercontinental missile

U.S. officials have cited what they call an emerging ballistic missile threat from "states of concern" such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq as justification for such a system.

Bacon said U.S. officials are not just worried about the Shahab-3. The Iranians are contemplating building longer-range missiles such as the Shahab-5 that could have an intercontinental range, he said.

"There isn't any conceivable reason why Iran needs a missile of intercontinental range if it's worried about regional security issues," Bacon said. "It already has, in the Shahab-3, a missile that should allow it to deter or intimidate, if that's its goal, its neighbors. So it's a little puzzling why they would want missiles of longer range, but apparently they are working on those."

---

Russia, Beijing agree to oppose U.S. missile plans

CNN
July 19, 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/east/07/18/russia.china.02/index.html

BEIJING (CNN) -- With a handshake and a mutual denunciation of U.S. plans to develop an anti-missile system, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin demonstrated on Tuesday their pledge to increase cooperation between their countries.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/east/07/18/russia.china.02/china.beijing.jpg

On Putin's first state visit to China, the two leaders signed a joint declaration calling on the international community to take "all necessary measures" to oppose U.S. plans for a national missile defense system. An American move in that direction would require amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

"Implementing this plan will have the most grave adverse consequences not only to the national security of Russia, China and other countries, but also to the security and international strategic stability of the United States itself," the two leaders said in a joint statement.

Washington has argued that the system would guard against missiles from countries, like Korea, Iran and Iraq, that the United States labels as "states of concern." Such countries have begun acquiring nuclear and missile technology.

But Jiang and Putin say the anti-missile system would give the United States "unilateral superiority in military and security matters ... (and) upset the world's strategic balance."

"Our two countries share a common position on the international strategic balance," Putin said. "In the world today, in the international situation, this position is very important."

The newly strengthened ties between China and Russia, Jiang said, were "a new type of cooperative relationship which is not an alliance, not confrontational and not aimed at a third country."

Despite strong feelings against the missile defense system, the Russian and Chinese leaders were careful in their public statements before television cameras not to name the United States directly and made clear that they are not forming an alliance against it.

"The strategic partnership between China and Russia is not directed at or against any third nation," the leaders' joint statement said.

One of China's main fears is that a U.S. defense system could aid Taiwan, the island off its east coast that China considers a renegade province.

Putin's next stop is an unprecedented visit to North Korea. Diplomats say Russia and China hope to prove their diplomacy is more effective against missile threats than U.S. defense technology.

Putin, meanwhile, has proposed a joint Russia-NATO/Europe anti-missile defense system.

CNN Beijing Bureau Chief Rebecca MacKinnon, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

---

China, Russia blast U.S. missile defense plan
Renewed arms race among fears voiced by two presidents

Pioneer Planet
Published: Wednesday, July 19, 2000
MICHAEL DORGAN KNIGHT RIDDER FOREIGN SERVICE
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/seven-days/3/news/docs/022194.htm

BEIJING, The presidents of Russia and China on Tuesday attacked U.S. plans for a missile defense system as an attempt to dominate the world.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin warned of a new arms race, accusing the United States of undermining global strategic stability. The United States would use a national missile defense ``to seek unilateral military and security advantages,'' they said.

Russian and China hope that by forming a ``strategic partnership'' they can better resist what they see as expanding U.S. influence.

Their joint condemnation of the controversial missile defense plan was the centerpiece of Putin's two-day visit, his first to China as president. Putin planned to fly to North Korea today to meet leader Kim Jong Il before heading to Japan for a summit with President Clinton and leaders of the other major industrial nations.

Clinton will decide this year whether to deploy the anti-missile system. One factor he must consider is the effect it would have on arms control agreements.

Another system under U.S. consideration is the so-called theater missile defense, which would be based in Asia with the stated goal of protecting American troops and allies in the region.

China's chief arms negotiator, Sha Zukang, warned last week that deploying the systems could unravel nearly 30 years of efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Sha said China would protect its interests and probably would cooperate with Russia to correct an imbalance in nuclear power with the United Sates.

Russia has threatened to withdraw from nuclear arms reduction treaties and other arms control agreements.

U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, who visited Beijing last week, tried to convince China's leaders that the proposed systems would be designed to protect the United States and its allies against countries such as North Korea and Iraq, which are developing missiles, not against China.

Jiang was unconvinced. He and Putin said in their joint statement that deploying anti-missile shields would eviscerate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Kurt Radtke, a China expert at Tokyo's Waseda University, said reactions to the U.S. missile defense-system plan ``are probably the most important issues we have been facing since the collapse of the Soviet Union, because they are contributing to the formation of a new kind of alliance system.''

---

Russia and China denounce U.S. missile-defense projects Presidents Putin and Jiang perceive growing influence from the Americans and warned of a new arms race.

Philadelphia Inquirer
Wednesday, July 19, 2000
By Michael Dorgan KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE
http://web.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/07/19/national/PUTIN19.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/07192000/nation_w/4619.htm

BEIJING - The presidents of Russia and China yesterday attacked U.S. plans for a missile-defense system as an attempt to dominate the world.

In a sharply worded statement, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin accused the United States of undermining global strategic stability, and they warned of a new arms race.

The United States would use a national-missile defense "to seek unilateral military and security advantages," the statement said.

China and Russia hope that by forming a "strategic partnership" they can better resist what they perceive as expanding U.S. influence.

Their joint condemnation of missile defense was the centerpiece of Putin's two-day visit, his first to China as president. Today, Putin planned to fly to North Korea for a meeting with leader Kim Jong Il before heading to Japan for a summit with President Clinton and leaders of the other major industrial nations.

Clinton will decide this year whether to deploy a national antimissile system. One factor he must consider is how it would affect arms-control agreements.

Another system under U.S. consideration is the theater missile defense, which would be based in Asia and would protect American troops and allies in the region.

China's chief arms negotiator, Sha Zukang, warned last week that deploying the systems could unravel nearly 30 years of efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Sha said China would protect its interests and probably would cooperate with Russia to correct an imbalance in nuclear power with the United Sates.

Russia has threatened to withdraw from nuclear arms-reduction treaties and other arms-control agreements.

U.S. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, who visited Beijing last week, tried to convince China's leaders that the proposed systems would be designed to protect the United States and its allies against countries such as North Korea and Iraq, which are developing missiles, not against China.

Jiang, who met privately with Cohen, was unconvinced. He and Putin said in their joint statement that deploying antimissile shields would eviscerate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The ABM treaty, which prohibits the type of defensive systems the United States is developing, "forms the basis of key international agreements on reduction and limitation of offensive strategic weaponry and prevention of proliferation of massive destructive weaponry," the joint statement said.

Kurt Radtke, a China expert at Tokyo's Waseda University, said reactions to the U.S. missile-defense plan "are probably the most important issues we have been facing since the collapse of the Soviet Union, because they are already contributing to the formation of a new kind of alliance system and are therefore likely to shape the international system of the future."

China and Russia worry that a regional defense shield would put the defense systems of Japan, South Korea and possibly Taiwan under U.S. control, thereby expanding American power and influence in the region, Radtke said.

China and Russia share a long border as well as a long history of conflict and mutual suspicion. They both want U.S. technology and capital and access to American markets.

Michael Dorgan's e-mail address is mdorgan@krwashington.com

---

Russia and China Unite in Criticism of U.S. Antimissile Plan

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By CRAIG S. SMITH
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/071900china-us-missile.html

BEIJING, July 18 -- The presidents of China and Russia denounced the United States's proposed missile defense program in a joint statement today and vowed to strengthen a strategic partnership between their nations.

But the first day of their summit meeting produced no substantive economic agreements, which Western scholars said pointed to a fundamental flaw in that partnership. Trade ties are more binding than talk in the post-cold war era, and Russia cannot compete with what the United States, Europe or Japan can offer China these days, they said.

"The Chinese are the ultimate realists, and they know Russia is now a third-rate country economically, technologically and politically," said Michel Oksenberg, a China scholar at Stanford University.

China's president, Jiang Zemin, and Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, met for nearly three hours today after a brief welcoming ceremony at Beijing's Great Hall of the People on Tiananmen Square. Mr. Jiang bantered with his guest in Russian, which he had learned as a student in Moscow when the Soviet Union played big brother to the fledgling Chinese Communists.

After the first session of the summit meeting, which ends on Wednesday, the two leaders signed a joint statement condemning the United States for seeking "unilateral military and security advantages" with a missile defense plan that would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. The statement warned that breaching that treaty would "trigger a new arms race." President Clinton may decide by October whether to begin the first phase of the system, or he may leave the decision to his successor.

"Our two countries presently share a common position on the global security balance," Mr. Putin said after signing four other documents, including accords on banking and energy cooperation and an agreement for Russia to build an experimental fast-neutron reactor in China. Mr. Jiang said that the two countries would "push forward a global multipolar process and establish a new political and economic order." Multipolar is the shorthand used by China to describe a world in which the United States is not the sole superpower.

But what was conspicuously missing from the list of documents signed today was an agreement on building a multi-billion-dollar pipeline from Siberia to China. Some form of commitment on the pipeline was expected to have been the largest, most concrete development to come from Mr. Putin's visit.

The absence of any agreement contrasts sharply with visits by Western heads of state, who typically preside over the signing of billions of dollars in their trade deals with China. Trade between Russia and China totaled only $3.56 billion in the first half of this year. In 1999, trade between the United States and China totaled $94.9 billion.

"To further boost trade ties, China and Russia need a big-scale strategy and large projects," said Lu Nanquan, vice director of the Russian Studies Center at China's Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. He said the pipeline deal was stalled over a dispute about where it should go, with Russia favoring a route through Mongolia, and China wanting the pipeline to pass further north to its refining center near the oil fields in Heilongjiang Province.

Despite the talk of partnership, analysts say that the two countries are likely to remain wary of each other without more cross-border investment and stronger trade flow. "China can get large investments and advanced technology only from the West, particularly from the U.S., so there is only so far such a Sino-Russian coalition can go," said Merle Goldman, a professor of Chinese history at Boston University.

Russia is so far unwilling to help China in the one area that it wants and for which Russia has the resources: the transfer of weapons technology. Moscow has been reluctant to give China sensitive know-how that could someday be used against it. Russia prefers to sell China arms instead.

And many people say Russia continues to regard China with suspicion, given Russia's increasingly tenuous hold over its own Far East. "Russia is most concerned about the immigration of Chinese into its Far East region, where only hundreds of thousands of Russians live close to a Chinese region with a population of hundreds of millions," said Zhao Huasheng, director of Russian studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies. "Russia fears that Chinese immigrants will outnumber Russian citizens in the region, and might someday raise territorial issues."

Mr. Oksenberg said Beijing also understands that too close a relationship with Russia could push the United States into an even closer relationship with Japan, which is something Beijing hopes to avoid. China wants to build better ties with the world's industrialized powerhouses rather than hitch itself to a weak economy like Russia.

"Beijing may seek to use Moscow opportunistically for a while, but China's leaders now conceive of themselves as in the big leagues, and behind their honeyed words, they view Russia with scorn, disdain and pity," he said.

----

Beijing's Objections Cause Concern

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, July 18 -- Although Russia opposes a United States national missile shield, and European allies doubt its usefulness, the toughest political obstacle may be China, the chief United States arms control official said today.

"The ones that we have to work on most assiduously are the China concerns," said John D. Holum, senior adviser to the secretary of state on arms control. "It will take considerable work to demonstrate that this system isn't aimed at them."

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen met with President Jiang Zemin and other top Chinese officials in Beijing last week but reported making little headway in overcoming their objections to missile defense.

China has only a couple dozen ballistic missiles of intercontinental range. Although the Pentagon has said its proposed national missile shield is designed to counter a threat from North Korea, not China or Russia, it acknowledges that the system could defend against as many as two dozen incoming missiles.

---

China Joins Russia in Warning U.S. On Shield
Missile Defense Plan Assailed at Meeting

Washington Post
Wednesday, July 19, 2000; Page A01
By Ted Plafker Special to The Washington Post
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-07/19/148l-071900-idx.html

BEIJING, July 18-In a sharp joint statement, China and Russia warned today of "the most grave adverse consequences" if the United States proceeds with plans for a national missile defense system.

The warning was issued at a one-day summit meeting between President Jiang Zemin and his visiting Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in which the two countries also pledged to bring Chinese-Russian ties to a "new" and "higher" level and focused on what they described as a shared preoccupation with the role of the United States as the world's only superpower.

"The nature of the [American missile defense] plan is to seek unilateral military and security advantages," said a joint communique carried by China's official New China News Agency. "Implementing this plan will have the most grave adverse consequences not only for the security of Russia, China and other countries, but also for the security of the United States and global strategic stability. . . . Therefore China and Russia are firmly opposed to such a system."

The statement also called the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which bans national missile defenses, "the cornerstone of global strategic stability and international security," and said that "any damage to the ABM will trigger a new arms race."

The communique echoed in stronger and more formal language expressions of opposition by Putin and Jiang relayed by their spokesmen after their first meeting July 5 at a regional security summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. It was the latest note in a chorus of complaints arising from Russia and China--in addition to other countries, including some U.S. allies--seeking to dissuade President Clinton from going ahead with construction of a limited national missile defense system. Clinton is expected to make his decision this fall.

In a display of Russian support for China's concerns over Taiwan, the communique also warned against deployment of any "nonstrategic missile defense system" that would undermine "security interests of other countries." In particular, it said, "incorporating Taiwan in any foreign missile defense system in any way is unacceptable and will seriously undermine regional stability."

China has voiced worry that providing such a theater missile defense system to Taiwan would undercut the threat of its missiles arrayed in southern China. This, Beijing has warned, could embolden the island to declare independence and would constitute interference in what China regards as a domestic struggle to reincorporate a wayward province.

Moscow's opposition to missile defenses, although often voiced, has been tempered by suggestions from senior Russian leaders, including Putin himself, that Russia might agree to modify the ABM Treaty or even consider cooperating with the United States on a limited defense system for Europe. It was unclear in today's communique whether Russia's position has really hardened on these issues or whether, while in China, Putin sought to please his hosts with tough language.

In addition to the particularity of China's concern over theater defenses for Taiwan, Russia has far less to fear from national defenses than does China.

U.S. officials say the national system would be designed to defend against a small-scale attack by such hostile states as North Korea or Iraq. With its arsenal of strategic warheads still numbering in the thousands, they contend, Moscow would retain a credible deterrent threat. China, however, is thought to possess a strategic force of fewer than two dozen missiles, small enough to be compromised by a missile defense system.

This fear was behind the communique's charge that, despite explanations to the contrary, the United States is seeking "unilateral military and security advantages" with its plans for national missile defense.

The White House did not comment directly, but spokesman Joe Lockhart said, "I think President Putin has made his views well-known on this issue. He's discussed this with the president while we were in Russia."

John D. Holum, the acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, told reporters that the Chinese and Russian objections were "not unexpected" and reiterated that a U.S. national missile defense system would not be directed at Russia or China.

Holum said that despite the diplomatic costs underscored today in Beijing, national missile defense "is likely to be essential as threats rise from states of concern."

A Western diplomat in Beijing said the Chinese-Russian statement could be intended to capitalize on the failure of a U.S. test earlier this month, the second failure of three such tests.

"Why not add a little gasoline to the fire? With people now wondering whether the system can even work, it's a perfect time to provide critics with more proof that it's a bad idea," the diplomat said.

In addition to formalizing their mutual suspicions of the United States, the two sides sought to stimulate a trade relationship that, while showing signs of improvement, has never met its potential. Bilateral trade in the first half of 2000 totaled $3.56 billion, according to Chinese statistics. While that marked a sharp rise compared with last year, it also means there is little chance of reaching the official target of $20 billion.

Russia is also a major supplier of arms to China. Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, who accompanied Putin to Beijing, said earlier this month that sales to China are set to double in value in the next two years. Russia already sells China more than $1 billion a year in armaments.

Staff writer Steven Mufson in Washington contributed to this report.

---

Russia, China denounce U.S. missile shield

USA Today
07/18/00- Updated 09:11 AM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwstue01.htm#1

BEIJING (AP) - Putting their burgeoning partnership on display, the Russian and Chinese presidents on Tuesday denounced U.S. plans to build an anti-missile shield and agreed to closer cooperation on international affairs.

Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Russian President Vladimir Putin wrapped up nearly three hours of closed-door talks with a public signing ceremony. Among the five documents they and their aides signed, two took aim at the United States, singling out the proposed high-tech national missile defense system.

In a joint statement, Beijing and Moscow accused Washington of using the system ''to seek unilateral military and security advantages that will pose the most grave, adverse consequences'' to China, Russia and the United States itself.

Putin and Jiang urged Washington to adhere to the 28-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits the missile defense system. Their statement warned that altering the treaty ''will trigger an arms race and lead to an about-face in the positive trend that appeared in world politics after the end of the Cold War.''

Washington argues that its proposed national shield is not aimed at China and Russia but against missiles from North Korea and other smaller states hostile to U.S. interests.

Putin and Jiang, in their statement, said ''the pretext of a missile threat is totally unjustified.''

Beyond criticizing the United States, Jiang and Putin issued a separate statement committing China and Russia to ''work together in the international arena to promote peace and stability in the world.''

Their aides signed agreements on banking and energy cooperation. One accord will see Russia build an experimental fast neutron reactor in China.

Tuesday's meeting was Jiang and Putin's second in three weeks, after a Central Asian summit. Once bitter rivals for the allegiance of the communist world, Beijing and Moscow began steadily improving ties in the late 1980s. In recent years, they have found common cause in concerns about U.S. dominance in world affairs.

After a 21-gun salute, Jiang squired Putin along a red carpet to review a military honor guard on Tiananmen Square. The presidents then met privately for two hours, double the time scheduled, before their foreign and defense ministers and other officials joined them for formal talks.

Afterwards, Jiang and Putin said their talks cemented already strong ties. Putin invited Jiang to visit Moscow next year.

In a swipe against U.S. bullying, NATO and last year's war on Yugoslavia, Putin and Jiang pledged that their countries would cooperate to ''defy hegemonism'' and oppose attempts to ''threaten others by force or to interfere in other countries' internal affairs.''

They also criticized a U.S. proposal for a more limited anti-missile system to protect its troops and allies in East Asia, which Beijing fears would undermine its claim to Taiwan.

''The incorporation of Taiwan into any foreign missile defense system is unacceptable,'' said the statement, which was released by China's official Xinhua News Agency.

Still, China and Russia can ill afford to alienate the United States. Their economic fortunes largely depend on foreign investment, the flow of which is aided by smooth relations with the West.

Beijing's large-scale purchases of Russian weapons aside, trade remains at frustratingly low levels between China and Russia despite repeated vows by their leaders to boost economic ties.

---

Beijing, Moscow hit U.S. on shield

Washington Times
July 19, 2000
By Christopher Bodeen
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-2000719215549.htm

BEIJING - China and Russia joined yesterday to condemn what they consider U.S. attempts to dominate the global order, and pledged to stand together in defiance of American power.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Jiang Zemin, put their burgeoning partnership on display during a one-day summit in the Chinese capital. Among the five documents they and their aides signed at a public ceremony, two took aim at the United States, singling out the proposed national missile defense system.

The leaders' language was not confrontational, but they agreed to closer cooperation on international affairs and denounced the anti-missile shield. In a joint statement, they accused Washington of using the shield "to seek unilateral military and security advantages that will pose the most grave, adverse consequences" to China, Russia and the United States itself.

Mr. Putin and Mr. Jiang urged Washington to adhere to the 28-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits a national missile defense system. Their statement warned that altering the treaty "will trigger an arms race and lead to an about-face in the positive trend that appeared in world politics after the end of the Cold War."

Washington argues that its proposed national shield is not aimed at China and Russia but at stopping missiles from North Korea and other smaller states hostile to U.S. interests. Mr. Putin and Mr. Jiang said "the pretext of a missile threat is totally unjustified."

They also criticized a U.S. proposal for a more limited anti-missile system to protect its troops and allies in East Asia, which Beijing fears would undermine its claim to Taiwan.

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen met with Mr. Jiang and other top Chinese officials in Beijing last week but reported making little headway in overcoming their objections to the missile defense.

"The ones that we have to work on most assiduously are the China concerns," Undersecretary of State John D. Holum told reporters in Washington yesterday. "It will take considerable work to demonstrate that this system isn't aimed at them."

In the documents signed by Mr. Jiang and Mr. Putin after almost three hours of closed-door meetings, they blasted "hegemonism" and attempts to interfere in countries' internal affairs. Those were thinly veiled attacks on NATO, U.S. bullying and last year's war on Yugoslavia, all of which have been roundly criticized in the past by the giant neighbors.

Mr. Jiang and Mr. Putin also issued a statement committing China and Russia to "work together in the international arena to promote peace and stability in the world." Their aides signed agreements on banking and energy cooperation. One accord will see Russia build an experimental fast neutron reactor in China.

Yesterday's meeting was Mr. Jiang's and Mr. Putin's second in three weeks, after a Central Asian summit.

After a 21-gun salute, Mr. Jiang led Mr. Putin along a red carpet to review a military honor guard on Tiananmen Square. The presidents then met privately for two hours before their foreign and defense ministers and other officials joined them for formal talks.

Afterward, Mr. Jiang and Mr. Putin said their talks had cemented already strong ties. Mr. Putin invited Mr. Jiang to visit Moscow next year.

"Our two countries presently share a common position on the global security balance," Mr. Putin was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax News Agency.

The common stance was a reminder of the 1950s, when Mao Tse-tung's regime was Russia's "little brother" in the communist camp. They worked then to spread communism and fight what they labeled U.S. imperialism.

Beijing eventually chafed at playing second fiddle, and the two became bitter rivals in the later decades of the Cold War.

But now China has all but jettisoned its socialist economy, while Russia ditched communism a decade ago. The reduction of hostility between them and common concerns about American influence have brought them closer than at any time in more than three decades.

The new relationship is based on principles they hold in common. Those include nonintervention in nations' internal affairs, as well as the need for mutual support and cooperation on border issues and security, said Jia Qingguo, an expert in international relations at Beijing University.

China and Russia will likely cooperate in developing technologies to defeat the U.S. missile shield if the United States presses ahead with it, although they are unlikely to enter into a military alliance, he said.

Despite their concerns, China and Russia can ill afford to alienate the United States.

Their economic fortunes largely depend on foreign investment, and that investment is aided by smooth relations with the West. And Beijing's large-scale purchases of Russian weapons aside, trade remains at low levels between China and Russia despite repeated promises by their leaders to boost economic ties.

---

US China-Russia Policy Questioned

Associated Press
July 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-US-China-Russia.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Clinton administration has become ``complacent and oblivious'' to China's growing military might and its burgeoning ``anti-American'' alliance with Russia, a congressional panel was told Wednesday.

The testimony before the House Armed Services Committee came a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin joined to condemn what they said were U.S. attempts to dominate world order and pledged to stand against American power.

``The ... relationship and the new trends within it are sufficiently alarming and so increasingly and overtly opposed to vital U.S. military and political interests as to deserve our unflagging attention,'' said Stephen J. Blank of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.

``It is clear ... that this is fundamentally an anti-American relationship,'' he told the hearing into China's foreign policy, military capabilities and view toward the United States.

Other witnesses challenged the Clinton administration philosophy that China's growing economic prosperity will eventually erode communism there and lead to more democratic ways.

``There is a dangerous complacency in these assumptions,'' said June Teufel Dreyer, University of Miami political science professor.

``Even if the People's Republic of China were to become a democracy, China would not necessarily become less of a threat to its neighbors.''

China, said Richard Fisher, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation think tank, is pushing ``an ambitious modernization program'' designed to ``subdue Taiwan,'' then ``get military dominance in the great Asia-Pacific.''

``I am concerned that along with this increased military capability will come an increased willingness to use force in ways that directly threaten the United States and U.S. interests,'' said committee Chairman Rep. Floyd D. Spence, R-S.C.

Blank noted that Russia is already helping China prepare for such a confrontation in Taiwan, saying Russian-Chinese military transfers amount to more than $2 billion a year.

``Moscow is helping China build capabilities for conflict in the Taiwan strait, and these capabilities will be used to deter or confront us,'' if the United States comes to Taiwan's aid, he said.

``A confrontation with the United States in and around or over Taiwan is the dominant scenario today in China's war planning and training,' he said.

Ending a one-day summit Tuesday in Beijing, Putin and Jiang signed documents criticizing the proposed U.S. national missile defense system and blasting ``hegemonism'' and attempts to interfere in countries' internal affairs. The latter two statements were seen as veiled attacks on NATO, perceived U.S. bullying and last year's war on Yugoslavia, all of which have been criticized in the past by the two former communist rivals.

After decades of tension that followed a falling-out in the late 1950s, relations between Moscow and China have been steadily improving since the late 1980s. Since the 1991 Soviet collapse, China has evolved into one of Russia's major trading partners and is the top customer for Russia's ailing military industrial complex. Beijing has purchased billions of dollars worth of jets, missiles, submarines and destroyers.

``One of the most distressing things about this Russo-Chinese relationship is the fact that the United States has been oblivious and complacent concerning this,'' Blank said.

The Pentagon has said that despite China's increasing preparations for a potential clash over Taiwan, Beijing is unlikely to attack the island nation because the Chinese believe war would jeopardize their economic growth and world standing.

-------- australia

Cool heads needed for ANZUS and missile defence
Australia has no alternative to the security alliance with the US, write

Sydney Morning Herald
19/07/2000
William T. Tow and Rod Lyon.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0007/19/text/features04.html

THE next great debate on Australia's alliance politics is under way. Missile defence has combined with high technology, China, a new defence white paper and peacekeeping to place foreign policy - and more specifically Australian-American relations - into the political limelight.

The ALP's proclamation that it would dissociate itself from any US missile defence program if it gained office, and the call from some critics to re-examine ANZUS, are precursors of what promises to be a row over the utility of Australia's most important bilateral relationship. Unfortunately, it is also a debate that promises to be needlessly divisive and even destructive unless put in proper context.

Critics such as former prime minister Malcolm Fraser link the US national missile defence (NMD) initiative to the undermining of the global strategic balance and to prospects of an unconstrained America making war on any country with no risk to itself. Their argument also directly links Pine Gap to this allegedly unrestrained American strategy, arguing that a selfish America in its single-minded quest to defend itself will pull its allies down with it when NMD proves to be more of a catalyst for war than for stability.

Apart from constituting what is, at best, very questionable speculation about Washington's geopolitical objectives, this statement embodies very dubious propositions about NMD's strategic mission and its technological capabilities. No missile defence exists that can ensure such iron-clad blanket coverage as to render the US invulnerable to even limited nuclear strikes and the Pentagon and NMD supporters are hardly so naive as to believe it does.

The invitation (not demand) by US Secretary of Defence, William Cohen, made during his latest visit to Australia for this country to share in the search for good missile defence technology is an offer he has also extended to America's NATO partners and to Japan.

Certainly a careful review of Australia's involvement in helping to develop or field missile defence systems should take place within the broader context of its overall national interests as they relate to relations with China and to this country's future defence posture.

Relevant factors to consider include the feasibility of developing and deploying such systems effectively, their cost relative to their actual strategic utility, and their political effects on such key issues as arms control, nuclear proliferation and regional and global stability.

Some have reached the dubious conclusion that US policy-makers consider a war with China to be inevitable and that NMD is viewed as an insurance against future Chinese missile attacks. This underrates the rationality of Chinese decision-makers who are well aware that any attack against US targets would render their own country extinct.

It must be remembered that China and the US have just resumed their military dialogue, have collaborated actively to stabilise the Korean peninsula and have jointly welcomed prospects of China's entry into the World Trade Organisation. Analysts should be aware of the pitfalls of adhering to the thesis of "conflict inevitability".

Finally, Australians can reasonably ask what alternative to ANZUS they really would prefer to guarantee their own security in the global balance of power. China trades substantially with us but shares little with us in the way of socio-cultural legacies and political values. Japan cannot and will not lead the region unless dark forces of history are once more unleashed by its fear that American power will be retracted from Asia. ASEAN remains fragmented and ineffective over Indonesia's political struggles and over a "widening" of membership that has diluted any real prospects of that organisation "deepening" its energy and credibility anytime soon.

Missile defence has not yet developed the type of issue worth subjecting the entire Australian-American relationship to the type of scrutiny demanded by Fraser and other like-minded alliance critics.

Dr William T. Tow is Associate Professor in International Relations, and Dr Rod Lyon is a lecturer in International Relations, Department of Government, University of Queensland.

---

Missile Shield Stirs Up Dissent in Australia

International Herald Tribune
Paris, Wednesday, July 19, 2000
By Michael Richardson International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/IHT/TODAY/WED/IN/aussie.2.html

SYDNEY - Australia, which wishes to maintain a strong alliance with the United States amid increasing instability in the Asia-Pacific region, has told Washington that it supports a U.S. plan to build a shield against any nuclear missiles fired by potential adversaries, including North Korea.

''We understand why they are considering putting in place a National Missile Defense system,'' Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said recently in Washington.

But Australian critics warn that the program, if it goes ahead, could trigger a dangerous new phase of the nuclear arms race in Asia.

If the missile shield were deployed, they warned, China and other countries, including India and Pakistan, would respond by modernizing and enlarging arsenals of nuclear weapons and by improving ballistic missiles.

The critics also worry that Canberra's backing for the controversial National Missile Defense program, known as NMD, could damage Australia's relations with China to the point where Beijing might consider using its long-range missiles to strike at a key radar detection facility jointly operated by Australia and the United States at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs in the center of the country.

Defense Secretary William Cohen said on a visit to Sydney this week for talks with Australian security officials that the Pine Gap facility ''could very much be involved in terms of providing the kind of radar capability that will be necessary for any effective NMD program.''

Analysts said that the closely guarded base contains radars that can detect and pinpoint long-range missiles in Asia and the Middle East as soon as they are launched.

Mr. Cohen said that one of the reasons it was important for the United States to continue its research, testing and development program for the National Missile Defense system to deal with such countries as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, feared to be building missiles that could eventually have the range to reach the United States.

''Australia has played an important role in terms of its early-warning capabilities and I would expect that should a decision be made to go forward at some point that Australia will continue to play an important role in shared early warning,'' he said. Mr. Cohen added that such a system would promote stability throughout the Asia-Pacific region as well as for the United States.

But a former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, writing Tuesday in The Australian, said that Canberra should ''refuse absolutely'' to allow Pine Gap to be used for missile defense because the facility ''would be a prime target for attack.''

He said that the long-standing alliance Australia has with the United States would ''become an impediment to our security, rather than a safeguard for that security.''

The United States is testing the feasibility of building a National Missile Defense system against possible attacks from ''states of concern'' - formerly referred to as ''rogue states'' - and a Theater Missile Defense system to shield its troops and allies in Asia.

China, which has strongly condemned the plan, fears that such a system would undermine its nuclear defenses and be extended to cover Taiwan as well as Japan and South Korea.

-------- china

U.S. Missile Plan

Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, July 19, 2000
http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20000719/t000067828.html

* Re "Cohen Departs China With a 'Framework,' Little Else," July 14:

So, Secretary of Defense William Cohen had to fend off vociferous objections from the Chinese Communists over U.S. policy to develop a missile defense shield and continued arming of Taiwan. They expressed anger at Israel's decision to cancel the sale of a radar system to the PRC.

Red Chinese officials arrogantly brushed aside U.S. concerns about Chinese missile systems that can decimate the entire western United States. Excuse me? Negotiator Sha Zukang told Cohen that "China will not sit on its hands doing nothing while seeing its security seriously damaged." What about our security being seriously damaged? It is not in the interest of the U.S. to have its foreign policy dictated by a potential enemy who has already threatened to annihilate Los Angeles. Cohen's reply to Sha should have been "Pshaw!"

The U.S. must maintain its own lead in national defense in a ballistic missile age. This will ensure that the Chinese Communist army can never, ever blackmail us or attack us with its nuclear arsenal.

JOSEPH LEA Mission Viejo

---

Bill on Trade With China Faces Delay, Lott Predicts

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/071900china-trade.html

WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Senate is unlikely to vote on the China trade bill before Congress adjourns next week, delaying the vote at least until September, the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, said today.

The bill would grant China permanent normal trade relations with the United States, ending the current situation in which Congress decides annually whether to renew China's trade status.

"It would be very hard to get a final vote before the recess," Senator Lott said, "if all of the options available to those that oppose the bill exercised them, because there are several points where delay could occur -- filibusters could occur."

But Mr. Lott said it was still possible that senators could begin debating the measure as early as next Wednesday and wrap it up once the Senate returns after Labor Day.

Mr. Lott minimized warnings by some of the bill's advocates who say that delaying a final vote is risky, and he insisted that the Senate would eventually approve the trade measure by an overwhelmingly margin. The House passed the measure, 237 to 197, on May 24.

"I don't believe delay is dangerous, and certainly not fatal," Mr. Lott said, adding that "the overwhelming majority of the Senate" supported the bill.

"The headline is going to read, sometime here in the next month: 'Senate Passes China Trade Bill,' " he said. "And I don't think there's going to be any significant change or any way to stop that."

Business leaders, who are traditional Republican allies, have been critical of Mr. Lott for putting one of their top legislative priorities in jeopardy. They fear that postponing the final vote could expose the bill to unforeseen impediments.

Right now, though, the top priority for Senate Republicans has been to pass two tax-cutting measures and as many of the 13 annual spending bills to finance the government as possible before the Republican National Convention, which begins at the end of this month.

With at least 70 senators prepared to vote for the measure, associates of Mr. Lott say he feels that he has the luxury of using the timing of the vote as leverage to wring concessions from Senate Democrats and the White House on the spending bills.

President Clinton has privately urged Mr. Lott to schedule a final vote as soon as possible, but White House aides have not attacked the majority leader for the delay.

Another reason for the delay has been that supporters are trying to pass a version identical to the House bill. If any amendments are tacked on in the Senate, the differences will have to be ironed out in a conference committee and the whole measure returned to the House for a second and potentially volatile vote.

Senate and administration aides have worked fruitlessly in the last week to work out a compromise on a measure sponsored by Senators Fred Thompson, Republican of Tennessee, and Robert G. Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey.

Their measure would require the administration to monitor China's record on the spread of nuclear weapons. It would impose sanctions on Beijing if there was "credible evidence" of exports of certain types of prohibited weaponry.

Mr. Clinton would have discretion to waive some penalties, but others would be automatic. The administration and business leaders have opposed the measure, even after Mr. Thompson agreed to water down several provisions.

Other senators, including Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, and Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, have said they want to offer amendments dealing with China's record on human rights, labor standards and national security.

"Most disturbing," said Mr. Helms, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "are those who want to prevent Congress from even addressing these national security questions during the P.N.T.R. debate, for fear that it will complicate what amounts to a single-minded, dollar-driven crusade to make certain this trade deal is approved in the Senate."

-------- depleted uranium

PATENTED PROCESS PACKS DEPLETED URANIUM IN PLASTIC

July 19, 2000
ENS
Diane D'Arrigo - dianed@igc.org

UPTON, New York, Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory have been awarded a patent for a process that encapsulates depleted uranium oxides in thermoplastic polymers. The process converts depleted uranium to a form the researchers say is stable and safe for long term disposal or reuse. The encapsulated uranium could be used in the production of radiation shielding and counter weights for airplanes, helicopters and ships, the scientists said.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product of enriching uranium ore to make fuel for nuclear reactors. Storing DU requires labor intensive and expensive maintenance.

The Brookhaven Lab process converts uranium oxide powder from a reactive form through chemical processing, and combines it with a thermoplastic binder. The final product can be formed into shapes and is cooled to form a dense solid.

BNL's patented process for encapsulation requires simultaneous heating and mixing of depleted uranium powders and non-biodegradable thermoplastic polymers such as polyethylene or polypropylene. Virgin or recycled polymers can be used. The result is a mixture of depleted uranium and molten thermoplastic polymer, which can be molded into any shape. The final form emits very low levels of radioactivity, and the dense material would make good shielding against gamma or neutron radiation, the scientists said.

"By creating safe, secondary end use products from these materials, we are addressing health and safety, environmental protection, and waste reduction issues," said Paul Kalb, senior research engineer Brookhaven's Environmental Research and Technology Division.

----

STOCKPILING OF ANTIPERSONNEL MINES

http://www.hrw.org/hrw/reports/2000/uslm/USALM007-05.htm#P523_63398

The U.S. has more than 12 million antipersonnel mines in its stockpile, including about 10 million self-destructing mines, more than one million non-self-destructing mines, and about one million Claymore mines. This constitutes the third or fourth largest antipersonnel mine stockpile in the world.73

More specifically, the U.S. stockpile is believed to consist of ten types of antipersonnel mines:74

ADAM 9,516,744
Gator (USAF) 237,556
Gator (USN) 49,845
Volcano 107,160
MOPMS 9,184
PDM 16,148
GEMSS 76,071
M14 670,000
M16 553,537
M18/M18A1 973,932
TOTAL 12,210,177 75

The U.S. announced a cap on its stockpile of antipersonnel mines on January 17, 1997. This cap, which includes antipersonnel mines contained in mixed systems, is still in effect even though the precise cap figure has never been publicly disclosed.76 The U.S. has declared possessing 11 million antipersonnel mines to the Organization of American States mine register, not including Claymore mines.77

After agreeing to CCW Amended Protocol II in May 1996, the U.S., in addition to destroying 3.3 million non-self-destructing mines (see below), modified approximately 670,000 M14 non-self-destructing mines to meet the detectability requirement in the amended protocol.78 This was accomplished by adding metal washers to the mines with adhesive bonding. These mines are to be used only in Korea, except a small number for training purposes.

The U.S. has never declared the exact number of M14 and M16 non-self-destructing antipersonnel mines retained for training and research/development purposes, but this stockpile is thought to be approximately 2,000.79 These mines are used for proficiency training in Korea and for testing mine detection and mine clearance systems at military research and development laboratories.80 It is also possible that antipersonnel mines of foreign manufacture are retained for similar purposes.

The Air Force is planning to upgrade a number of its cluster munitions, including the Gator mixed mine systems, with an adaptation called the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD). With the WCMD, the Gator would still be prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty. The Air Force plans the Gator upgrade in Fiscal Year 2005, just one year before the target date for ending all use of antipersonnel mines, including those in mixed systems such as Gator.81 This both seems wasteful, since the mines with the WCMD could only be used for one year and would have to be destroyed if the U.S. joins the treaty in 2006, and calls into question the Air Force's commitment to the 2006 target date.

Overseas Stocks

U.S. antipersonnel mines are, or have been, stockpiled in the following twelve countries: Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (at Diego Garcia, its Indian Ocean territory). This report is the first to identify Qatar, a ban treaty state party, as a location for stockpiled U.S. antipersonnel mines. It also appears that the U.S. is planning to stockpile antipersonnel mines in Bahrain and Oman, which have not signed the treaty, possibly for the first time (see below).

At a recent meeting of Mine Ban Treaty nations, officials from Italy and Spain said that all U.S. antipersonnel mines have been withdrawn.82 There is no publicly available official information regarding the current on-hand balances of antipersonnel mines outside the U.S. Officials from the National Security Council and Department of Defense, citing security concerns, refused to comment on the types, locations, and quantities of U.S. antipersonnel mines that are stored outside the continental United States.83

While the quantities and locations of munitions are routinely changed by the military, the ICBL's Landmine Monitor Report 1999 estimated that the U.S. had some 200,000 antipersonnel mines in mixed systems (Gator, Volcano, MOPMS) stored overseas, in addition to 1.2 million M14 and M16 dumb mines for Korea.84 There are also artillery-delivered ADAM self-destruct antipersonnel mines stored outside the continental U.S., perhaps numbering in the hundreds of thousands. For example, Human Rights Watch has learned that 7,776 ADAM antipersonnel mines are stored in Qatar (see below). It is likely that ADAM antipersonnel mines are also stockpiled in Germany and Japan.

U.S. antipersonnel mines are believed to be stored or have been stored in seven states parties to the Mine Ban Treaty (Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Qatar, Spain, and the U.K. at Diego Garcia), as well as treaty signatory Greece.

The Mine Ban Treaty's article 4 requires destruction of all stockpiled antipersonnel mines under a state party's "jurisdiction or control" within four years. Some states parties have apparently determined that U.S. mine stocks fall under their jurisdiction, not the U.S.'s, and thus have required removal of the U.S. mines. Italy and Spain have said that the U.S. has already removed its stocks. It is believed that Norway has reached an agreement for the U.S. to remove stocks by 2003 (within the treaty's four-year deadline).

Other states parties have apparently determined that U.S. mine stocks are under U.S. jurisdiction, and thus the states parties do not feel obligated to have the U.S. mines removed or destroyed. This seems to be the case with Germany, Japan, and the U.K. However, it would certainly be against the spirit of the treaty, aimed at no possession or use of antipersonnel mines, to allow a non-state party to store mines inside a state party. There is also a question about whether such stockpiling would violate the Mine Ban Treaty's provision which prohibits a state party under any circumstances to "assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention."85

As noted, Human Rights Watch has learned that the U.S. is currently stockpiling antipersonnel mines in Qatar, a ban treaty state party. Two hundred sixteen ADAM projectiles containing 7,776 antipersonnel mines are currently stored at the Al Karana area in Doha, Qatar as part of U.S. Army Pre-Positioned Stocks Five (APS-5).86

Disturbingly, the U.S. apparently plans also to introduce and stockpile Gator and Claymore antipersonnel mines at the Al Udeid facility in Qatar. According to documents from a recently awarded contract, it appears that one hundred forty-two Air Force CBU-89 Gator mixed system units (a total of 3,124 antipersonnel mines) and one hundred forty-one M18/M18A1 Claymore antipersonnel mines will be stockpiled in war reserve ammunition stockpiles by the Air Force in Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman.87 The contract was awarded to DynCorp Technical Services (Fort Worth, Texas) on April 20, 2000. This would be the first publicly known instance of the U.S. stockpiling antipersonnel mines in Bahrain and Oman.

It is not known if the government of Qatar regards the U.S. equipment stored on its territory as being under its jurisdiction or control. It is also not known if Qatari nationals are employed in the operation or maintenance of the storage facilities as part of joint ventures formed with U.S. companies; if so, it could put Qatar at odds with the Mine Ban Treaty's prohibition on assisting anyone in any way with an activity prohibited by the treaty.88

Department of Defense Officials refused to comment on the issue of either the possible deployment of Air Force or the presence of Army antipersonnel mines in Qatar.89 Qatari diplomats stated that the "mine issue has not been discussed between Qatar and the USA."90

Indeed, U.S. officials have refused to discuss the status of any bilateral arrangements or any modifications to Status of Forces Agreements that may allow the continued storage of U.S. antipersonnel mines with countries who are party to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. One Department of Defense official stated that the U.S. has "not pressured or coerced" such countries.91 Just one state party, Norway, has declared the presence of U.S. stockpiles in the ban treaty's article 7 "transparency measure" reports submitted to the U.N.

The U.S. retains about 1.22 million non-self-destructing M14 and M16 antipersonnel mines for use on the Korea Peninsula.92 It is unclear if these are exclusively stored at facilities in the Republic of Korea. The U.S. maintains ammunition reserves that could be sent to Korea in Japan, Okinawa, Hawaii, and possibly other storage facilities in the continental U.S. The Department of Defense has stated that it does "not publicly reveal specific types of munitions inventories or where they are located." 93

Stockpile Destruction

The U.S. reported that it completed destruction of 3.355 million M14 and M16 non-self-destructing antipersonnel mines on June 30, 1998.94 The Department of Defense told Human Rights Watch that this action fulfilled the direction given by the president in May 1996 to destroy all non-self-destructing mines not needed for Korea or for training purposes.95 The Department of Defense also said that all non-self-destructing antipersonnel mines have been removed from maritime pre-positioning ships like those docked in Norway that contain equipment for a Marine Expeditionary Brigade and other similar pre-positioning ships stationed at Diego Garcia, a territory of the United Kingdom in the Indian Ocean.96 The destruction of the non-self-destructing mines was conducted by open detonation at military facilities, and was carried out by the U.S. Army Industrial Operations Command of the U.S. Army Materiel Command. The cost was approximately $3.3 million.97

PDM and GEMSS mines are apparently also slated for destruction, but the status of each is unknown.

One problem facing the U.S. when the 16,000 PDM and 9.5 million ADAM antipersonnel mines are destroyed (demilitarized) is the presence of trace amounts of depleted uranium in the housing of these mines.98 Apparently, during the development of ADAM, depleted uranium was used to improve their structural strength to withstand the physical forces of being expelled from an artillery tube. It is not known whether DoD has developed procedures to demilitarize these mines and if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved such plans. The U.S. Army is responsible for demilitarizing antipersonnel mines and is spending $6.4 million in research and development funds between 1999 and 2001 to develop cryofracture methods--using extremely cold gas--for the disposal of antipersonnel mines.99 The Department of Defense has estimated the total cost of destruction of ADAM and PDM mines at $32 to 44 million.100

U.S. Mine Stocks and the Mine Ban Treaty U.S. ADAM, Gator, MOPMS, Volcano, GEMSS, PDM, M14, and M16 antipersonnel mines are prohibited under the Mine Ban Treaty because they clearly meet the definition of antipersonnel mine in the treaty.101 The treaty permits Claymore mines used in command-detonated mode, but prohibits use with tripwires.

Certain U.S. mines designated as antivehicle or antitank mines may also be prohibited under the treaty. According to the provisions of the treaty, antivehicle mines with antihandling devices that explode from an unintentional act by a person are considered to be antipersonnel mines and therefore prohibited.102 The U.S. possesses a large number of antivehicle mines that may, as the result of intentional or unintentional design consequences, cause them to function as an antipersonnel mine. However, it is not possible to state with certainty which mines would be prohibited and which not, both because ban treaty states parties have not clarified what is meant by "an unintentional act" and because there is insufficient data to render judgment regarding the stimuli or forces necessary to activate the kill mechanism for these various antivehicle mines.

It would seem clear that U.S. M15 and M21 antitank mines with M624 fuzes and tilt rods would be prohibited; at least one ban treaty state party, Canada, has destroyed its antitank mines with tilt rods.103 It is unclear if M15 and M19 antitank mines that use M1, M1A1, M3, M5, and M142 firing devices as antihandling devices, as well as M21 antitank mines using M142 firing devices, would be considered compliant. Similarly, it is unclear if the 20 percent of RAAMS and M75 GEMSS antitank mines that are equipped with antihandling devices would be considered compliant.104

Even less clear is the case for U.S. antitank mines that have magnetic influence fuzes like RAAMS, Gator, Volcano, MOPMS, and GEMSS. These mines are "designed to detonate when straddled by a tank, which interrupts the mine's magnetic field. A person can walk on it and move it, but if picked up quickly or rotated, it will detonate."105 Additionally, while Volcano, Gator, and MOPMS do not have an internal antihandling device, the mine "may detonate when moved, because the mine may sense a significant change from its original orientation."106 The M2/M4 SLAM with an infrared sensor may also be in this category of mines that are questionable due to overly sensitive fuzes.

73 China, Russia, and perhaps Belarus have larger stockpiles. See ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 11-12.

74 For detailed descriptions of these mine types, see Human Rights Watch Arms Project, "Exposing the Source," April 1997, pp. 43-46.

75 See ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 1999, p. 330. Please note that these are the number of individual antipersonnel mines, not the number of delivery systems like artillery projectiles or air-delivered munitions dispensers. The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency provided these figures, except for the M14 and M18/M18A1 mines, as of 1997. The numbers today are likely to be similar. The M14 number is an approximation contained in the 1999 U.S. report required under the CCW amended Protocol II (and is 63,093 less than reported by ACDA). The Claymore number comes from a symposium paper presented by two DoD officials: Harry Hambric and William Schneck, "The Antipersonnel Mine Threat: A Historical Perspective," Symposium on Technology and the Mine Problem, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, November 12-18, 1996, p. 29.

76 DoD officials confirmed the inclusion of antipersonnel mines in mixed systems to Human Rights Watch. DoD interviews, May 10, 2000.

77 Organization of American States, "OAS Register of Anti-Personnel Land-Mines: Summary Table of Information Submitted by Member States for the Period 1997-1999," CP/CSH-168/99, rev. 1, May 21, 1999.

78 Amended Protocol II, Article 4 and paragraph 2 of the Technical Annex.

79 Department of Defense, "Landmines Information Paper," March 3, 1999, p. 4.

80 Letter to Human Rights Watch from Dr. George R. Schneiter, Director, Strategic and Tactical Systems, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, March 21, 2000. Hereafter cited as "Schneiter Letter, March 21, 2000."

81 Air Force Materiel Command, Air Armament Center fact sheets, "Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser," and "Current Development Armament Roadmap," undated, but obtained in April 2000.

82 Oral remarks by Italian and Spanish delegations to the Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee of Experts on Stockpile Destruction, Geneva, Switzerland, May 22-23, 2000. Confirmation from capitals has not yet been received.

83 DoD interviews, May 10, 2000.

84 ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 333-334. Based on Air Force and other U.S. government sources from 1997 and 1998, the report cited 50,000 Gator and Volcano mines in South Korea, 49,610 Gator mines in Saudi Arabia, 33,000 Gator mines in Italy, and smaller numbers for Germany, Diego Garcia (U.K.), Japan, Turkey, Greece, and Spain.

85 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Article 1, Paragraph 1 (c).

86 U.S. Army Operations Support Command, Solicitation DAAA09-99-R-0118: "Maintenance and Supply/Service for Army Pre-Positioned Stocks (APS-5) Equipment in Doha, Qatar," January 21, 2000. Exhibit N, Technical Exhibit no. 11 of this solicitation is titled "Ammunition in Qatar" and shows the presence of seventy-two M691 ADAM projectiles (forty-eight hour self-destruct time) and one hundred eighty-nine M731 ADAM projectiles (four hour self-destruct time). Each ADAM projectile contains thirty-six antipersonnel mines.

87 U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command, Solicitation F44650-99-R0007: "Operation, Maintenance, And Support of Pre-positioned War Reserve Materiel in Southwest Asia" August 9, 1999. Section E, Appendix 1, Enclosure 5 shows the planned on-hand balances of munitions stored at facilities in each of these countries to include one hundred forty-two CBU-89 Gator units and one hundred forty-one M18/M18A1 Claymore mines.

88 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Article 1, Article 1, Paragraph 1 (c).

89 DoD interviews, May 10, 2000.

90 Interview with Minister Khalifa Ahmed Al-Sowaidi, Chargé d'Affaires and Brigadier General Hamad A. Hinzb Al-Marri, Military Attaché, Embassy of the State of Qatar to the USA, Washington, D.C., February 16, 2000.

91 DoD interviews, May 10, 2000.

92 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, "Report to the Secretary of Defense on the Status of DoD's Implementation of the U.S. Policy on Anti-Personnel Landmines," May 1997, p. 11.

93 Schneiter Letter, March 21, 2000.

94 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), News Release: "Destruction of Last Non-Self-Destructing Anti-Personnel Landmines in U.S.-Based Stockpile," June 25, 1998.

95 Schneiter letter, March 21, 2000.

96 DoD Interviews, May 10, 2000.

97 DoD estimate given in March 1998. "Annual Report to Congress on Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel Landmines," March 1998, p. iii.

98 U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC, Energetics Systems Process Division, "Demilitarization Plan for Non Self-Destruct and Self-Destruct Antipersonnel Landmines," August 1998, p. 1.

99 Department of the Army, "RDDS, PE 0605805A: Munitions Standardization Effectiveness and Safety," February 2000, pp. 4-5.

100 Department of Defense, "Annual Report to Congress on Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel Landmines," March 1998, p. iii and p. 15.

101 Article 2.1. states " `Anti-personnel mine' means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons."

102 Antivehicle mines with antihandling devices are explicited allowed under the treaty, so long as the antihandling device only "activates when an attempt is made to tamper with or otherwise intentionally disturb the mine." (Article 2.3.) If it activates when unintentionally disturbed, it is prohibited. This was made clear during the treaty negotiations in Oslo in September 1997, and has been restated by many states parties during the Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee of Experts meetings in Geneva, January 10-11, 2000 and May 29-30, 2000. See Human Rights Watch Fact Sheet, "Antivehicle Mines with Antihandling Devices," January 10, 2000.

103 Canada destroyed the mines because it concluded that, while called an antitank mine, when equipped with tilt rod fuzes, it met the treaty's definition of an antipersonnel mine.

104 Data extracted from Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 20-32, Mine/Countermine Operations, May 29, 1998, chapters 3, 4, and 5; ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 1999, pp. 325-326.

105 ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 1999, p. 326.

106 Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 20-32, Mine/Countermine Operations, May 29, 1998, chapter 3.

----

Living on Earth

June 30, 2000,
U.S. National Public Radio
By Quil Lawrence
http://www.loe.org/archives/000630.htm#feature9

Iraq Cancer Epidemic

CURWOOD: At the southern tip of Iraq, just over the border with Kuwait lies the city of Basra. It's been a battlefield for almost twenty years. For most of the 1980s it was center stage in the war between Iraq and Iran. That conflict was barely over when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, and again, Basra was pounded, this time by the US and its allies. In the ten years since the Gulf war, economic sanctions have prevented Basra from recovering. As Quil Lawrence reports, widespread malnutrition and disease are prevalent in the war-torn south. Doctors are also seeing a new epidemic of cancer.

LAWRENCE: On the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the city of Basra still shows signs of two decades of war. Bombed-out bridges remain twisted heaps of concrete and steel. Most of the city only gets a few hours of electricity each day. Hassan al-Rawhi [phonetic spelling], a sanitation engineer, is overseeing the construction of a new water treatment plant north of Basra. He says the sewage systems in the south are in terrible condition.

(Several voices talk about sewage)

AL-RAWHI: [phonetic spelling] Directing empty area just behind the hospital, and it was a lake of sewage with bad smell and a lot of insects, mosquitos and so on.

LAWRENCE: Mr. al-Rawhi's [phonetic spelling] new water treatment plant will only serve a fraction of the need. And even that water, he says, will flow through old and contaminated pipes that can still make people sick. A United Nations program has been in place since 1996, allowing Iraq to trade its oil for food and medicine. But the directors of the program say it's not enough. Some essential items like chlorinators for purifying water are held up because the U.N. fears they may be headed for Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpiles.

(Several voices; a child complains)

LAWRENCE: Doctors in Basra are swamped with cases of malnutrition and related diseases. And the hospitals themselves are in trouble. In the 1980s this country's medical care was among the best in the region. Now the hospitals lack beds, basic drugs, and equipment. This is the case here in Basra's crowded cancer wards. Patients rest on dirty woollen blankets, wearing whatever tattered clothes they came in with. Much of the problems here can be blamed on the economic embargo, but that doesn't explain why doctors are seeing so much cancer. Thumir Hamdan [phonetic spelling] is an orthopedic surgeon.

Hamdan: [phonetic spelling] It is a well-known fact internationally that orthopedic surgeons see one case of bone tumor every three years. That's in England. But we are seeing one case of bone tumor every one month.

LAWRENCE: Dr. Hamdan [phonetic spelling] is a lean, middle-aged man who walks through what he calls the miserable ward with an even determination. He's originally from Basra, but was educated in the U.S. and the U.K. and has been published internationally. Working without MRI scanning equipment or a decent supply of cancer drugs, Dr. Hamdan [phonetic spelling] spends most of his days now cutting out tumors. Sometimes he can reset the bone and save a patient's limb. But oftentimes he amputates.

HAMDAN: [phonetic spelling] This is a lady lost her limb because of [inaudible]. Now she's without limb. She had a malignant tumor. And she's too young, she developed abdominal tumor, recurrence. This is secondaries. An abdomen is not a common sight for secondaries in tumor of the leg. She lost her limb.

LAWRENCE: Dr. Hamdan [phonetic spelling], who has worked in Basra over 20 years, says the tumors he's seeing now are different than before. They're quicker and more deadly, but less painful. Unfortunately, this means that their victims often don't come to see a doctor until the tumor is advanced and swelling. As he checks one man's chart, Dr. Hamdan [phonetic spelling] notes that the patient comes from around the periphery of Basra. This is the poorest area, and the area closest to the battlefields. The man has a jagged hole where a tumor has been removed from his foot.

MAN: His name is Sadaman [phonetic spelling], he's 32 years old.

HAMDAN: [phonetic spelling] Did you think he is 32? If you look at his face you see he is 60 years old. That's poverty, malignancy, and pollution. Can you guess he is 32? He is too young.

LAWRENCE: Dr. Hamdan [phonetic spelling] does not research the cause of the cancers, but like many Iraqi doctors he suspects DU, depleted uranium. The U.S. Army first used DU rounds in the Gulf, and then more recently in Kosovo. The military developed the weapon after the Vietnam War, in search of a cheaper and more effective metal to make armor-piercing shells. DU, essentially nuclear waste, is twice as dense as lead and makes a great penetrator. The troops in the Gulf called it their silver bullet. In its solid form DU is not dangerous, emitting only weak alpha radiation. Not enough to get through human skin. But what most of the troops did not know is that the round vaporizes on contact, spreading radioactive dust all over its target and the surrounding area. The Pentagon estimates that the U.S. and the allies fired 320 tons of DU rounds in the Gulf War. Thousands of soldiers re-entered the battlefield wearing no protection.

KILPATRICK: That clearly was a major mistake on the part of the United States government. Most of the military people did not know depleted uranium was being used.

LAWRENCE: Dr. Michael Kilpatrick is a Pentagon spokesman. He says the Army now trains troops to take precautions, such as wearing protective clothing and masks, when dealing with DU exposure. But it didn't during the war. Veterans were outraged to discover that they had put themselves at risk after the cease-fire, climbing into and around dead Iraqi tanks looking for souvenirs, all the while breathing DU dust. Some soldiers who were hit by friendly fire and had DU shrapnel in their bodies didn't even find out they had been hit with DU until they began to suffer from a set of maladies now known as Gulf War Illness. The Pentagon was at first slow to acknowledge the problem, and they still refute a causal link between DU and symptoms. Kilpatrick says a control group of veterans hit by DU have shown no problems related specifically to the uranium.

KILPATRICK: Thirty-three of those individuals have been followed since 1993. And as of today, the physician following them has not been able to find any negative medical outcome as a result of that DU exposure. This group of soldiers has fathered over 20 children, all of whom are normal.

LAWRENCE: Likewise, Kilpatrick says that cancer rates have not jumped within this group of vets. But veterans groups say the Pentagon is motivated by a desire to continue using the cheap, effective weapon. One of the vets in the control group did develop a bone tumor. Others suffer from abdominal pains, skin rashes, about 60 different symptoms. And the Army knew DU was a risk even before the war, says Dan Fahey, a Navy veteran who studies DU.

FAHEY: This is an appendix of an Army report. But July 1990, it's written, and it says DU is a low-level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal. What this report identified was that when you use DU in combat, the dust gets created that soldiers, you know, might inhale the dust and then might have health problems as a result.

LAWRENCE: Fahey says he believes that the DU dust can be re-suspended in the air, causing new exposures almost indefinitely to local populations. And there are still contaminated Iraqi tanks in the vicinity of Basra. But even as he faults the Pentagon for a cover-up, Fahey says the Iraqi regime is overstating the effects of DU. In its campaign to bring an end to economic sanctions, Fahey says Iraqi government doctors in Geneva have been blaming DU for all of southern Iraq's many health problems.

FAHEY: Where the Iraqi government's using this for propaganda, the U.S. government is steadfastly denying that there are any problems that result. What's being lost is that there is a hazard that exists around these contaminated tanks. No one's telling them that there's a hazard. There's no effort to go in and clean these areas up.

LAWRENCE: Fahey points out that DU is not the only suspected hazard around Basra. Iraqi troops set fire to oil wells as they left Kuwait, turning the sky black with toxic fog. Chemical weapons alarms were ringing nonstop throughout the Gulf War, but the only confirmed exposure came when U.S. troops destroyed a munitions dump which contained Sarin gas. During the 1980s Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons here in the war with Iran, and then again when he mustard gassed uprisings in the nearby marshes after the Gulf War. Chemical weapons may also be a culprit for a cancer cluster. World Health Organization officials say that bone cancers usually don't appear until ten to 20 years after exposure. So any possible cancerous effects of DU may come later, for gulf vets and Iraqi civilians.

(Children call in a crowd)

LAWRENCE: In the crowded slums around Basra, it seems that isolation is the worst enemy, as people wonder if they've been forgotten by the world. A May issue of The Lancet medical journal verified that the child mortality rate in Iraq has doubled since the embargo began. No one has been able to get in and make a good independent study of cancer. The WHO did one cancer report in 1998, but they concluded only that more research was needed. So far the requests for a new study have gone nowhere. Gregory Hartl [phonetic spelling] is a WHO spokesman.

HARTL: [phonetic spelling] Iraq is a country which still has U.N. sanctions applying. We follow definitely what the U.N. Security Council says in New York, and that of course limits in certain instances what we can do there. It might also limit the international attractiveness of giving funds for studies in Iraq.

LAWRENCE: Mr. Hartl [phonetic spelling] says that the pre-war cancer records in Iraq are lacking, and the new study will have to start from scratch to determine if cancer rates have increased. Though the Iraqi regime has requested a study, the government makes it very difficult to work in the country and strictly controls information, monitoring all interviews with outsiders. A study of the problem may have to wait for a major political change inside or outside Iraq. But it could be a long wait. The embargo will remain in place until Saddam Hussein complies with U.N. weapons inspections. But the U.N. weapons inspection team hasn't been allowed in the country since 1998. For Living on Earth, I'm Quil Lawrence in Basra, Iraq.

-------- germany

Germany's Schroeder still skeptical about US NMD

BridgeNews
July 19, 2000
Russia Press:

Moscow--July 18--Germany remains skeptical about U.S. plans to set up a National Missile Defense (NMD), Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said in an interview with Tuesday's Russian liberal Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper. He also said he believed in the success of Russia's modernization under President Vladimir Putin, adding he was looking forward to having "prolonged and good cooperation" with the Russian leader.

"The position of the federal (German) government on U.S. plans for the creation of a limited national anti-missile defense remains unchanged," Schroeder said.

"It is crucial for Germany to preserve what has been achieved in the sphere of nuclear control and disarmament, avoid a new global arms race and prevent negative effects on the unity of NATO," he added.

Schroeder also said, "Germany can and wants to play an important role in the process of Russia's modernization, outlined by Putin."

"I start from the assumption that modernization in Russia will be successful. The basic economic conditions are favorable. The economic revival is underway," Schroeder said.

He said Putin had realized that corruption, poor legal protection, the arbitrary rule of bureaucracy and lack of structural reforms were obstacles in the way of active involvement by foreign investors.

Schroeder also said he believed Russia had enough resources to meet all its foreign debt obligations without assistance.

"This is the only way Russia can prove its solvency," he said, bit did not elaborate. End {Schroeder says still skeptical over US NMD} [Begin BridgeLinks]

Alexei Yakovitsky, BridgeNews, Tel: 7-095-208-4316, 923-1355

-------- india / pakistan

New missile-firing sub being commissioned

The Hindu
Wednesday, July 19, 2000
By Atul Aneja
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2000/07/19/stories/0119000d.htm

NEW DELHI, JULY 18. India is set to acquire its first new generation Kilo-class submarine as part of its post-Kargil military modernisation drive.

Named Sindhushastra by the Navy, it is being commissioned in by the Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sushil Kumar, in Russia on Wednesday.

The Sindhushastra, equipped with a shorter range anti-ship version of the Russian Klub missile, will be the first Kilo-class submarine which can fire missiles.

With these weapons on board, the submarine will have an unrivalled edge in South Asian waters.

Pakistan's Harpoon missiles have a shorter range of 90 km and the Exocet missiles with it can target a maximum of 60 km.

With the acquisition of the Klubs, major naval forces of the region have now entered the missile warfare era.

For instance, India's three older Kilo-class submarines which are being modernised in Russia since 1998 will have the longer range Klub missiles.

These missiles, for the first time will engage land targets from the sea from a stand-off range of around 500 km.

These weapons can theoretically land all kinds of warheads, but are unlikely to be nuclear-armed because of the relatively limited ranges involved.

Besides India and Pakistan, China's two Soveramany-class frigates, currently passing through the Indian Ocean on there way to East Africa, have been armed with highly capable Russian supersonic Moskit missiles.

Analysts here point out that in order to maintain its edge, India will have to go on for equipment which can counter anti-ship missiles as well as upgrade its submarine detection equipment.

The Navy currently is debating the acquisition of the Barak anti- missile system from Israel.

Critics say that the Barak's capability to down supersonic missiles is questionable. The Navy is also looking at new ways to quickly detect hostile submarines at long distances. New-generation Indian sonars could be equipped to emit low-frequency under-water acoustic waves which can pick up far-away submarines.

In a related development, India and Russia are set to begin high level discussions on the Indian nuclear submarine project.

The 12-member delegation to Russia is led by the head of the Defence Research and development Organisation (DRDO), Mr. V. K. Atre.

The early completion of the nuclear submarine project will give India a retaliatory ``second strike '' capability as has been recommended by the draft nuclear doctrine.

-------- iraq

Disarmament Dispute in Iraq

Washington Post
Wednesday, July 19, 2000; Page A22
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-07/19/015l-071900-idx.html

In his July 17 op-ed column about Saddam Hussein re-arming, Richard Butler said that in my article in the June issue of Arms Control Today I claimed that Iraq is "qualitatively disarmed" without offering new evidence to support my position. In fact, I quoted from five U.N. arms inspection agency documents and referenced events in which I was involved to support my analysis.

Mr. Butler also said that my position regarding Iraq's qualitative disarmament has been shaped by conversations with "unspecified Iraqi officials." I have articulated this position since late 1998 through numerous public speaking engagements and the publication of a book as well as in opinion pieces in the New York Times, Boston Globe and The Post.

My position regarding Iraq's disarmament status is no about-face, but a careful assessment based upon an examination of all the facts I was privy to during my time with UNSCOM, the U.N. inspection team.

Mr. Butler further misrepresented my interaction with the Iraqi officials. My article noted that Iraq almost certainly would cooperate with an inspection team if the disarmament program was specifically linked to the lifting of economic sanctions upon a finding of compliance. At no time did Iraq try to sell me on the concept of "qualitative disarmament;" it is strictly my own position.

The missile tests cited by Mr. Butler, all of which reportedly failed, tend to reflect the reality that Iraq has not had any quantum leaps in the 18 months since weapons inspectors were last in Iraq.

Mr. Butler also cited U.S. assertions that Iraq continues to possess 20 to 30 Scud missiles. This figure is without substance. Since 1991, I had been struggling with U.S. intelligence over Scud numbers and watched as the figure shrank from more than 200 to "around a dozen" without any corresponding analysis. UNSCOM never supported a figure of more than eight, and even that number was speculation.

SCOTT RITTER
Delmar, N.Y.
The writer is a former UNSCOM weapons inspector.

-------- japan

JPS 07-084
Supreme court supports A-bomb victim's 12-year claim

JPS <jpspress@twics.com>
JULY 19, 2000

TOKYO JUL 19 JPS -- After a 12-year-long court struggle, a Nagasaki atomic bomb survivor has won a supreme court decision that she must be recognized as a survivor with A-bomb diseases.

On July 18 the Supreme Court ruled that Hideko Matsuya, 58, is recognizable as an A-bomb victim to be eligible for the special public medical care. The court, upholding the lower court rulings, dismissed the appeal by the Health and Welfare Ministry, which denied Matsuya a certificate that she is a designated patient with A-bomb diseases.

This is the first Supreme Court ruling on the certification of hibakusha (A-bomb survivor) as having A-bomb diseases and is highly likely to compel the government to review its welfare policy for hibakusha.

Matsuya was three years and five months old when she was exposed to radiation in her home in Nagasaki City, about 2.5 km away from the hypo-center of the A-bomb dropped on August 9, 1945. A roof tile blown by the blast hit her the skull, causing her paralysis.

She twice applied for government designation as a victim with A-bomb diseases but was refused on the grounds that she was out of the 2km limit from the hypo-center, which is a criterion the ministry adopts.

The Supreme Court criticized the government for mechanically adopting the criteria, saying that "her hair loss cannot be explained" by the ministry's existing recognition system. The court dismissed the 2km criterion, saying that it is enough to recognize the causal connection between the diseases and the radiation.

Momentum to hibakusha movement for state compensation

On the court decision the Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Japan Gensuikyo) commented as follows:

The government has recognized neither state compensation for hibakusha nor the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons.

In 1994 a law to help hibakusha was enacted as a result of the hibakusha movement and public opinion demanding such legislation. However, the government has so far designated only a small number out of the 300,000 hibakusha as patients with A-bomb diseases.

The Japanese Government has imposed a low ceiling on the number of hibakusha to be certified as hibakusha with A-bomb diseases, thus treating those people lightly. The ruling urges the government to sincerely reflect on what it has done.

With this ruling, the movement seeking state compensation for hibakusha will gain momentum. (end item)

-------- korea

U.S. Says Russia Intention in N.Korea Unclear

Yahoo News
Wednesday July 19 10:07 PM ET
By Elaine Monaghan
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000719/pl/russia_nkorea_dc_1.html

THURMONT, Md. (Reuters) - The United States is unsure whether Russia wants to help North Korea develop a peaceful satellite-launching capability or enhance its offensive missile program, a senior State Department official said in a telephone interview on Wednesday.

He stressed his assessment was only an initial reaction to reports from Moscow that President Vladimir Putin said North Korea's leader had offered to abandon his country's rocket program, if other states gave him rockets to explore space.

``It's not clear if it's good or bad news,'' the well-placed official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in a telephone interview conducted from the Middle East peace summit.

Putin made the announcement to cap the first ever trip by a Russian or Soviet leader to the Stalinist state. Interfax news agency quoted him as saying countries that believed they were threatened by North Korean missiles should, along with Russia, offer rockets for peaceful purposes.

The United States is considering spending tens of billions of dollars on a National Missile Defense (NMD) system precisely because of fears that some countries not party to international treaties will be able to strike U.S. territory with a rocket.

High on the list is North Korea, which in 1998 test-fired what the international community believes was a medium-range missile and Pyongyang said was a space shot.

The U.S. official said President Clinton would seek clarification from Putin at a Group of Eight summit in Japan, which they are due to attend this week.

``It is certainly a possibility, that we are open to, that Putin and Kim Jong-il have discussed the prospect of Russia and perhaps others in the international community providing the North Koreans with a boost or launch capability outside of North Korea,'' the well-placed official said.

But there was also a far more negative interpretation.

``If, repeat if, Russia is contemplating providing North Korea with additional launch capability so as to enhance and accelerate its capability to launch its own rockets, that is a total non-starter,'' he added.

He said Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would also discuss the issue with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov at a Southeast Asian meeting in Thailand next week.

``We are going to have a number of opportunities to get clarification...We'll use every channel available to us.''

Albright is also hoping to meet North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun at the same Thailand conference, though no meeting has been officially announced.

Moreover, U.S. Ambassador Charles Kartman is currently in Berlin, until July 21, meeting Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye-gwan to discuss the full range of bilateral issues.

U.S. officials have been conducting talks with North Korean officials to persuade them to abandon their missile program.

They have also been trying to convince Moscow to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty so Clinton, who leaves office in January, can have the option of announcing the NMD should go ahead -- without violating an accord other countries see as the lynchpin of international arms treaties.

``It's not clear from what we have seen whether Russia is contemplating something here that would make it part of the solution or part of the problem,'' the U.S. official said.

Despite the fact that North Korea's missile program has been the major motivator for the NMD project, Washington has responded ultra-cautiously to Kim Jong-il's recent tentative moves to reach out to the world with a visit to Beijing and unprecedented invitations to his neighbors to Pyongyang.

---

Putin Says Pyongyang Offers to Give Up Rockets

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/00/07/19/late/19korea-russia.html

MOSCOW, July 19 -- North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has offered to abandon his country's rocket programme if other states supply him with their rockets to explore space, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.

The surprising announcement capped the first ever trip by a Russian or Soviet leader to the Stalinist state, where Putin was welcomed with dazzling pomp before two hours of talks.

Putin, seen on Russia's ORT public television, said the proposal on rockets emerged "precisely because of the trusting nature of our discussions."

He said Kim had "voiced an idea under which North Korea is even prepared to use exclusively the rocket equipment of other countries for peaceful space research if they offer it."

Interfax news agency quoted Putin as saying that Kim had assured him Pyongyang's rocket programme was entirely peaceful.

In 1998, North Korea sent jitters through the West by test-firing a medium-range ballistic missile over Japan. Pyongyang said it was a space shot to launch a satellite, a claim widely dismissed abroad.

Putin arrived from Beijing, his aircraft taxiing onto a vast red carpet on the airport tarmac.

Putin shook hands warmly with Kim and Russian television showed the two leaders standing before a white-jacketed, goose-stepping honour guard. Putin wore a dark suit and Kim his trademark brown military tunic.

A uniformed schoolgirl kissed Putin's forehead and tied a red kerchief around his neck.

VAST CROWDS GREET KIM, PUTIN

Huge crowds -- ORT said up to a million people -- lined roads in bright sunshine, waving pink paper flowers and national flags. They cheered "Welcome Putin!" and Long live Kim Jong-Il!"

The visit was billed as an effort to reinvigorate bilateral ties that flagged in the decade since the Soviet Union broke up.

But Putin made clear he was playing to an audience in the West, where Pyongyang's missile programme is a pressing concern.

Russia says bringing Pyongyang out of its half century of isolation is a better way to counter any threat posed by North Korea than a proposed Star Wars-style U.S. anti-missile shield.

Interfax quoted Putin as saying countries that believed they were threatened by North Korean missiles should, along with Russia, offer rockets for peaceful purposes.

"One should expect other countries, if they assert that the DPRK (North Korea) poses a threat for them, would support this project. They can minimise the threat by supplying the DPRK with their own rocket boosters," he said.

Putin has promised to work towards peace on the divided peninsula and draw Pyongyang out of its shell -- not least to undermine U.S. arguments for the missile shield.

Criticism of the U.S. missile plan was a major theme at Putin's summit with Chinese President Jiang Zemin on Tuesday.

North Korea's KCNA news agency echoed the sentiment in a statement welcoming Putin's trip, thanking Moscow for resisting the "hegemonism and strong-arm politics of the imperialists."

Putin's visit provided the world with its first chance to watch the once-reclusive Kim in action since his historic debut summit with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung last month.

After the welcome ceremony, Putin lay flowers at a memorial for North Korea's founder, Kim's father Kim Il-sung.

He was shown entering an ornate hall through giant carved wooden doors. Russian news agencies said he and Kim then held two hours of talks at a palace on the shore of a man-made lake.

In his comments, Putin said the two states had signed a declaration underscoring a commitment to the U.N. charter and "similar views on resolving certain international problems."

Interfax said he acknowledged during the talks that ties between them had been at a low point, but added that a friendship treaty signed in February was a "positive step."

He invited Kim to visit Moscow, Interfax said. Kim's only official visit abroad, a trip to China this year, was so sensitive it was announced only after the fact.

A high-ranking South Korean Foreign Ministry official welcomed Putin's visit, saying before Putin's arrival that Seoul expected it to contribute to security in northeast Asia.

"Since Moscow has supported the inter-Korean summit and Seoul's engagement policy toward Pyongyang, the government hopes Putin's visit to the North will bring about positive development in inter-Korean relations," he said.

He added Seoul supported Russia's proposal for six-party talks, including Russia and Japan, to resolve Korean affairs.

Russia's lower house of parliament marked the visit by ratifying the new friendship agreement signed in February.

---

Putin Visits North Korea

Associated Press
July 19, 2000 Filed at 3:34 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Putin-Asia.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- Vladimir Putin paid the first-ever visit by a Russian president to communist North Korea on Wednesday, meeting with leader Kim Jong Il and saying afterward that North Korea's missile program is meant for peaceful purposes.

The comment continued Putin's focus on derailing the proposed U.S. anti-missile shield: U.S. officials say the shield will protect against threats from nations like North Korea, while Putin says the shield is unnecessary.

After a two-hour summit with Kim Jong Il, Putin said North Korea offered reassurances that its missile program is for peaceful purposes, Russia's Interfax news agency said.

``North Korea is even prepared to use exclusively the missile technology of other countries, if it is offered rocket boosters for peaceful space research,'' Putin was quoted as saying.

It was not immediately clear if North Korea was stepping back from its demand for $1 billion a year from Washington in exchange for a halt to missile technology exports.

North Korea has refused to stop developing such weapons for self-defense. The North is believed to have missiles that can reach Hawaii and Alaska. The CIA says North Korea has the potential to develop longer-range missiles that could reach the continental United States.

Experts on North Korea said it was doubtful Kim and Putin discussed anything concrete regarding North Korea's missile programs.

``They're not in a position to argue that North Korea should stop missile exports or stop developing its missile program,'' said Samuel Kim, professor of political science at Columbia University's East Asian Institute.

He noted that Russia is in no position to offer the amount of economic aid that North Korea would need to make up for lost earnings from missile exports.

James Miles, an Asia analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said he did not interpret Putin's statement as meaning that North Korea would halt its entire missile program because missile exports have been a significant foreign-currency earner for North Korea.

At most, he said, the statement could indicate that North Korea might give up developing the Taepo Dong, the long-range missile that North Korea test-fired over Japan in 1998.

But even if that is the case, he said, ``I can't see how this can be of any assurance to Japan and the United States.''

Putin's visit is meant to mend relations between the once-staunch ideological allies. But attention quickly fell on Moscow's objection to a U.S. national missile defense system meant to fend off any attacks from countries like North Korea and Iraq.

``Putin will do all he can do to persuade North Korea, because it considers the U.S. anti-missile system a direct threat to its security,'' said Chon Hong-san, a political science professor at Pusan University.

He noted that Putin would be going on to the summit of the leading industrial countries plus Russia, the so-called G-8, in Okinawa, Japan, starting Friday.

``If Putin can persuade North Korea to make gestures or express in any form its intentions to stop or not to pursue further missile developments, that would greatly strengthen his voice at the G-8 meeting,'' Chon said.

Putin arrived from Beijing, where he and Chinese President Jiang Zemin denounced the U.S. missile-defense shield.

Putin told Kim that a friendship treaty ratified Wednesday by the lower house of the Russian parliament would help boost relations, Russia's Itar-Tass news agency said in a report from Pyongyang. Putin invited Kim Jong Il to visit Russia, it said.

Putin and Kim Jong Il signed signed a joint declaration calling for preserving and strengthening the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, Itar-Tass reported from Pyongyang. The United States is seeking to amend the ABM treaty to build its missile-defense shield.

Putin was met on his arrival in Pyongyang by Kim Jong Il, the North's official Korean Central News Agency said in a report monitored in Seoul.

Hundreds of thousands of people turned out to welcome Putin along his 10-mile motorcade route, the North Korean agency said. Russian TV footage showed cheering crowds lining the streets.

The North Korean agency said bands at the airport played the Russian and North Korean national anthems, followed by a 21-gun salute as Putin inspected North Korean army, navy and air force troops.

Putin visited Kumsusan memorial palace, where the embalmed body of President Kim Il Sung, father of Kim Jong Il, lies in state, the agency said.

Although the Soviet Union and North Korea were ideological allies, relations soured after Moscow recognized pro-Western South Korea in 1990.

In post-Soviet times, Russia, with its own economic problems, neglected impoverished North Korea. In 1995, it backed away from a military alliance with the North.

---

Albright Eyes NKorea Minister Talks

Associated Press
July 19, 2000 Filed at 6:22 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-US-NKorea.html

THURMONT, Md. (AP)-- President Clinton intends to quiz Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-8 economic summit on whether Russia was ready to help convert North Korea's missile program into a civilian satellite program, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.

And Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will pursue North Korea's foreign minister next week in Thailand on whether his country is open to such a satellite program with the cooperation of the United States, Russia and possibly other nations, the official said.

Putin may have been hinting he was interested in such a joint program when he paid the first-ever visit by a Russian president to communist North Korea on Wednesday. The Russian president met with leader Kim Jong Il and said afterward that North Korea's program was meant for peaceful purposes.

Albright hopes to see Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun while she is in Bangkok, Thailand, next week attending a meeting of the foreign ministers of the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a State Department official said Sunday.

The high-level contact is only one of several the United States will have with a country it once denounced as being headed by a ``rogue regime.''

Even with the improvement in relations, the anti-missile defense program under U.S. consideration is designed to protect against what Albright and other American officials say is a North Korean threat.

Albright said in June she might use the talks with a senior North Korean official to try extend a freeze in North Korea's nuclear weapons program and to curb the spread of North Korean missile technology.

Press accounts of Putin's remarks in North Korea puzzled U.S. officials, who were uncertain if they should interpret them as an intent to contribute to a positive solution of the North Korean situation.

---------

S. Korea Seeks Meeting With North

Associated Press
July 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Koreas-Summit.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea on Wednesday invited North Korea to send a high-level delegation to Seoul next week to follow up on the historic summit the two nations' leaders held in June.

In a letter to his North Korean counterpart, Hong Song Nam, South Korean Prime Minister Lee Han-dong proposed that the two governments open a dialogue in Seoul on July 27-29. The letter, sent to the North through the border village of Panmunjom, suggested that each delegation have five members and be headed by a Cabinet-level minister.

If held, the meeting would mark the first visit to Seoul by a senior North Korean official in eight years.

There was no immediate response from North Korea. But most South Korean newspapers, quoting a source they did not identify, said both sides had already agreed on the venue and date for the meeting through unofficial contacts.

The Koreas have never signed a peace treaty to end their 1950-53 war, and they share the world's most heavily armed border. But a diplomatic thaw has spread rapidly on the Korean Peninsula since the June 13-15 summit in Pyongyang, the North's capital.

During that meeting, leaders of the two sides agreed to work together to avoid confrontation and promote reconciliation. It was the most significant diplomatic breakthrough in relations between the two Koreas, which were partitioned into the communist North and the pro-Western South in 1945.

Kim Hyong-ki, a chief policy coordinator at Seoul's Unification Ministry, said the proposed ministerial-level talks ``will have broad discussions on how to implement the historic summit agreements.'' He said he expected the talks would lead to a series of lower-level working dialogues to discuss military, economic and sports exchanges.

No North Korean government officials has visited Seoul since 1992, when the prime ministers of the two sides visited each other's capital for a series of reconciliation talks. Those talks produced an agreement in which both sides pledged to renounce hostilities. But relations chilled again amid suspicions over North Korea's nuclear program.

In another sign of progress, Seoul's Culture and Tourism Ministry said Wednesday that 50 presidents of South Korean dailies and other news organizations plan to visit North Korea Aug. 5-12.

They are scheduled to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, who invited them during the summit with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, said Han Jae-min, a ministry spokesman. Culture and Tourism Minister Park Jie-won will accompany the newspaper presidents, he said.

The border between the Koreas has been closed for decades. As part of the summit agreements, the two Koreas are pushing to exchange 100 aging people each in mid-August for temporary family reunions after a half-century of separation. Both sides also have ceased propaganda broadcasts against each other.

South Korea is encouraging its companies to invest in North Korea to avoid the type of costly reunification that occurred in Germany. It wants Pyongyang to adopt market reforms and sign agreements to facilitate and protect the South's investments.

---

Putin Leaves China for Landmark North Korean Visit

Yahoo News
Wednesday July 19 1:32 AM ET
By Paul Eckert
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000719/wl/russia_nkorea_dc_2.html

BEIJING (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin flew to North Korea Wednesday after a summit in Beijing that underscored Sino-Russian opposition to U.S. plans to build a shield against possible missile threats from Stalinist Pyongyang.

Putin was to make the first visit to North Korea by any Russian or Soviet leader in a tour designed to bolster Russia's ties with key Asian Communist states before heading to the summit of industrial democracies in Japan.

Putin's meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is aimed at forging a new relationship and promoting economic ties with the secretive state which have floundered since the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991.

In the Cold War, Moscow was a major patron of Communist North Korea, with which it shares a border. But in post-Soviet times, it has focused on ties with capitalist South Korea.

Putin was expected to repeat in Pyongyang the dominant theme of his Tuesday summit with Chinese President Jiang Zemin: Russian objections to U.S. plans for a national anti-missile defense system prompted by what Washington says are potential threats from North Korea and other hostile regimes.

In a joint statement capping a summit between two formerly hostile neighbors brought closer by common suspicion of U.S. intentions, China and Russia said missile shields for the United States and Asia threatened a new arms race.

``Implementing this plan will have the most grave adverse consequences not only to the national security of Russia, China and other countries, but also to the security and international strategic stability of the United States itself,'' they said.

North Korea Sparks U.S. Plan

Washington has proposed building a NMD system against missile attacks from ``states of concern'' such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq and a Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system to shield its troops and allies in Asia.

Such reasoning was ``actually a ruse to cover its attempt to violate the ABM,'' the Sino-Russian statement said, referring to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

North Korea's state-run Korea Central News Agency (KCNA),in a statement welcoming Putin's trip, echoed the Sino-Russian statement and thanked Russia for resisting the ``hegemonism and strong-arm politics of the imperialists.''

``Particular mention should be made of the fact that the Russian government is opposed to the U.S. moves to abrogate the AMB treaty and establish the missile defense system,'' KCNA said.

China has said the United States exaggerates the potential threat from North Korea, despite Pyongyang's launch of a rocket over Japan in August 1998 and a U.S. belief North Korean missiles will be able to strike U.S. cities by 2005.

Beijing argues that the historic summit last month between North and South Korea, as well as a gradual U.S.-North Korean rapprochement, makes American fears even less justifiable.

Beijing fears the TMD system would cover Taiwan, which China regards as a rebel province and has threatened to invade if the island declares independence or delays reunification talks.

The United States responded to the criticism Tuesday by saying the proposal to build the system was not directed at either Russia or China and was still under discussion.

Korea Diplomacy, Economic Cooperation

Putin has vowed that Moscow will do all it can to improve relations on the peninsula and play an important role in diplomacy to bring North Korean out of its shell.

``The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is our neighbor. We have a shared border, we have a vital interest in establishing peace and concord in this region because this has a direct effect on Russia,'' he said last week.

Any North Korean missile threat could be abated by ''extending real security guarantees'' to the isolated state, Putin has said.

Russia's Trade Ministry said in a statement that the visit, also aimed at easing North Korea out of international isolation, would restart economic cooperation.

``Due to economic reforms in the USSR, and later in Russia, in particular the depoliticization at the beginning of the 1990s, our trade and economic cooperation with North Korea ... has been seriously reduced,'' the ministry said.

Russia, it said, wanted good trade ties with its ``historic and traditional partner.'' Russian exports to North Korea were a paltry $75 million in 1999 and imports were $25 million.

Moscow, keen to find new markets for its abundant energy resources, is likely to suggest building a pipeline through North Korea for deliveries of Siberian gas to the South.

And with many industrial sites built by Soviet engineers in the 1950s now idle, Russia will offer North Korea experts and know-how to upgrade them if Seoul provides financing.

After visiting North Korea, Putin heads for the southern Japanese island of Okinawa Friday evening for the annual gathering of the Group of Eight nations, which also includes the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Canada.

-------- russia

[This very important warning statement from Russia and China has been almost totally ignored by our fraudulent media. fawcett@physics.utoronto.ca]

JOINT STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND CHAIRMAN JIANG ZEMIN OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON ABM

July 19 '00

The President of the Russian Federation and the Chairman of the People's Republic of China hereby state:

The development of the international situation fully revealed the correctness of the conclusions and evaluations of ballistic missile defence issues provided in the Joint Statement on Russo-Chinese Relations at the Turn of the 21st Century, approved at the summit level on November 23, 1998, the Russo-Chinese Information Communique on Consultations on Questions Pertaining to the ABM Treaty, dated April 14, 1999, and the Russo-Chinese Joint Statement approved at the summit level on December 10, 1999.

The 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, hereinafter referred to as the ABM Treaty, remains the cornerstone of global strategic stability and international security and the basis of the structure of key international agreements on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons and on the non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons. The maintenance of and strict compliance with the ABM Treaty are of vital significance.

We are deeply worried in this connection by the US plan of creating a national missile defence system prohibited by the ABM Treaty. Russia and China believe that this plan boils down to the striving for unilateral superiority in the military sphere and security issues. The implementation of such plan would have most serious negative consequences for the security of not only Russia, China and other countries, but also for the security of the USA itself and for global strategic stability in the world as a whole. This is why Russia and China are resolutely protesting against this plan.

The destruction of the ABM Treaty would trigger off a new stage of the arms race and turn back positive trends in global politics that appeared after the end of the Cold War. This certainly does not meet the vital interests of any state of the world. States that advocate a review of this fundamental treaty in the sphere of arms reductions will bear full responsibility for undermining international stability and security and for the consequences of this action.

The analysis of the current international realities reveals the complete invalidity of using the so-called missile threat emanating from some states as a pretext for justifying the demands for amending the ABM Treaty. The suggestions of the so-called adjustment of the Treaty are designed to camouflage the striving to act contrary to its provisions. A change of the contents of the ABM Treaty would be tantamount to the destruction of this Treaty, with all the ensuing negative consequences. The preservation of the integrity and effectiveness of the ABM Treaty in the obtaining strategic situation is of vital and real significance.

The correct manner of reacting to new challenges in the sphere of international security, of maintaining peace the world over and protecting the legitimate security interests of any state lies not in the destruction of the ABM Treaty, but in assistance to the creation of a fair and rational new international political order, in the renunciation of the use of policy from positions of strength and excessive use of armed force in international affairs, and in further strengthening of regional and global security. At the same time, it is vital that Russia and the USA, acting on the basis of strict compliance with the ABM Treaty, should carry on and develop the process of the reduction of strategic offensive weapons, subsequently involving other nuclear powers in this process at the proper time. We must use political, legal and diplomatic methods to build up international efforts to preclude the proliferation of mass destruction weapons and their delivery vehicles, to study the possibilities for the gradual creation of a global system of control over the non-proliferation of missiles and missile technologies, and to develop broad dialogue and cooperation in this sphere without any discrimination.

Non-strategic ballistic missile defence and international cooperation in this sphere, which are not prohibited in the ABM Treaty, should not damage the security interests of other countries, lead to the creation and strengthening of closed military and political blocs, or undermine global and regional stability and security. Proceeding from this precept, Russia and China express serious concern and resolute protest against the plans of some states to deploy such non-strategic missile defence system in the Asia-Pacific Region that would have the aforementioned negative consequences. The involvement of Taiwan in any form in the ABM systems created by foreign states is unacceptable and will seriously undermine stability in the region.

Of vital significance is the resolution on the maintenance of and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, approved at the 54th UN General Assembly. Russia and China call on the international community to continue paying serious attention to the actions of corresponding states to quickly develop ABM systems that can lead to the destruction of global strategic balance and stability in the world, and to take requisite measures to preclude these dangerous developments.

We are satisfied with the progress of cooperation of Russia and China in the sphere of the maintenance of global strategic balance and stability. Proceeding from relations of equal and confident partnership and strategic collaboration between them, Russia and China will carry on their close collaboration in the aforementioned sphere, and will develop their cooperation in other related spheres, acting in the framework of their international obligations, in the name of ensuring their own, regional and global security.

President Vladimir PUTIN of the Russian Federation
Chairman Jiang ZEMIN of the People's Republic of China

----

Russia Environmentalist Targeted

Asociated Press
July 19, 2000 Filed at 5:14 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-US-Russia-Whistle-Blower.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Alexander Nikitin, a Russian environmental whistle-blower acquitted by Russia's Surpeme Court of exposing state secrets, said Wednesday his country's prosecutor general wants to retry him.

The former Russian Navy captain, in town to receive an environmental award and testify before Congress, said the prosecutor's office is appealing his acquittal earlier this year. He had been accused of exposing state secrets by writing a report on the Russian Navy's unsafe storage of nuclear waste.

Nikitin said the appeal, to be heard Aug. 2 by the 11-member presidium of the Russian court, requests the case be sent back for further investigation. He said his Moscow lawyer informed him of the action by telephone Wednesday morning.

Nikitin believes Russia's Federal Security Service, known as the FSB, is behind the appeal. The FSB is the successor to the Soviet-era KGB.

``It's very unexpected,'' Nikitin said. ``I am extremely surprised they decided to go down this path. It shows the stupidity of the government.''

In Moscow, a duty officer at the security service said he knew nothing about the matter.

The court may refuse to hear the case, which started in 1996, but proceedings could last years if the judges decide to go ahead, Nikitin said.

He arrived in the United States last week to receive the prestigious Goldman environmental award that he could not collect in 1997 because he was in prison. His passport was returned to him one month ago.

The Sierra Club, Amnesty International and the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews are hosting his visit to congressional and Clinton administration officials.

He was to give a briefing to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe Thursday in a House office building.

The Sierra Club and Amn