-------- 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 Amnesty International said they were ``extremely concerned for Nikitin and for the message this move by the (security service) conveys about the prospects for democracy and environmental protection in Russia.''

On April 17, a branch of the Russian Supreme Court upheld a lower court's acquittal of Nikitin.

Security agents arrested Nikitin, a soft-spoken naval engineer and expert in nuclear waste issues, in 1996 and held him for 10 months in an isolated chamber in a Federal Security Service jail in St. Petersburg. He was working on a report for the Norway-based Bellona environmental group at the time on nuclear waste dumps in Russia's Arctic.

Nikitin's case wound through the courts for four years. Human rights groups said it pitted Russia's security apparatus, with its emphasis on secrecy and avoiding embarrassment for the state, against fledgling values of civil society and independence in post-Communist Russia.

Nikitin was denied permission to travel abroad while the case was pending to visit his wife and daughter, who reside in Canada.

-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- new mexico

----

Los Alamos digs in to prevent toxic runoff

Wednesday, July 19, 2000
By Robinson Shaw,
ENN News
http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/07/07192000/lacleanup_14870.asp

Putting out the fire that burned 48,000 acres of land in and around Los Alamos, New Mexico, in May was only half of the battle.

Now, work crews at Los Alamos National Laboratory are in a race against nature to build structures that will contain erosion before heavy rains, common during the state's summer monsoon season, bring flash floods to the area, washing contaminants from lab property to the Rio Grande River valley.

LANL officials and the New Mexico Environment Department found no evidence of radioactive or hazardous contaminants in the air during or after the fire. Lab representatives say the risk of contaminants washing from LANL property into nearby waterways is slight.

"Our belief it that even if the contaminants don't stay on site, it won't have an impact on anyone because the concentrations are so low," said Mike Baker, project leader of the lab's Emergency Rehabilitation Team. "All risk assessments indicate no significant impact to people and animals. Nevertheless, if you're downstream, you don't want (contaminants) coming down into your property."

The Cerro Grande fire burned off vegetation from the hills surrounding the laboratory, leaving a landscape of hard, black soil and matchstick trees. The loss of vegetation has increased the potential for surface runoff and soil erosion.

In the event of heavy rains, ash and other fire byproducts could wash into drainages, arroyos and streams near the lab, and even 10 miles downstream into the Rio Grande River.

"The watersheds above the lab and upstream from the lab were severely burned in the fire," said Baker. "This caused, besides a loss of a lot of vegetation, damage to the soil so it won't absorb water nearly as well as it used to. There's a large effort to mitigate damage."

The damage is expected to come from flash floods and ash that could wash off the burned hillsides, making its way into waterways and killing fish.

"We're not terribly concerned about radioactive and hazardous contaminants from the lab getting off lab property," said Paul Ritzman, deputy secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department. "The lab has really made an extensive effort to make sure nothing leaves their property of hazardous or radioactive nature. They are taking it to an extreme to prevent that."

"The biggest struggle we face is that there's going to be a lot of ash and soot in the Rio Grande if we get the right rain event, and we're probably going to have fish kills," said Ritzman. "The ash chokes the fish by taking oxygen out of water.

"When it rains, it's going to affect mostly the upper watershed. That's going to bring ash from the upper watershed down into the Rio Grande."

The NMED is planning to take samples of watersheds in and around the lab when the rains come. "We'll be testing for everything when we get a major event that takes things to the Rio Grande. Our hope is that we don't come up with anything but ash," said Ritzman.

Airplanes have spread 750,000 pounds of grass seed over 21,000 acres of land at the lab and dropped hydromulch - a combination of fertilizer, seed, shredded wood, water and tackifier to aid seed germination - onto steep hillsides.

Workers raked the glassy top layers of burned soil to increase water absorption, and contaminated soil is being removed from sites identified as threats.

In addition, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is helping LANL crews build weirs and rock walls to prevent runoff from flowing into sites containing radioactive or chemical contaminants. Lab officials are most concerned about flooding in Pajarito, Pueblo and Los Alamos canyons.

In Pajarito Canyon, crews built a retention wall around LANL facilities at site TA-18. The wall is designed to prevent debris from hitting Kiva One, one of the nuclear facilities at TA-18. Crews are also working on a water diversion channel at TA-18 and have moved containers of uranium solutions from Kiva One out of the canyon.

LANL work crews have completed erosion-control efforts such as jute mating, rock dams, log and silt barriers and straw wattles at 88 of 91 known contamination sites affected by the fire. Lab officials expect installations at the remaining sites these to be complete by the end of this week.

---

Radioactive Runoff Seen in N.M. Lab

Associated Press
July 19, 2000 Filed at 9:54 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-BRF-Radioactive-Runoff.html
http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=072000&ID=s828556&cat=

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) -- Scientists have reported radioactive storm runoff in a fire-denuded area above the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory.

The first significant thunderstorm to hit Los Alamos after a fire burned through the area this spring flushed higher-than-average levels of radiation down Los Alamos Canyon early last month, the lab reported Tuesday.

It's not water used for drinking, lab officials said.

Preliminary, uncorroborated data suggest the storm moved plutonium, cesium-137, strontium-90 and other contaminants -- still within allowable health standards. But in areas of the canyon, overall combined radioactivity rose above levels that would trigger a cleanup of drinking water -- if drinking water were at issue.

A team of state, lab and University of New Mexico officials are about to begin sampling storm runoff around Los Alamos.

---

UC Defends Weapons Lab Record

Associated Press
July 19, 2000 Filed at 10:26 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Univ-of-Calif-Nuclear-Labs.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- University of California officials defended their stewardship of the nation's nuclear weapons labs Wednesday and said some of the responsibility for recent security gaffes lies with the federal government.

University regents, who have managed the Los Alamos, N.M., and the Lawrence Livermore labs since their inception, made their first united response to widespread criticism of their performance.

``The University of California is not asleep at the wheel. We understand our responsibilities. We are trying to be as diligent as we can,'' Regent Ward Connerly said.

Trouble surfaced at Los Alamos in 1999 with reports that nuclear secrets had leaked to China. After a lengthy investigation, former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was charged with mishandling classified information. Lee, who maintains he is innocent, has not been charged with espionage.

In May, hard drives containing classified information that were missing from a Los Alamos vault weren't reported to senior management for at least three weeks. The drives reappeared last month behind a photocopier in an area that had been searched twice.

A criminal investigation has begun.

``What some critics of UC's role have lost sight of is that Washington, not the University of California, is responsible for setting policy and providing resources,'' UC President Richard C. Atkinson said in prepared remarks.

In Washington, Energy Department Deputy Secretary T.J. Glauthier said: ``We shouldn't get into a finger-pointing process. We are all concerned about protecting the information in these programs.''

Los Alamos Director John C. Browne told regents that he and other lab officials had tried to get the Energy Department to step up security in March 1999 -- well before the embarrassing disappearance and reappearance of two Los Alamos hard drives.

Browne said the lab officials urged resuming using bar codes to track classified information, a requirement he said was dropped in the early 1990s as part of a general relaxing of procedures following the end of the Cold War. Browne said Energy officials didn't respond to the request, but he conceded he should have followed up on it.

Glauthier said the missing hard drives wouldn't have gone unnoticed if existing security procedures had been followed, even without bar codes.

On June 30, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson called UC's security performance unacceptable and ordered changes in the institution's management contract. A review is under way and recommendations for change are expected by early September.

The state-of-the-art learning center originally envisioned was a long-promised replacement for aging Belmont High School, which serves a largely poor, minority neighborhood that is so crowded with students that thousands are bused to other campuses each school day.

The lawsuit accuses the district of violating state law by failing to commission a new environmental impact report after dropping plans to finish the school. The lawsuit asks that the district be ordered to prepare a new report.

School officials said in a statement they are drafting a plan to commission a new report and have not ruled out any future plans for the site, including using it as a school.

-------- new york

Managers at 2 Nuclear Reactors Ask Federal Agency to Halt Sale

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/00/07/19/news/national/regional/ny-nuke.html

WASHINGTON, July 18 -- Managers at two nuclear reactors owned by the New York Power Authority asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission today to block the sale of the plants to a private company, saying that the buyer was breaking promises about job security and benefits, and that the result could be low morale and "a mass defection" that would compromise safety.

But the Power Authority and the private company, Entergy Nuclear, which have signed a $967 million sale contract, said their goal was to protect the employees at the two plants: the Indian Point 3 reactor in Buchanan, in Westchester County, and the James A. FitzPatrick plant in Scriba, in Oswego County. The contract is subject to approval by the N.R.C.

Local 1-2 of the Utility Workers Union of America, which represents unionized employees at the two plants, also filed a petition with the commission raising safety concerns about the transaction, which would be the largest sale of state assets in history. Westchester County and several local governments asked the commission to extend today's deadline for filing such petitions.

The Power Authority wants to close the deal by October. Entergy, of Jackson, Miss., said its offer was good until the end of the year.

The N.R.C. does not normally get involved in personnel or contract issues but has sometimes become concerned if labor relations are so poor that they threaten plant safety.

The managers' group at the Power Authority, the Nuclear Generation Employees Association, represents nearly 400 employees at the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick reactors, and at offices in White Plains and Manhattan. The managers said Entergy would leave them vulnerable to layoffs and to reductions in pension and health benefits.

Jack Murphy, a spokesman for the Power Authority, said of the petition: "I think it's nonsense. Before we entertained any offer from anybody, including Entergy, one of the primary requirements was that our employees would go to the new company at the equal salary, and the same level of benefits."

Carl Crawford, a spokesman for Entergy, said his company was negotiating with benefit providers to devise a package that matched what the employees have now. Mr. Crawford acknowledged that Entergy had told workers that benefits could be reduced after the first year, but he said that "they could go up as well."

He said Entergy planned "no significant layoffs" for a year after the deal closed.

Joseph R. Egan, a lawyer representing the Nuclear Generation Employees Association, said he would file suit against the Power Authority in New York to clarify its obligations.

-------- us nuc science

Scientists Claim To Break Speed-of-Light Barrier

MSNBC
19 July 2000
By Maia Weinstock Staff Writer
mailto:mweinstock@hq.space.com
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html

If zooming beyond the local speed limit is punishable by law, then some scientists may have a gargantuan speeding ticket to pay.

In a controversial experiment reported in this week's journal Nature, scientists at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, New Jersey claim to have broken the ultimate speed limit -- the speed of light. Though hotly contested, some say this achievement could dramatically increase the speeds at which we can send and receive information.

Taught in physics classes the world over, Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity holds that no object or information can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, or 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second. But NEC's Lijun Wang says he created an experiment in which a light beam raced through a gas-filled chamber so quickly, it exceeded the speed of light by a factor of 300. What's more, the light pulse appears to have left the confines of the chamber before it even entered - a seemingly impossible occurrence according to theories of causality, which predict that causes must always precede their effects.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/grav_probe_b_000310.html

"It sounds crazy, but this can actually occur," said Raymond Chiao, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley. Chiao, one of a group of researchers who have been working to break the speed-of-light limit, explained that although a common object such as a baseball could never be flung faster than the speed of light, pulses of energy with certain complex properties have been known to bend the rules.

"It sounds crazy, but it actually can occur." --Raymond Chiao, UC Berkeley

In fact, several recent experiments, including one done by Chiao earlier this year, have pointed to energy pulses zooming faster than light speed. Yet each of these experiments has been encumbered by severe limitations on measurement or observation of the energy pulses. In contrast, this latest experiment is being touted by some as the most dramatic example yet of light breaking its own speed barrier.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/light_speed_000530.html

"The effects are much larger and more spectacular" than previous observations, said Chiao.

In Wang's experiment, a pulse of light passed through a small chamber filled with atoms of elemental cesium. A light beam traveling through such a medium has two different velocities - a velocity for the individual light waves in the beam and a group velocity for the entire beam. Oddly, some light waves in the beam can actually travel backward for miniscule amounts of time, creating a sort of "tail" behind forward-moving waves. As such, a light wave and its tail can leave the gas cavity at different times, creating the effect that the light beam has left the cavity before it's even entered.

Confused? You're not alone. In fact, even scientists who are familiar with this area of study are unsure about the details of Wang's experiment. And many scientists said the experiment's results are still open to interpretation.

William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University argued that several specific problems exist with the experiment, including the fact that pulses get distorted when passed through any media other than a vacuum, or empty space. In addition, he said Wang and his colleagues performed the experiment in a way that doesn't tell the whole story, and that it can be interpreted incorrectly. "This is anything but dramatic," said Happer. "If you look at the data, there's essentially no evidence that [the beam] is going faster than the speed of light."

What's more, most scientists agree that even if such a beam can be proved speedier than light, it would probably not be able to carry any information. Such a feat could conceivably allow data to be sent back in time, thus violating laws of causality and sending quantum physics into disrepair.

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/sonic_space_quantum_music_000525.html

Others are more optimistic as to the possible benefits of Wang's experiment. "For some applications, for example, to computer circuits, this might be very important and useful," said Chiao.

---

Beam smashes light barrier

BBC
Wednesday, 19 July, 2000
By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_841000/841690.stm

Scientists have seen a pulse of light emerge from a cloud of gas before it even entered.

This astonishing and baffling observation was made by researchers from the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US.

They conducted an experiment that involved lasers, a chamber containing cold caesium atoms and a super-fast stopwatch.

The end result was a beam of light that moved at 300 times the theoretical limit for the speed of light.

It was Einstein who said nothing physical could break this barrier because, among other things, to do so would also mean travelling back in time.

Dramatic demonstration

But the NEC scientists believe their work does not violate Einstein's theory.

Writing in the journal Nature, Dr Lijun Wang and colleagues say their light beam raced through the atom trap so quickly that the leading edge of the pulse's peak actually exited before it had entered.

If this sounds confusing, then do not worry. Many physicists are uncomfortable with it too despite their explanations that it is a natural consequence of the wave nature of light.

Although the work of Dr Wang's team is remarkable, it is not the first time that this sort of "trick" has been performed - but it is certainly the most dramatic demonstration.

Earlier this year, a team of physicists made a microwave beam travel 7% faster than light speed. Last year, they announced that they had even slowed light down to almost a crawl.

Anomalous refractive index

To achieve their peculiar effect, Dr Wang's group fired laser beams through a trap of caesium atoms.

By adjusting the frequency of the laser beams to match those of the energy levels in the atoms, the researchers were able to achieve an effect called "anomalous refractive index." This boosts the pulses' so-called "group velocity" to a speed faster than what we understand to be the speed of light - just short of 300 million metres per second.

The group velocity of a light pulse depends upon the mixture of frequencies within the pulse and the medium through which it travels. It need not be the speed of the pulse itself.

The important thing, however, is that whilst the group velocity can be manipulated to be faster than the speed of light, it is not possible to use this effect to send information faster than the speed of light.

Because of the fast group velocity, the leading edge of the pulse appears to leave the caesium-filled chamber 62 billionths of a second before it arrives.

Causality principle

And according to Dr Wang, this strange result does not threaten Einstein's theories - in particular, the causality principle, which states that a cause must precede its effect.

Or so almost all physicists think - for now. Privately, some admit that experiments such as Dr Wang's may force a reassessment of some cherished ideas.

According to Dr Guenter Nimtz, of the University of Cologne, who has carried out similar experiments, the NEC work is very exciting.

He told BBC News Online: "The effect cannot be used to go back in time, only to reduce the time between cause and effect a little bit.

"The reason for this," he said, "is because the light pulse has a finite length of time, much longer than any gain obtained by a faster-than-lightspeed."

---

Albert Einstein, shown in a playful mood in 1951, focused on light's velocity in his theory of special relativity. Clarifying Einstein's rules of the road Physicists clear up misconceptions about 'faster than light' transmission

MSNBC
07/19/00
By Alan Boyle MSNBC
mailto:alan.boyle@msnbc.com
http://www.msnbc.com/news/435007.asp

July 19 - Can anything break the cosmic speed limit of 186,000 miles per second? For weeks, scientific circles have been buzzing about an experiment that pulsed light through a special chamber so fast that it left the apparatus before it fully entered it. Now the research has been released at last, and the experimenters say their findings contradict no laws of physics - just the misconceptions people have about them.

EINSTEIN'S THEORY of special relativity set the tone in 1905 with the claim that an object cannot be accelerated to beyond the speed of light in a vacuum: 186,000 miles per second, or 300,000 kilometers per second.

Since then, the light-speed threshold has served as the inspiration for such science-fiction standbys as warp drives and backward time travel - reinforcing the idea that going faster than 186,000 miles a second was pure fantasy.

However, in recent years there has been increasing evidence that 186,000 miles a second is not necessarily the limit for light transmission, depending on your definitions. The clearest evidence so far comes from an experiment conducted at the NEC Research Institute in New Jersey and described in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

The experiment highlights the loopholes in relativity theory - caveats that usually don't figure in popular discussions of what Einstein proposed. First of all, it's important to remember that this business about 186,000 miles per second applies only to light in a vacuum, and that the speed limit applies only to objects that have mass. Since light waves are massless, physicists say that light can travel as fast as ... well, as fast as light.

It's well known that light can travel slower than 186,000 miles a second, depending on the medium it's passing through. That medium can be as common as air, water or glass. Or it can be more exotic. For example, researchers at the Rowland Institute for Science and Harvard University say they've been able to slow light down to 1 mph, by passing it through a chamber containing supercooled atoms.

SPEEDING UP A LIGHT WAVE

Lijun Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu used a different kind of exotic medium in their experiment: The researchers used lasers to "pump" cesium atoms, contained in a 6-centimeter (2.4-inch) chamber, to an excited state that doesn't occur naturally.

Then they passed a smooth light pulse, lasting about three-millionths of a second, through the chamber. The atoms in the cesium gas were in just the right state to shift the pattern of peaks and troughs in the many wavelengths that made up the light pulse.

Because of this shift, the pulse popped up on the other side of the chamber far sooner than it should have, based on the speed of light in a vacuum. In fact, the time difference - 62-billionths of a second - meant that the peak of the pulse appeared on the far side of the chamber before it entered the near side of the chamber. That's an instance of what's known as "negative delay" or "negative velocity," a phenomenon that seems paradoxical. It was almost as if the light wave could figure out, on the basis of the very beginning of the pulse, how to reconstruct the full peak on the other side.

This isn't the first time researchers have made light waves travel "faster than light," but it's the most clear-cut case. Other experiments, including research from Italy that was published in May, involved more manipulation of the light wave in transit.

Word of the NEC experiment leaked out weeks ago, but the researchers couldn't discuss their findings publicly because of Nature's embargo. Now they are free to declare that the results mesh quite well with what's known about electromagnetism and quantum mechanics.

"Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein's special relativity," they said in a statement. "The experiment can be well explained using existing physics theories that are consistent with relativity. In fact, the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing physics theories."

WHAT IT MEANS

All this might make it sound as if the NEC researchers found a way to send a message at speeds faster than 186,000 miles a second - which could theoretically open the way for a sort of time travel.

But the researchers contend that is not the case. Their experiment dealt with smooth changes in a pulse, and "a smooth function cannot carry information," Dogariu said. Sending information - for example, the flashes of a laser semaphore - would require sharper variations in frequency that could not be processed in the type of finely tuned atom chamber used by the NEC researchers.

This would fit the view that a cosmic speed limit may apply to the transmission of information rather than light per se - a concept that has been the subject of debate with regard to another spooky and widely misunderstood phenomenon known as quantum teleportation.

Such fine points were lost in most advance reports about the experiment. In fact, the NEC scientists have been spending much of their time trying to correct erroneous claims about their research.

"We are in the middle of a battle to save Einstein's relativity theory from bad press interpretations of our experiment," Dogariu said in an e-mail message.

Another physicist familiar with the experiment, Aephraim Steinberg of the University of Toronto, agreed that it was easy to misinterpret what the NEC researchers had done.

"The researchers have been very careful in the point of view that they've taken," he told MSNBC.com. "Certainly in these experiments, there is something that's faster than light or even a negative speed, which is very dramatic. But then we have to back up and interpret what's going on.

"It's very different from what we might want in our science-fiction dreams," he said.

So if the NEC experiment doesn't violate the laws of physics or show us the path to warp speed, does that mean it's just a glorified parlor trick? Not at all, the researchers say. On one level, the experiment and others like it are shedding new light - so to speak - on some dark corners of relativity theory. Moreover, the techniques are likely to find practical application, perhaps as a way of speeding up information transfer within circuitry to 186,000 miles per second, known to physicists as "c."

"Using this effect, one might be able to increase information transfer speed up to 'c,'" the researchers said. "In present-day technology, information is transmitted at speeds far slower than 'c' in most cases, such as through the Internet and inside a computer."

-------- us nuc waste

Clash at Yucca Mountain

July 19, 2000
S. Fred Singer
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-2000719173524.htm

Last May, the Senate barely failed to override President Clinton's veto of legislation for a spent nuclear-fuel storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The bill (S. 1287) was supposed to end the bickering about nuclear waste disposal and finally put into effect what has been national policy since 1982 when Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Many view the Clinton veto as a blow to the U.S. nuclear-power program; but perhaps quite fortuitously, it might end up doing the opposite and boost it. This veto may provide the last chance to debate in a rational way what to do about the spent fuel from the nation's reactors. Retrievable safe storage above ground rather than permanent underground disposal may turn out to be the best answer.

This option was surely not what motivated Mr. Clinton's veto. The underlying reasons are many, with lots of hidden agenda.

Let's first look at the agenda of the Greens. If they can sabotage the disposal of nuclear waste, then they can argue that nuclear reactors should be shut down - their ultimate aim. Their strategy is what is called the "orphan defense": A man murders his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan. They would like nothing better than to replace nuclear-generated electric power, 20 percent of the U.S. total, with wind and solar. In fact, closing down nuclear reactors would surely lead to more fossil-fueled plants that release greenhouse gases. Replacing megawatts with "negawatts" based on extreme energy conservation is not a realistic policy either.

The ostensible reason for Mr. Clinton's veto was that the bill would have given the responsibility for setting radiation standards to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Predictably, the Environmental Protection Agency argued that this would weaken environmental standards; but there is no scientific base for this. EPA's real reasons are bureaucratic and ideological, and the White House was apparently willing to support politics over science in order to appease Al Gore's Green constituency.

To protect the public from radioactivity, Congress had directed EPA in 1992 to set standards "based upon the findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences." As reported in the April 28, 2000, issue of the journal Science, EPA proposed a standard for those living near Yucca of not more than 5 percent of the natural radiation background (from cosmic rays and other sources). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, charged with issuing the license for the spent-fuel repository, argued that a standard of 8 percent would be almost as safe and far easier to achieve with confidence.

But then EPA decided to set an additional standard for ground water, at a level of only 1 percent of the natural background, assuming users would drink half a gallon of ground water every day. The scientists involved in the Academy study objected vehemently, citing the absence of any scientific justification - but to no avail. (They should also have attacked EPA's methodology, which relies on the unscientific "linear" hypothesis that denies the existence of a "threshold" below which radiation is shown to be not harmful.)

This standoff was one of the reasons that prompted Congress to pass legislation to transfer environmental regulatory responsibility from the EPA to the NRC. This was the bill that Clinton vetoed, counting on support from environmental groups. Opposed to the Yucca site, Nevada senators and others supporting the veto argued disingenuously that allowing nuclear waste to be transported would set a "very dangerous precedent."

The General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, has now weighed into the controversy. According to a study released on July 14, the EPA standard would cost taxpayers billions of dollars in unnecessary spending. Sen. Pete Domenici, New Mexico Republican, has termed the EPA's insistence on its tighter standard as "irrational."

So what will happen now? Majority leader Trent Lott may attempt to override again later this year. Or the bill may be presented to a different president next year. "Sooner or later a president will sign a bill," said Mr. Domenici.

But if Mr. Clinton's veto stops the program of a central underground repository, what are the options? Closing operating nuclear plants is entirely unrealistic; if anything, more nuclear power is needed if we wish to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide. The alternative is to leave spent fuel in local storage at or near the reactors. This is what is being done now, safely and routinely. Where space is limited, storage facilities will be expanded. Local storage also avoids transport to a central location. While transportation poses no real safety problem, it could incite popular anti-nuclear sentiment if fear and emotions are inflamed by activists.

Postponing underground disposal at a central location, like Yucca Mountain, would not be a bad choice. Almost certainly, with nuclear power growing in Asia and other parts of the world, high-grade deposits of uranium will become depleted and prices will rise. There will come a time, perhaps in 20 years and certainly within 50 years, when spent fuel will constitute available resource.At that point, reprocessing of the stored fuel will make economic sense, because of the recycling of fissionable uranium and plutonium into reactor fuel, and the recovery of other elements whose worth we cannot even estimate at this time. After all, isn't conservation of resources a desirable objective?

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and the president of the Fairfax, Va.-based Science & Environmental Policy Project.

-------- u.s. nuc weapons

Pacific Missile defense would take president - and maybe humans - out of the loop

by David Wood
Newhouse News Service
The Seattle Times Company -
July 19, 2000, 12:00 a.m.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/html98/deff19_20000719.html

BLUE RIDGE SUMMIT, Pa. - In a crisis that threatened national security, senior civilian and military officials would relocate from Washington to "Site R," a nuclear-war-fighting command center built deep inside a solid-rock mountain near this bucolic town. So secret it doesn't have a proper name, the underground command and communications center is part of an extensive, painstaking and costly government effort to secure a cherished American political principle: Elected civilian leaders are in charge - not the military, especially in wartime.

But that principle would be overturned by the proposed national missile-defense system, which would have to react so quickly to the threat of incoming warheads that its military operators would make the decision to fire. Warheads could detonate on American soil within minutes. And so it would be a snap decision under enormous pressure. Thus the decision to go to war, the most grave choice a democracy can face, would be removed from the president in the Oval Office and given instead to an unknown military officer sequestered in an underground command post - or, to a computer.

A fundamental issue

The proposed missile-defense system - to detect, track and shoot down enemy missiles as they streak through space - has failed two out of three of its tests, the latest on July 7. The decision about whether the United States should build it remains pending. Although a missile defense against "rogue states" has been endorsed by both major presidential candidates, it has generated bitter disputes over its potential effectiveness and its ramifications for global stability. But no one has raised the more fundamental issue of who would be in charge. The White House, asked for comment, was initially flummoxed. After several days, Army Lt. Col. David Stockwell, spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president "would be involved" in the command and control of a national missile-defense system. But Stockwell declined to say that the president would take part in a decision to actually fire interceptor missiles. "It's all under development at this time, and to say anything more would be speculation," he said.

Full auto, or 'CINC Space'

The proposed system would rely heavily on sophisticated computer software to detect missile launches, track the devices as they arced toward space, and try to determine if they were hostile and where they would land. It would launch and guide interceptor missiles to collide with the warheads before they streaked down to their targets. Officials stressed that there will be a human in the decision-making loop. Some analysts, however, believe the relentless time pressure of the perceived attack will drive the system toward full automation. That is particularly true, they said, for a "boost-phase" missile-defense system advocated by, among others, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the likely Republican nominee. Such a system would intercept missiles within the first five minutes of launch, even before they released their warheads and decoys - perhaps leaving too little time for any human decision at all.

But even under the initial system, projected to be in operation at Alaska bases by 2005, the decision to open fire would be made entirely within the military. "There's not enough time to call back and say, 'Can I shoot?' " said Vice Adm. Herbert Browne, deputy commander of U.S. Space Command, which would control the system from its headquarters inside Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs, Colo. That decision would fall to the commander in chief of Space Command. At present, that job, called "CINC Space," is held by Air Force Gen. Ralph "Ed" Eberhart. Later, the president would learn from a phone call that the country had gone to war.

A chilling scenario

For example, in one scenario the system is intended to handle, North Korea fires a missile with five chemical warheads at the United States. A dozen U.S. interceptor missiles are launched. They appear on China's primitive early-warning radar, making that nation believe it is under U.S. nuclear attack. In a panic, China launches its nuclear missiles at the United States before they can be destroyed in their silos. That triggers a genuine U.S. nuclear counterattack. Would the risk of having five Korean chemical weapons detonate on American soil be worth a global nuclear holocaust? That's a question "CINC Space" would have to answer, in a heartbeat.

"There's going to have to be special trust and confidence placed in the hands of the CINC," Browne said at a recent press briefing. Cold War: a simpler time The problem of response was slightly easier in the early days of the Cold War, when U.S. strategy called for an unthinking "massive retaliation" for what was presumed would be a massive Soviet attack at the climax of a slowly rising crisis. Authorizing such a counterstrike would have been an "awesome" decision, but not an especially tricky one, strategist Walter Slocombe wrote in 1987. "The decision does not particularly lend itself to analysis and could be delegated" from the president to lower-ranking officials should the president be at risk of being killed, wrote Slocombe, now undersecretary of defense. "Far more difficult are the choices that would have to be made in the case of limited attack."

"Limited attack" is the most likely risk the United States faces today, according to the most recent CIA assessment. In the strategic environment developing today, for instance, the risk is an attack of one or a handful of missiles by "rogue states" in ambiguous circumstances - in which it might not be clear, for example, whether the launch was deliberate or an accident. Knowing which would be critical in determining the U.S. response. But missile-defense technology is narrowing the opportunity to investigate. 'A few tens of seconds' In the "boost-phase" system, for instance, "you really have a knee-jerk reaction, and you wouldn't know yet what the missiles are intended to do," said Bruce Blair, president of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information, also in Washington, and a former missile-launch officer. "You'd have a few tens of seconds to detect a launch and fire within another few seconds," Blair said. "What if a country is just going to test a missile? Are we going to knock it out just because it has the range to reach our country? It could be a peaceful space launch."

Civilian command bunkers

Those kinds of questions now are considered and debated at places like Site R, where military police occasionally open the massive chain-link front gate to allow military joggers out for a midday run in the hills. In the mid-1980s, a survey by William M. Arkin, an independent researcher, found a "massive and pervasive" system of fortified bunkers like this, where civilian officials would relocate during a nuclear war. Some 350 facilities could, like Site R, provide "post-nuclear-attack operations" including protection from radioactive fallout and food and water, he found. Most of them are maintained today, Arkin said, including a fleet of 18-wheeler trucks carrying mobile command facilities. These are garaged around the country, including Washington, D.C. In addition, the Navy provides airborne command posts in Boeing 707s called TACAMO (for "Take Charge and Move Out") aircraft. These link the president, the secretary of defense and the nation's ballistic-missile submarines.

Software in charge

At times during the Cold War, limited authority to wage nuclear war was delegated beforehand to military commanders - but only if the president and Cabinet had perished in a massive attack. Today, war authority rests entirely with the "national command authority," the military designation for the president and his secretary of defense and their deputies. But the idea of keeping a civilian, or any human being, "in the decision-making loop" may become obsolete. "In the real world, the human in the loop basically serves as little more than a circuit breaker to prevent the system from going off half-cocked," said John Pike, a space and military-policy analyst for the Federation of American Scientists in Washington. By the time the missile-defense system is operational, the computer software that assesses an attack and analyzes response options "will be the culmination of many thousands of work-years of modeling and calculation and simulation and refinement and testing," Pike said. "The software is going to be in an infinitely better position to make a considered judgment about what should be done than the few human beings sitting in the room," Pike said. "There will be too much stuff going on too fast for any human operators to figure it all out. "There just won't be any time for mere human meddling."

----

Last Chance for US Anti-Missile Defenses

NewsMax.com
April 24, 2000
Col. Stanislav Lunev
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/24/53247

At month's end Igor Ivanov, foreign minister of the Russian Federation, will come to Washington, D.C., to discuss various important subjects, foremost of which will be arms control. The United States is expected to urge the R.F. to concede to an amendment in the ABM Treaty, allowing the United States to develop a national missile-defense system.

This treaty, signed by the former Soviet Union and the United States in 1972 to bar both countries from anti-missile-defense systems, has become an historical curiosity with little bearing on the realities of our day. The proliferation of ballistic-missile technology has now spread to numerous rogue states, including North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, none of which are signatories to the treaty - not to mention that one of the major signatories, the Soviet Union, no longer exists. Thus the treaty appears to afford no viable security benefits to the United States despite its dutiful loyalty to the treaty provisions.

Unfortunately, the anti-ballistic-missile defense system, known as the Strategic Defense Initiative - initiated by Pres. Reagan seventeen years ago - was soon sacrificed by U.S. politicians in favor of the mythical "balance of power" with the United Soviet Socialist Republics and the "strategic partnership" with the new, supposedly democratic, Russia. Like the former U.S.S.R., the R.F. strongly opposes any changes to the ABM Treaty, which it considers "the cornerstone of strategic stability in the world."

Any amendment to this document, according to Kremlin leaders, would result in a new arms race and destroy the strategic military balance. This position is staunchly supported by Red China, which, despite the wishful fantasies of U.S. ideologues, is Russian's true strategic partner. The threat of a "new" arms race, however, doesn't lack a certain irony; for both Russia and Red China have never abandoned their race for arms superiority. So a resumption of the arms race would actually be "new" only for the United States.

Nevertheless, the ideologues in Washington choose to ignore this and the fact that the R.F. has long had a missile-defense system in place while the United States has none. Basically, the Russian system was completed years before the U.S.S.R. signed the ABM Treaty in 1972. Therefore, the U.S.S.R. sacrificed nothing by agreeing to the treaty as the United States, in effect, bartered away its future national defenses.

The Soviet Union created its system for protection against both missile and air attack. Soviet leaders saw this as vital in view of what they considered an inevitable war with the United States and its NATO allies. Since the Cold War was at its peak at the time, the Kremlin devoted vast resources to construction and implementation of the system.

In the 1950s the Soviet general staff designed the system's "Operational Plan," and by the time of the ABM Treaty the main elements of the Soviet missile-defense program had long been operational. The plan included both active and passive measures, which were adapted to the level of the existing technology.

The active measurers included design and deployment of ground, air, and space anti-missile weapons; battle-management target-tracking radars; and disinformation strategies to conceal the real intentions of the Kremlin. The passive measures included construction of underground bunkers, which could protect the Soviet elite from hostile missile strikes; underground and air-based command posts for the Soviet military; and super-secret underground systems for the evacuation of leaders from their peace-time locations.

The construction and implementation of the plan took place in great secrecy. In many cases they were hidden under civilian structures purportedly used for scientific research on, for example, space, air-traffic control, seismic and other nonmilitary projects. After the treaty was signed, the level of secrecy was increased even more; for the Kremlin never genuinely considered the abandonment of it's own missile-defense system as negotiable.

All works connected with anti-missile defense were officially designated as air defenses, allowed by the treaty; but they were actually intended for purposes contrary to the treaty's terms. Projects connected with passive measures were classified as civil defense. These measures are still in place with few changes and with little scaling-down of the underground bunkers or of the vast subterranean transportation system of 1991-1992.

The active measures were designed for the destruction of incoming missiles and aircraft in the event of a surprise attack on the U.S.S.R. In the mid-1950s, the Kremlin adopted a two-track approach to the missile-defense program. The first was for the defense of Moscow. The second was a dual anti-aircraft/anti-missile system (SAM/ABM) for nationwide deployment.

The Politburo of the Communist Party ordered the completion of the anti-ballistic-missile system for Moscow by 1967, the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution, but due to technical problems it didn't become operational until after the treaty was signed in 1972.

Ostensibly constructed for "non-nuclear" purposes, it was soon converted to a nuclear system of long-range interceptors with one-megaton nuclear warheads. However, poor communications between the nuclear-warhead and ABM-system designers slowed things down. The highly complicated nature of the program required redesigning the Moscow system in 1962 and again in 1964. But in 1975 Soviet authorities approved the new ABM system for Moscow, which was a scaled-up copy of the American NIKE-X system of 1967. This system became operational at the end of the1980s.

The National Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile (NABM) system consisted of three major elements: (1.) SA-5 and SA-10 dual-purpose SAM/ABM weapons systems; (2.) battle-management radars located around the periphery of the country as well as in space; and (3.) a national command-control system. Soviet NABM were developed and deployed from the early 1960s until the demise of the U.S.S.R. in step with the Moscow system, which, as stated, had been permitted by the ABM Treaty under false pretenses.

Construction of the dual-purpose SAM/ABM system began in 1960 but was abandoned in 1963 to be replaced by SA-5s. Between 1970 and 1975 the SA-5 was modernized with two-missile models and new electronic circuitry.

Completion of the SA-10 as well as of the first five ground-based battle-management radars and of the modernized SA-5 was expected to provide a major upgrade in Soviet NABM capabilities by 1980 but did not become operational until later because of delays.

Ironically, the development of the upgraded ground-based battle-management radars, which can track MIRVed RVs, was carried out during the ABM Treaty negotiations. Construction of these facilities could hardly have gone unnoticed by the West, for they resemble several Manhattan skyscrapers joined together in one unit. Construction began in 1972, and the first units became operational in the1980s. The well-known Krasnoyarsk Radar-the sixth of nine such radars--was a deliberate treaty violation by the Soviet leadership. Is it possible that United States and NATO spy satellites did not detect these massive structures? If not, then why are these flagrant treaty violations being ignored?

In total the U.S.S.R. deployed two generations of national missile defenses, consisting of 18 large radars and 12,000 SAM/ABM interceptors at 280 complexes. Moscow itself is protected not only by 100 ABM missiles, as permitted by the treaty, but also by several thousand SAM/ABM interceptors.

The Soviet policy was continued by R.F. leaders in the wake of the U.S.S.R. disintegration, when President Yeltsin was seeking military support in his power struggle with Gorbachev. The R.F. has improved on the Soviet policy by refining the SA-10. In 1992 and 1995 the Kremlin upgraded its SA-10s, including retrofitting them with new missiles and electronics with improved performance against strategic missiles and added capability to intercept tactical missiles with low radar cross-sections.

The large-scale field exercises of the R.F. Strategic Military Command during the past several years have demonstrated that Russian missile-defense forces are combat ready. The R.F. also continues special R&D to improve SAM/ABM performance against both strategic and tactical missiles. The R.F. is also violating the treaty by selling missile technology and weapons to Iran, Iraq, North Korea and other countries. For example, the R.F. has been promoting the defense capabilities of the SA-10 in the foreign markets; and in 1994 admitted that the SA-10 had low-spectrum capabilities ranging from defense against stealth aircraft and cruise missiles to ICBMs. One variant has been credited with a 0.9 kill factor against ballistic-missiles.

With respect to the aforementioned passive measures, the massive build up of bunkers and underground communications systems cover not only Moscow but also all major cities and military installations. By the end of the1980s another hidden, underground city, with hundreds of miles of secret transportation networks, was integrated with the Moscow subway and provides for the evacuation of thousands of people to areas far from the country's administrative center.

This system was used by the Russian special forces A-Team to capture the Russian "White House" in 1993 during the confrontation between the president and parliament. From 1991-1992 the R.F. paid little attention to further development of the system, but in 1993 the underground construction was taken up again on the same scale as it had been during the Soviet regime. Even during the present economic crisis, the R.F. continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for expansion of the underground-bunker and subterranean escape network for the Russian elite. Foreign visitors to the Moscow and other sites are astonished, during this supposed era of peace, to find the enormous scale and depth of these facilities.

But where are the funds coming from to build these massive projects at a time of rampant poverty, disease and starvation in the country? Perhaps we should look to the illegal arms and technology sales and the monumental Western loans. The underground city in Yamantau in the Ural Mountains alone is about the size of Washington, D.C. It is here that R.F. leaders plan to wait out the aftereffects of a nuclear attack until it is safe to come out of hiding.

In sum, the U.S.S.R./R.F. has consistently pursued the very anti-ballistic-missile program prohibited by Article 1 of the ABM Treaty; and this has occurred before, during and after the negotiations of the accord. At present the United States has the distinction of being the only existing party to the treaty and also the only nation complying with its terms. One must wonder if the United States has become the knight errant among nations--like Don Quixote, pursuing its fantasies despite all evidence. A noble trait perhaps, but hardly conducive to the continued welfare of the United States in the real world.

---

Summit Exposes Conflicts in Arms Control

NewsMax.com
Wednesday, May 31, 2000
Col.Stanislav Lunev
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/5/31/172953

President Clinton will hold his first summit meeting with new Russian President Vladimir Putin this weekend in Moscow. According to a White House statement, the two leaders will discuss arms control problems, including the START-3 treaty, which would make more reductions in nuclear warheads.

In addition, the White House said, they will talk about Russia's conflict in the breakaway region of Chechnya, democracy and economic reform in Russia, and Washington's desire to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty to be able to deploy a national missile defense, a change Moscow opposes.

In other words, conversation will center on new talks about arms control, which became negotiable after the Russian Duma (lower chamber of the parliament) recently ratified START-2 and approved a ban on nuclear test explosions.

These questions were the focus of recent meetings in Moscow between Russian officials and U.S. National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, other American politicians and, as it happened, private persons.

Clinton has already spoken by phone to Vladimir Putin and congratulated him on the Duma's vote to approve the seven-years-delayed START-2 treaty. But there is a big question: Is there any reason for these congratulations?

Political Manipulations

First of all, it could be impossible to name this ratification by anything else but political manipulations. During a long seven years after presidents George Bush and Boris Yeltsin signed this treaty in 1993, the Kremlin's propaganda machine tried to explain to the Russian people and world that START-2 benefited only the United States.

But the situation has changed overnight. From the beginning of this year Russian politicians, who previously were strongly opposed to this treaty, and state-run press began to promote START-2, saying it was profitable for both sides and could dramatically reduce Russian spending for keeping old nuclear missiles, which are not in combat readiness and are costly to maintain.

It is difficult to find out how it has happened, but specialists in Russian administration say START-2 could be used in new political games with the U.S. against the U.S., thanks to the Clinton administration's experience in arms control politics. In its original form, signed in 1993, START-2 was supposed to result in the early elimination of all the former Soviet Union's huge arsenal of SS-18s, heavy strategic ballistic missiles capable of pre-emptively attacking the U.S. with a large number of independently targetable warheads.

Actually, it was the original START-2 treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in January 1996. But in September 1997 the American administration agreed to defer the dismantling of these SS-18s and other most dangerous Russian missiles until as late as 2007. And that was exactly the arrangement the Russian Duma approved at the beginning of last month, but never was under real consideration by the U.S. Senate.

Moreover, Putin underscores that none of Russia's ballistic missiles will be retired until they reach the end of their useful service life. Additionally he indicated the Russian Federation would not implement the START-2 treaty at all unless and until the U.S. ratified what the Duma has just done.

Putin's Threat

Putin also connected all arms control agreements with America's intentions to build its own national missile defense by saying that if the U.S. withdraws from the ABM treaty, Russia will abrogate not only START-1 and START-2 but other arms-control accords as well.

As the Russian press reported, Putin also said that Washington had a choice. The U.S. will have to renounce its plans to develop a national ABM system to preserve START-2 and the agreement limiting conventional forces in Europe. If it does discard the ABM treaty, the U.S. will become, in the eyes of the world, guilty of destroying the foundation of strategic stability.

In other words, the new Russian president overplayed American arms-control policy-makers by doing actually nothing. Ratification of START-2 gives the Russian military-industrial complex plenty of time to build and deploy a new generation of strategic ballistic missiles, such as SS-27s, which America simply cannot afford to have.

As NewsMax.com reported April 17, the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal is in such poor condition that only 600 to 800 warheads are usable. In addition, maintaining these nuclear weapons is an enormous expense for the struggling country, with a price tag as high as $3 billion a year - more than 10 percent of Russia's entire national budget.

On the other hand, by ratification of START-2 Russia prevented the U.S. from building a national missile defense, which America needs desperately because of worldwide proliferation of missiles and nuclear technologies. And this is at a time when Russia has consistently pursued the very antiballistic missile program prohibited by Article 1 of the ABM treaty, which has occurred before, during and after the negotiations of the accord.

Russia's Missile Defense

Today, when American politicians only begin to speak about building National Missile Defense (NMD), Russia already is having its own and doesn't want to give America the same chance. Today, Russia has the world's only ABM defense around its capital, plus thousands of SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) defending the country, up to 3,000 around Moscow alone, with a new model soon to go into production.

America has the distinction of being the only party to the treaty and the only nation complying with its terms.

Additionally, Russian ratification of START-2 opened the way for new cuts in the number of strategic ballistic missiles, down to a level that Russia could have and maintain but that is not enough for the national security of America.

In 1997 Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, at that time the Russian president, reached a framework for START-3. The framework was to be worked out in detail after Russia's Duma ratified START-2, which cuts nuclear arsenals to 3,000-3,500 warheads. The new START-3 would be under consideration in Moscow during the summit this week, and right now the discussion has focused on the 2,000-2,500 warhead range.

But it has become known recently that Putin is expected to press President Clinton for deeper cuts. The Kremlin already has proposed an additional 1,000-missile cut, as the Washington Times reported May 11 quoting U.S. defense officials that the White House and State Department want to accept the Russian proposal.

Without doubt, additional cuts would profit the Russian leaders, because the Russian nuclear arsenal is expected to fall below 2,000 warheads without any new treaty as a result of aging weapons systems and a lack of money. But it is difficult to say it could be good for America, which needs to have a minimum of these weapons systems to protect own country and follow its international obligations. It is clear and understandable, but not to some Washingtonian politicians.

As the Washington Times said, the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose a Russian plan favored by the White House to cut the number of U.S. nuclear warheads by 1,000 in time for Clinton's summit meeting in Moscow. Adm. Richard Mies, commander of the U.S. strategic nuclear forces, informed Pentagon leaders that his command needed about 2,500 warheads to execute its nuclear deterrence and war-fighting missions.

Looking for the international support of Russia's position, Putin already met with many foreign leaders and impressed them with his energy and ability to understand how Russia profits from the international situation's development. He also met with many foreign private persons, include U.S. media magnate Ted Turner.

The Moscow Times on May 12 reported that Turner said he and Putin discussed nuclear disarmament and other issues and that he favored the elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. "All the major nuclear powers are in peace.What do we need nuclear weapons for?" he said.

Unfortunately, peace is shaky and not stable. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, people spoke of the dawning of a new era in which conflict would be the exception rather than the rule. But 11 years later, the world is still at war. There are 33 major conflicts under way worldwide.

The end of the Cold War has made it less likely that there will be a nuclear war between the superpowers, but it has done little to stem the spread of local and regional wars. During the Cold War, the U.S. and former U.S.S.R. fueled regional wars by backing their local proxies with troops or weaponry, but they also engaged in diplomatic efforts to limit the spread of these conflicts. In contrast, the new world of war involves a bewildering array of conflicts over territory, resources and ethnic and national identity in which it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad.

In this world of practically nonstop wars, with new countries joining world missile and atomic bomb clubs, it could be premature to speak about the destruction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal or its reduction to a risky lower level. Possibly this will come sometime, but now there are not realistic reasons to believe that America could sacrifice its national security interests in favor of political games of some from Washingtonian politicians.

---

U.S. Plays Russian Roulette With Missile Defense

NewsMax.com
Friday, June 9, 2000
Col. Stanislav Lunev
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/9/181557

International and diplomatic advances of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which began at his summit meeting in Moscow with President Clinton, continue - thanks to Washington politicians. Putin's recent shock proposal to create with the U.S. a joint anti-ballistic missile defense system for the protection of America, Russia and all of the Europe was scrambled by the U.S. officials, who were absolutely not ready to discus this problem.

Just after rejecting Clinton's proposals in Moscow summit, Putin in Italy sought support for a pan-European missile shield. Russian press reported that Putin's idea - if realized - would protect Russia and Europe using far different technology than that favored now by U.S. military planners. Europeans find Putin's plan, ignoring by the mainstream American press for about one week, more than interesting.

As the Russian TV channel ORT reported June 6, Russia, the European Union and NATO should cooperate on a continentwide shield that would protect the great land mass from Lisbon to Vladivostok, Putin said in the end of his visit to Italy. In his words, realization of this plan "would avoid all the problems linked to the balance of force. It would permit in an absolute manner a 100 percent guarantee of the security of every European country, with the obvious involvement of our American partners," Putin said June 6 in Rome.

With details of the Russian president's plan still unknown, the Washington Times said on June 7, U.S. policy-makers and private analysts were divided over whether it was a genuine change of heart or an attempt by Moscow to fan fears abroad about the U.S. missile defense idea. Putin may also have been seeking to score diplomatic points by showcasing the multilateral spirit of his missile defense proposal at a time when many in Europe have criticized what they see as a U.S. propensity to go it alone.

In time, when American politicians only began to analyze carefully Putin's proposal, the European countries decided to make practical step. On June 8-9 Putin's plan was under serious consideration by NATO defense secretaries at a special session in Brussels. NATO military leaders were careful in their remarks over joint European missile-defense plan, but the main tone of their meeting was more positive then negative.

On June 9, the Associated Press reported that the Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeev, speaking at a news conference with NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson in Brussels, avoided questions seeking details of the plan, put forward a few days ago by Putin, and said the plan would not breach the 1972 ABM Treaty. This day he presented NATO allies with the Kremlin's proposal for a joint European anti-ballistic missile system. The allies seems eager not to reject Putin's plan out of hand, but nobody seemed ready to take more than a wait-and-see attitude.

But what is really going on behind the scene of the Kremlin's new diplomatic advance?

First of all, the Russian Federation (RF) government, which officially considers 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as a "cornerstone of the world strategic stability," is strongly violating its terms and conditions. American politicians and mainstream press are speaking about the necessity of amendments to the ABM Treaty but prefer do not mention Moscow's missile defense, which already exists and is developing. It has been there for more than three decades, defending the Soviet and Russian military-political elite, with no adverse affects on the arms control process and global strategic stability.

Creation of this system began in 1968 when 64 anti-ballistic missile interceptors, armed with a nuclear warheads, were deployed at four sites about 50 miles north and west of Moscow. These missile interceptors had low accuracy, but the powerful fireball created by such nuclear weapon would incinerate every incoming missile.

A few years later 36 new short-range nuclear-armed interceptors were deployed at sites just outside Moscow, giving the city a layered missile defense of 100 interceptors. About one decade ago the Soviet military command modernized Moscow defense, replacing old missile-interceptors with new generation of long-range weapons. This upgraded Moscow missile-defense, with 100 armed with nuclear warhead interceptors, in fully operational now.

As the Russian press reported, last November during strategic command field exercises three of these 100 interceptors had their flight test and demonstrated that the system worked well and was protecting thousands of miles of Russian territory around Moscow.

Additionally, Russia has thousands of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) defending its territory from short-range and medium-range missiles. As many specialists believe, these SAMs are connected with Moscow's ABM radars and constitute a nationwide missile-defense system, connected with a top-secret nationwide chain of deep underground bunkers for the protection of government elite, and underground communications all under the country.

As Russian TV Channel ORT reported June 6, the European military leaders are very interested in new Russian SAMs, based on the land, sea and mobile complexes S-300 and S-400, intercepting short- and medium-range missiles, which are in arsenals of "rogue countries." The last flight tests with new air-defense and missile-interceptor complexes S-300, and S-400, showed it to be more capable than the newest version of the U.S. Patriot.

By the end of this year, the Russian press said, the new model S-400, which was tested against supersonic and maneuverable targets, will be ready to join the thousands of SAMs, already protecting most important areas in the country. The technically superior S-400 can engage ballistic missiles with ranges up to 2,200 miles, and with longer ranges if connected to ABM radars.

As NewsMax.com has reported, today Russia has the world's only ABM defense system around its national capital, plus thousands of SAMs defending the country, up to 3,000 around Moscow alone, with a new model soon to go into deployment.

In this situation the RF government doesn't even want to think about the possibility of the U.S. National Missile Defense, desperately needed for the protection of Americans. But Russian military need new technologies to upgrade its old anti-missile weapons, which having huge destructive power but low accuracy and other technological problems.

Exactly this reason was behind Putin's plan for the joint ABM system for the U.S., Russia and Europe. If the U.S. will accept his plan, Russian military will receive access to the new American technologies and could use them against America. There is no doubt the RF politically would have great international benefits from the Putin plan's realization.

But it isn't necessary for the U.S., which has its own strategic interests, experience, advanced technologies and international obligations. But, unfortunately, America doesn't have enough political will to decide this problem dramatically.

According to the 1972 ABM Treaty, in 1976 the U.S. deployed 100 Spartan and Sprint interceptors in an ABM defense system at Grand Forks, N.D., but shortly thereafter deactivated the site and put the interceptors in storage.

America returned to the idea of ABM system in 1980s, when Ronald Reagan announced his brilliant plan for Strategic Defense Initiative. But in 1993 President Reagan's SDI, which envisioned a multi-layered, partly space-based defensive shield, was canceled, and spending on space-base research was dramatically reduced.

Also in 1993 Washington politicians canceled President George Bush's Global Protection Against Limited Strikes, a missile-defense deployment plan to protect U.S. territory and U.S. troops overseas. Now America has no missile defense system at a time when more and more countries, include so-called rogue states, are receiving access to missile, nuclear and other weapons-of-mass-destruction technologies. Specialists believe that such "rogue countries" as North Korea, Iran, Iraq and others will be able to launch long-range missiles by 2005 and that any plans to create a defensive umbrella must be started soon to be operated by that time.

Moreover, new members of the missile and nuclear clubs do not have experience and traditions of securing their mass-destruction weapons, and there is a new threat: possible international terrorists' use of these weapons.

This threat is confirmed by the recently released study by the National Commission on Terrorism and State Department report titled "Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1999." According these documents, there is a new breed of theologically driven terrorist groups with the resources and capabilities and motivation to acquire and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and the threat is active and menacing.

In this situation it would be difficult to accept the latest idea of the White House, insisting on buildup of limited National Missile Defense, deployed in Alaska, which could be possible if the 1972 ABM Treaty were amended. It isn't enough and does not answer the real and present danger of the current missile threat.

For example, according to these limited plans only 20 missile-interceptors have to deploy in silos at Fort Greedy, Alaska, by 2005. By 2007 number of interceptors could be expanded to 100. As specialists believe, this would protect the U.S. against up to 25 or 30 hostile missiles, which is absolutely unacceptable for U.S. national security.

Now is a good time to speak about a full-scale, real and, maybe, global system of NMD, which would protect the whole American territory, U.S. troops overseas, as well as American friends and allies. This is impossible to do in the framework of the 1972 ABM Treaty, which already is a relic of the Cold War, when it was signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which doesn't exist any more.

The U.S. has everything to create this system and protect Americans from hostile missile strike. There is only one problem, a serious problem - lack of political will among Washington politicians. Instead of protecting the U.S. these politicians prefer to play Russian roulette with American national security.
----

The Stakes in Okinawa

Washington Post
Wednesday, July 19, 2000; Page A22
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-07/19/008l-071900-idx.html

THE COMING G-8 summit will fall short in many ways. At their meeting in Okinawa, the world's seven richest economies plus Russia will not launch a new round of trade liberalization to make up for last November's failure in Seattle. They will not resolve their differences on genetically modified foods, though they do promise to discuss them. They may not even avoid the disruption of public protests. Presumably, a remote Japanese island would be safe from street demonstrations, but tomorrow, the day before the three-day summit opens, local activists plan a protest against the presence in Okinawa of 26,000 U.S. servicemen.

Nonetheless, the summit could prove useful, even if its agenda seems so broad as to be vague. The mere act of assembling the world's most important leaders creates an opportunity for informal consultations on issues ranging from arms control and missile defense to genome research. It provides a chance to communicate disapproval for Russia's war crimes in Chechnya directly to President Vladimir Putin, though it remains to be seen whether the group has the fortitude to do that. And the heads of state will discuss the issues that have risen up the priority list since the end of the Cold War: the scourge of diseases such as AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis; the threat of terrorism and environmental degradation; the challenge of the digital divide.

Last year's Cologne summit produced an important accord on debt relief for the world's poorest countries. This year's summit may commit the leading economies to further progress on development. The summiteers plan to put their weight behind a drive for worldwide universal primary education; there may be progress on distributing vaccines in countries too poor to buy and administer them; and there are plans to get private-sector participation in an effort to bring the benefits of the Internet to developing countries.

By the standards of Cold War-era summits, however, this is a gauzy agenda. If the demonstrations against U.S. military bases prove serious, or if Russia uses the summit to stoke opposition to American plans for missile defense, this focus on "soft" development issues may attract some criticism. Surely the nuclear balance and the stability of the United States military deployment in Asia are more pressing subjects for great-power summitry?

Of course traditional geostrategy is important; but the challenge of poverty remains a deeply worthwhile subject for a G-8 summit. In this shrinking world, the ailments of poverty--disease, crime, terrorism--increasingly reach rich countries, through migration, drug trafficking and so on. Moreover, the whole project of globalization, which has done much to invigorate the U.S. and other leading economies, will seem unjust and lopsided unless more is done for the half of humanity--2.8 billion people--that subsists on less than $2 a day. On both humanitarian and national-interest grounds, therefore, the fight for development is a fitting issue for the G-8.

---

Teledyne Technologies Wins $48 Million U.S. Army Contract

NewsEdge
July 19, 2000
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=b0718081.002&level3=788&date=20000719

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 18, 2000 via NewsEdge Corporation

Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (NYSE:TDY) announced today it has been awarded a $48 million U.S. Army contract to provide state-of-the-art Extended Air Defense Simulation (EADSIM) software to the U.S. Army's Space and Missile Command.

EADSIM (version 8.00) is a war-gaming simulation product that allows the user to predict the outcome of simulated air, space, missile and ground warfare in theater conflicts. Examples of systems involved are the Army's Patriot and THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense) missile systems.

The software simulates fixed and rotary wing aircraft, tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, infrared and radar sensors, satellites, command and control structures, sensors and communications networks and devices, and fire support in an environment that includes the effects of battlefield terrain as well as personnel and equipment attrition on the outcome of a specific hostile engagement. EADSIM is currently used by some 390 agencies, including 10 foreign countries.

Teledyne Technologies (www.teledyne.com) is a leading provider of sophisticated electronics and communications products, systems engineering solutions, and aerospace products and components. Teledyne Technologies has operations in the United States, the United Kingdom and Mexico.

This press release contains forward-looking statements, as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements is contained in Teledyne Technologies' periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

CONTACT: Teledyne Technologies Inc. | Jason VanWees, 310/551-4342 (Investor Contact) | Robyn Choi, 310/551-4340 (Media Contact)

---

Flawed Missiles

New York Times
July 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/00/07/19/letters/l19mis.html

To the Editor:

So long as we are threatened by only a few rudimentary missiles from rogue states ("Experts Play Down ABM Test Failure," news article, July 15), perhaps we could rely for protection in the near term on their being even more faulty than the initial tests have shown our interceptors to be.

STEPHEN W. WORREL Falls Church, Va., July 15, 2000 The writer is a former Foreign Service Officer.

-------- MILITARY (by country)

-------- colombia

Death in Colombia: What Will U.S. Do?

New York Times
July 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l19col.html

To the Editor:

"Colombians Tell of Massacre, as Army Stood By" (front page, July 14) was a chilling description of a daily reality for Colombians -- massacres carried out by paramilitaries operating with the tolerance or open support of soldiers. Colombia's military continues not only to shield the senior officers involved but also to reward them with promotions.

The $1.3 billion aid package for Colombia signed by President Clinton includes conditions requiring respect for human rights.

But if Mr. Clinton invokes the "national security" waiver in the military part of the package, it would gut any commitment to human rights.

Tragically, we would see more massacres like El Salado. In the future, however, the United States risks being complicit.

MIGUEL VIVANCO Exec. Dir., Americas Division, Human Rights Watch Washington, July 17, 2000

-------- india

Separatist guerrillas kill four soldiers in India's Manipur state

NewsEdge
July 19, 2000

GAUHATI, India (AP) via NewsEdge Corporation - Separatist guerrillas ambushed a platoon of paramilitary soldiers in a northeastern state Tuesday, killing four and wounding one other, officials said.

A group of 20 militants from the outlawed United National Liberation Front attacked the paramilitary soldiers at Lamdan, a village in Churachandpur in Manipur state, an official from the Central Reserve Police Force said.

The militants fired at them from the top of a hillock, forcing the 25 soldiers to retreat, he said.

The area is about 1,700 kilometers (1,055 miles) southeast of New Delhi.

Army and paramilitary soldiers immediately fanned out across the area to search for the militants.

A dozen groups are fighting security forces in Manipur for causes ranging from more autonomy to secession. More than 10,000 people have been killed in Manipur's two-decade-long insurgency.

-------- u.s.

NO MILITARY ENGAGEMENT WITH INDONESIA
Take Action For East Timor

STOP JOINT U.S.-INDONESIA MILITARY EXERCISE SCHEDULED FOR THIS WEEK NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY WEDNESDAY JULY 19

John M. Miller Internet: john@etan.org Media & Outreach Coordinator, East Timor Action Network 48 Duffield St., Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA Phone: (718)596-7668 Fax: (718)222-4097 Mobile: (917)690-4391 Web site: http://www.etan.org

The Clinton Administration has begun a phased plan of re-engagement with the Indonesian military (TNI) despite congressional and public protest.

A joint U.S. and Indonesian military exercise known as CARAT (Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training) is set to begin on July 20. The exercise, one of the first steps, involves the Indonesian navy, marines, and coast guard training with their U.S. military counterparts. The Administration has also initiated other facets of re-engagement and is now debating the sale of spare parts for C-130 military planes! The State Department and the Pentagon are pursuing these plans despite deteriorating conditions in East Timorese refugee camps in West Timor and throughout Indonesia.

You can help stop these plans.

Now is not the time to resume any military ties with the TNI! Let the State Department and the Pentagon know this!

MAKE TWO PHONE CALLS ON WEDNESDAY JULY 19:

§ Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Stanley Roth 202-647-9596, 202-647-7350 (fax). E-mail: Secretary of State Albright at secretary@state.gov; 2201 C St., NW, Washington, DC 20520.

§ Secretary of Defense William Cohen 703-692-7100, 703-697-9080 (fax); 1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000. Web form to send comments: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html

Tell them:

The CARAT exercise and any additional plans for re-engagement with the Indonesian military should be cancelled immediately. Now is not the time to resume any military ties with the Indonesian military. The U.S. should not send such a premature message of legitimacy to Indonesia's brutally repressive military force. Instead, the administration should obey congressional restrictions and increase pressure on the Indonesian government and military finally resolve East Timor's refugee crisis and to support true democratic reforms in Indonesian civil society.

Thank you for your support. It does make a difference. Please let the East Timor Action Network know the results of your contacts.

Send a blank e-mail to sampltrs@etan.org or go to http://www.etan.org/action/letters.htm, for sample letters which can be adapted for administration officials, members of Congress and letter to the editor.

UPDATE Up to 125,000 East Timorese remain trapped in militia-controlled refugee camps in Indonesia more than 10 months after East Timor voted overwhelmingly for independence from Indonesia. TNI-supported militia violence in the camps is on the increase. Border incursions into East Timor and militia attacks on UN peacekeepers and civilians continue. Last week, the UNHCR had to indefinitely suspend registration of the refugees because of militia threats and assaults on international and local staff.

Indonesian security forces continue to violate the human rights of Indonesian citizens and cause unrest throughout the archipelago In recent weeks, hundreds of people in Maluku have been killed in fighting between Christians and Muslims, with members of the TNI supporting, if not causing, the violence. The TNI has grossly violated the human rights of the people of West Papua and is now reported to be supporting East Timor style militias there. Further, the TNI has repeatedly broken a cease-fire in Aceh and continues to conduct military sweeps throughout the countryside.

See ETAN's website, http://www.etan.org, for more information or contact Karen Orenstein at ETAN's Washington office, 202-544-6911, karen@etan.org; or John M. Miller below.

See http://www.etan.org/action/action1/1alert.htm for ETAN's latest Congressional action alert.

----

Pentagon Withdraws Prize

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/world/pentagon-prize-ap.html

WASHINGTON, July 18 -- The Pentagon said today that it was withdrawing an award it gave on Monday to Loral Space and Communications, because investigators are looking into whether the company had sent sensitive rocket-launching information to China.

Awards "for outstanding security performance" were given to Loral and 49 other contractors by the Defense Security Service of the Pentagon. "I would describe it as an embarrassment," said Kenneth H. Bacon, a spokesman for the Pentagon.

---

U.S. Air Force Satellite Launched

Associated Press
July 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Rocket-Launch.html

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) -- A small U.S. Air Force research satellite was boosted into orbit Wednesday by a rocket cobbled from the engines of a retired missile and a Pegasus launch vehicle.

The launch was the second success for the Minotaur rocket program and a commercial spaceport built on leased Air Force land by Spaceport Systems International.

The 260-pound satellite named Mightysat 2.1 will operate in a 300-mile polar orbit for a year. It will test 10 technologies, including a spectral imager that uses light to determine the makeup of the terrain and a composite structural material that can adjust its shape.

Minotaur, which was developed by Orbital Science Corp., consists of two stages from Minuteman II missiles retired under a 1991 arms control treaty. The third and fourth stages are from Orbital's Pegasus rocket.

The hybrid shaves about 30 percent off the cost of sending a payload into orbit, the Air Force said. The Mightysat 2.1 mission, including launch, cost about $37 million. Mightysat 1 was launched from the space shuttle Endeavor in 1998.

---

THE FINE PRINT
Focus on Military Bases Tug of War Over Utilities at Bases

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/071900utility-bases.html

WASHINGTON, July 17 -- Hardly anyone in Congress is interested in who owns the gas and electric lines on military bases.

But one influential politician is paying close attention to the arcane question. He is Representative Joel Hefley, Republican of Colorado, and this is important for two reasons.

First, the city-owned utility in his hometown, Colorado Springs, wants to overturn a new Pentagon policy that requires the armed forces to seek competitive bids from private operators to run the electricity, gas, water and sewer services on their bases.

Second, because he is chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, Mr. Hefley was able to insert a tiny provision in a mammoth Defense Department bill, passed by the House in May, that the Pentagon believes would have the effect of thwarting its policy.

If the measure becomes law, said Randall Yim, deputy under secretary of defense for installations, it will force the military services over the next few years to spend large amounts of money to bring their utilities up to standard, money that he said could be better spent on pressing military needs.

The Senate passed its version of the military bill on Thursday without the Hefley provision, so the matter will have to be resolved by a House-Senate conference committee.

The word in Congress is that Mr. Hefley will have a distinct advantage in the negotiations. This is what in legislative jargon is called a member's issue, a senior staff member explained. In other words, Mr. Hefley cares a great deal about the matter. No one with similar authority in the Senate has the same degree of interest. So there is an excellent chance Mr. Hefley will prevail.

The issue arose because at bases across the country, the water pipes are crumbling, the electrical wiring does not meet safety codes, gas lines are prone to leaks and the sewers tend to back up. The cost of upgrading these systems, which are owned by the armed forces, is far beyond what the Pentagon has ever had the nerve to request or Congress has been willing to provide.

So three years ago, the Defense Department proposed and Congress quickly adopted, without opposition and without debate, a new policy under which the utilities on military bases would be turned over to private contractors.

The idea was that companies would bid against one another for contracts to improve the pipes and poles and pumps and wiring. In return, the government would pay the companies an annual fee to provide utility services under a long-term arrangement.

This seemed to be an especially appealing prospect to a Republican Congress committed to competitive private business and smaller government.

Some large companies, notably the Enron Corporation, the Houston-based energy company, quickly began to seek the business of running utilities on military bases.

Across the country, more than 100 bases have put their utilities out for bid, and about a dozen contracts have been awarded.

Enron, for instance, won a $26 million contract to serve Fort Hamilton, the Brooklyn Army base, for the next 10 years. In return, Enron agreed to spend $11 million over the next year upgrading the base's electric, gas, water and drainage systems.

But soon after the policy was enacted, many local utility companies, which are regulated by the states, began to complain that the policy treated them unfairly.

Some argued that state laws gave them the sole right to run the utilities in their area of jurisdiction once the military relinquished ownership. Others maintained that state regulations limited their services -- preventing, for example, the electric company from providing gas -- and that this put them at a disadvantage in bidding against an unregulated company like Enron, which could offer all the different utilities.

Colorado Springs Utilities, a city-owned, state-regulated company, for instance, holds that it has the sole authority under state law to provide gas, water and electricity at Fort Carson, Peterson Air Force Base and the United States Air Force Academy.

When Fort Carson, a large Army base, sought bids on its utility services last year, Colorado Springs Utilities filed a lawsuit maintaining that state law gave it a monopoly in the area. The government responded that federal law was dominant on federal property. The suit is pending in Federal District Court.

The section Mr. Hefley inserted into the military bill would require all utilities' contracts to comply with state laws and regulations, a requirement that critics said would stifle competition. The overall bill is so large -- it authorizes more than $300 billion in Pentagon programs for the next fiscal year and covers matters as different as military pay and missile defense -- that little notice of Mr. Hefley's provision was taken.

It is difficult to see how parties will reach a compromise that will satisfy the Pentagon, regulated utility companies like the one in Colorado Springs and private competitors like Enron.

But Mr. Hefley said in an interview that he would work in the conference committee to find language acceptable to all sides. The House and Senate will be able to vote only on the conference agreement on the overall bill and will never vote just on the utilities matter.

"I've always believed in privatization and open bidding," Mr. Hefley said. "It was certainly not my intention to gut that."

As for Colorado Springs Utilities, Mr. Hefley said he was not out to protect his local company from competition. But he added, "It would seem to me they are in the best position of all to make the best bid."

---

Boeing Profits Fall 11.6 Percent

Associated Press
July 19, 2000 Filed at 6:00 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Earns-Boeing.html

SEATTLE (AP) -- Second-quarter profits at The Boeing Co. fell 11.6 percent, in part because of a one-time charge associated with its rocket program, but the aerospace giant still beat Wall Street expectations comfortably.

For the three months ended June 30, Boeing made $620 million, or 71 cents per share on sales of $14.8 billion, the company said Wednesday. A year ago, the company made $701 million, or 75 cents per share, on sales of $15.1 billion. Sales were off 2 percent from 1999.

Excluding the one-time charge, Boeing earned 75 cents per share in the second quarter, ahead of analysts' estimates of 67 cents, according to a survey by First Call/Thomson Financial.

``This was a very successful quarter, and we believe there's more to come,'' said Boeing chairman Phil Condit. ``Our team really pulled together and delivered on our promises.''

On Wednesday, shares of Boeing were up 75 cents to close at $45.875 on the New York Stock Exchange.

The one-time charge of $34 million is due to the planned demonstration launch of the Delta III rocket in August. The company announced earlier in the quarter that it would launch nothing but a dummy payload on the Delta III to ease concerns over the rocket's safety after the first two launches failed.

The $84 million Delta III's first flight on Aug. 26, 1998, exploded 72 seconds after liftoff, destroying PanAmSat's Galaxy 10 communications satellite. Investigators later traced the problem to a guidance software error.

The second flight, on May, 4, 1999, ended when an engine in the second stage of the rocket exploded in space due to a fault in the combustion chamber. The payload, Loral's Orion 3 communications satellite, was released into a useless orbit.

One bright spot for Boeing was in its commercial aircraft division. While revenues fell slightly, to $9.9 billion from $10.1 billion in 1999, operating earnings rose 97 percent to $882 million from $448 million a year ago.

``I think they've demonstrated in commercial aircraft that they not only recovered from the engineers' strike, but they've got their financial house in order,'' said Peter Jacobs, an industry analyst with Ragen MacKenzie Inc. of Seattle.

Boeing received 200 orders for new aircraft in the second quarter and a total of 328 orders for the year to date. After first-quarter deliveries were curtailed by a strike by Boeing's engineering and technical workers, Boeing delivered 167 aircraft in the second quarter.

With 242 aircraft delivered so far this year, Boeing officials said they were on target for their pre-strike estimate of 490 aircraft deliveries by the end of the year.

Condit said Boeing's outlook for 2001 and 2002, which includes a $2 billion increase in revenues and double-digit profit margins, took into account the development of a larger version of the 747 jumbo passenger jet. Although Condit said that up to 75 percent of Boeing's orders are expected to be smaller, longer-range aircraft like the 777, he said there was customer interest in larger long-range aircraft as well.

Boeing rival Airbus Industrie of Toulouse, France, has already announced it would spend $12 billion to develop the A3XX double-decker jumbo jet, expected to seat up to 555 people. Boeing estimates for developing a ``stretch'' version of the 747, which could seat up to 516 people, are in the $3 billion to $4 billion range.

Sales in Boeing's military aircraft and missiles division remained level, but profits fell from $368 million in 1999 to $250 million this quarter, a drop of 32 percent. Boeing blamed fewer F-15 fighter aircraft deliveries, performance on certain helicopter programs and the timing of service contracts for the loss of profits.

Boeing saw operating losses in its space and communications division, losing $38 million on $1.8 billion in sales, compared with profits of $94 million on $1.7 billion in sales a year ago.

For the six months ended June 30, Boeing earned $1.04 billion on revenue of $24.75 billion, compared with $1.17 billion on revenue of $29.51 billion in the year-ago period. Both figures include one-time items.

---

Army Exonerates Officers in Slaying of Gay Private

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/071900army-hatecrime.html

WASHINGTON, July 18 -- An Army investigation of events surrounding the murder of a gay private by a fellow soldier at a base in Kentucky has exonerated all officers of blame and has concluded that no climate of homophobia existed at the base, Pentagon officials said today.

Last July, Pfc. Barry Winchell, 21, was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat as he slept in his barracks at Fort Campbell. A 19-year-old private, Calvin Glover, was later court-martialed and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder.

Specialist Justin R. Fisher, 26, Private Winchell's roommate, was sentenced to 12 1/2 years as part of a plea bargain that allowed him to avoid more serious charges of being an accomplice to the murder and helping to cover it up.

The Army, stung by accusations that it was not punishing soldiers who harass gays, opened an investigation into the atmosphere at Fort Campbell.

The conclusion of that investigation, conducted by the Army's inspector general, Lt. Gen. Michael W. Ackerman, and expected to be released on Friday, states that some members of the unit in which the killing took place, a company within the 101st Airborne Division, held anti-gay attitudes.

In particular, the report singled out Private Winchell's first sergeant, who has since been relieved of his duties, for not ending the harassment.

But the report, whose findings were first reported by CBS News, also concluded that the 101st Airborne does not suffer from an unacceptable degree of homophobia, officials said.

Rather, the report described a sort of upstairs-downstairs mentality at the base in which instances of harassment were not brought to the attention of those in command who might have stopped them.

"There were a lot of times when the problem never surfaced up the chain of command," said one Pentagon official. "But when the leadership discovered the problem, action was taken."

Private Winchell's mother, Patricia Kutteles, a registered nurse from Kansas City, Mo., was quick to accuse the Army of a cover-up.

"I'm just so disappointed, really, really disappointed," Ms. Kutteles said today in a telephone interview. "It's been so devastating. To me it seems as if the Pentagon brass and the Fort Campbell command are more concerned about protecting themselves than the safety of our soldiers. The Army should face up to what is going on instead of covering up for the command climate."

She has filed a claim against the Army under the Military Claims Act for wrongful death and is seeking $1.4 million in damages.

Michelle M. Benecke, co-director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization that provides legal aid to gays in the military, also criticized the pending report.

"If the Army report denies anti-gay harassment is a problem at Fort Campbell, then the report does not have a shred of credibility," Ms. Benecke said. "There is more than ample evidence of anti-gay harassment, despite a process that foreclosed the participation of gay soldiers.

Army leaders need to deal with this problem head on, and stop the harassment."

Pentagon officials today defended the pending report. "I'm not saying that harassment hasn't occurred," a Pentagon official said. "But it is an exaggeration to think that every gay at the base is being harassed."

The Army investigation coincided with a second report by a advisory group created by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen after the Pentagon's inspector general said last March that harassment of servicemen perceived to be gay was widespread throughout the military.

That report was supposed to serve as an "action plan" for each of the military services to address the problem of harassment of gays.

Among its recommendations was the refinement of training for service members of different ranks on how to properly carry out the Clinton administration's policy of "don't ask, don't tell," which allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military provided they keep their sexual orientation a secret and do not engage in homosexual acts.

The investigation at Fort Campbell was requested by Maj. Gen. Robert T. Clark, who was commander of the 101st Airborne at the time of the murder, and who was reassigned to the Pentagon and made vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The report concluded that General Clark should be not be held responsible. In fact, it reinforced his own statements made on the day he left his command.

"There is not, nor has there ever been during my times here, a climate of homophobia on post," he had said.

At Private Glover's trial in December, soldiers testified that Private Winchell had been taunted for months with name-calling, rumor-mongering and an inquiry into his private life that was supposed to be forbidden under military policy.

The trial also laid bare the flaws in the Clinton administration's policy toward gays in the military. Critics contend that instead of making life easier for gay men and lesbians in the armed services, the policy leaves many to suffer in silence and fear or leave the service.

---

Review clears commanders of Ky. base

USA Today
07/18/00- Updated 08:07 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncstue10.htm
http://208.246.212.80/national/default-2000719224051.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - An Army review of the circumstances in which a gay private was beaten to death by a fellow soldier at Fort Campbell, Ky., last year has concluded that no officers should be held responsible for the killing and that there is no general ''climate'' of homophobia at the base, officials said Tuesday.

A report by the Army's inspector general, Lt. Gen. Michael Ackerman, found troublesome anti-gay attitudes among some members of D Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division - in which the killing took place, according to senior defense officials who have seen the report.

But it concluded that the 101st Airborne as a whole has no unusual degree of homophobia, the officials said. The officials agreed to discuss the report's conclusions on condition they not be identified.

The report's results are expected to be made public on Friday, along with the findings of a Defense Department advisory group that Defense Secretary William Cohen formed last spring to draft an ''action plan'' for each of the military services to address the problem of harassment of gays.

The panel appointed by Cohen will recommend that service members of all ranks receive more tailored forms of training on how to properly implement the Clinton administration's ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy on homosexuals, in which gay service members are allowed to serve as long as they don't reveal their sexual orientation, officials said. Cohen appointed the panel after the Defense Department inspector general reported in March that harassment based on perceived homosexuality is widespread in the military.

Cohen's spokesman, Kenneth Bacon, declined to comment on either the Army report or the advisory panel's findings.

Patricia Kutteles of Kansas City, Mo., mother of the slain soldier, 21-year-old Pfc. Barry Winchell, said in an interview that she had not read the report, ''but we're appalled at what we're hearing. We're very disappointed.''

Her Washington lawyer, Charles Butler, said the Army has evidence that Winchell's company commander was alerted to anti-gay harassment before the killing but did not act.

The Army inspector general's investigation at Fort Campbell was requested by Maj. Gen. Robert T. Clark, who was commander of the 101st Airborne at the time. Clark has since been assigned to an important post in the Pentagon, and the report concludes that he should be not be held responsible for the killing last July.

The report's conclusions are to be reviewed by Clark's successor, Maj. Gen. Richard A. Cody.

As first reported Monday by CBS News, the inspector general's report says no commanders at Fort Campbell are to be faulted for the circumstances under which Winchell was bludgeoned to death in his barracks.

Pvt. Calvin Glover was convicted by a military court and sentenced to life in prison for beating Winchell to death with a baseball bat. Winchell's roommate, Spc. Justin R. Fisher, was sentenced to 12.50 years in prison for his role in the killing. At Glover's trial, soldiers testified that Winchell has been relentlessly taunted with anti-gay slurs in the months leading up to his slaying.

The incident renewed a national debate over the Clinton administration's ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy, which critic say does not work because it has failed to protect perceived homosexuals from harassment.

Michelle Benecke, co-director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network - a leading critic of the Pentagon's policy on gays - said Tuesday she had not seen the Army inspector general's report but has questioned the Army's commitment to ensuring that commanders be held accountable for anti-gay behavior on their posts.

Benecke said she was aware of news reports that the inspector general found no fault with Fort Campbell's commanders. ''If that is true, they Army report will not have a shred of credibility,'' she said Tuesday. Her group, which has interviewed many soldiers at bases across the country, including Fort Campbell, believes that harassment of soldiers perceived to be gay is a major problem not being addressed by commanders.

''It's clear to everyone - except, it seems, the Army - that anti-gay harassment is a problem,'' she said.

Benecke said her group has talked to 20 soldiers at Fort Campbell, and they all agreed that ''anti-gay harassment and threats are as common as the uniform.'' Many soldiers there were unwilling to express their concerns to the Army inspector general's office, Benecke said, out of fear they would be suspected of being gay and therefore subjected to harassment.

---

Martin Marietta Q2 net 90c shr vs 88c --
Martin Marietta Q2 net 90c shr misses First Call view 94c

BridgeNews
July 19, 2000
By BridgeNews
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=b0718273.0rg&level3=27716&date=20000719

New York--Jul 18 -

MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.
Unaudited Statement of Earnings
(In millions, except per share amounts)

Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
---------------- ----------------
2000 1999 2000 1999
----- ------ ------ ------
Net sales $362.5 $328.9 $638.6 $569.9
Cost of sales 265.6 238.7 497.4 439.9
------ ------ ------ ------
Gross profit 96.9 90.2 141.2 130.0
Selling, general and administrative expense 24.7 24.9 48.3 47.7
Research and development 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.4
------ ------ ------ ------
Earnings from operations 71.6 64.8 91.7 80.9 Interest expense (10.7) (9.7) (20.8) (19.0) Other income and expenses, net 3.8 8.7 5.2 14.0
------ ------ ------ ------
Earnings before taxes
on income 64.7 63.8 76.1 75.9
Taxes on income 22.6 22.5 26.6 26.7
----- ------ ------ ------
Net earnings $ 42.1 $ 41.3 $ 49.5 $ 49.2
====== ====== ====== ======
Net earnings per share:
Basic $ 0.90 $ 0.88 $ 1.06 $ 1.05
====== ====== ====== ======
Diluted $ 0.90 $ 0.88 $ 1.05 $ 1.05
====== ====== ====== ======
Average number of shares outstanding:
Basic 46.8 46.7 46.7 46.7
Diluted 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0

MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.
Unaudited Financial Highlights (In millions)
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
------------------ ----------------
2000 1999 2000 1999
------ ------ ------ ------
Net sales:
Aggregates $329.0 $296.0 $572.7 $504.9
Magnesia Specialties 33.5 32.9 65.9 65.0
------ ------ ------ ------
Total $362.5 $328.9 $638.6 $569.9
====== ====== ====== ======
Gross profit:
Aggregates $ 89.2 $ 84.6 $126.4 $119.0
Magnesia Specialties 7.7 5.6 14.8 11.0
------ ------ ------ ------
Total $ 96.9 $ 90.2 $141.2 $130.0
====== ====== ====== ======
Earnings from operations:
Aggregates $ 68.7 $ 64.0 $ 86.4 $ 79.6
Magnesia Specialties 2.9 0.8 5.3 1.3
------ ------ ------ ------
Total $ 71.6 $ 64.8 $ 91.7 $ 80.9
====== ====== ====== ======

The following is selected text of today's announcement with emphasis added by BridgeNews. Bridge Station links to company data have been inserted at the end.

MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. (NYSE:MLM), TODAY REPORTED FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000. SALES FOR THE QUARTER INCREASED 10% TO $362.5 MILLION FROM 1999 SECOND QUARTER SALES OF $328.9 MILLION. EARNINGS FROM OPERATIONS ALSO INCREASED 10% TO $71.6 MILLION, IN SPITE OF EXTREMELY WET WEATHER EXPERIENCED AT CERTAIN AGGREGATES DIVISION LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT MUCH OF THE QUARTER AND THE CONTINUING NEGATIVE IMPACT OF HIGHER FUEL AND OTHER ENERGY-RELATED COSTS. OTHER INCOME FOR THE QUARTER OF $3.8 MILLION, INCLUDING AN INSURANCE SETTLEMENT RELATED TO HURRICANE FLOYD, WAS $4.8 MILLION BELOW PRIOR YEAR. OTHER INCOME IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF 1999 INCLUDED A NONRECURRING SETTLEMENT FROM ANTITRUST CLAIMS. NET EARNINGS FOR THE QUARTER INCREASED 2% TO $42.1 MILLION, OR $0.90 PER DILUTED SHARE, FROM 1999 SECOND QUARTER NET EARNINGS OF $41.3 MILLION, OR $0.88 PER DILUTED SHARE.

SALES FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 2000 INCREASED 12% TO $638.6 MILLION, FROM $569.9 MILLION FOR THE YEAR-EARLIER PERIOD. FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, NET EARNINGS INCREASED SLIGHTLY TO $49.5 MILLION, OR $1.05 PER DILUTED SHARE, FROM NET EARNINGS FOR THE COMPARABLE PRIOR-YEAR PERIOD OF $49.2 MILLION, ALSO $1.05 PER DILUTED SHARE. ON A YEAR-TO-DATE BASIS, OTHER INCOME AND EXPENSES, NET, WAS $8.8 MILLION LESS THAN THE PRIOR YEAR, WHILE OPERATING EARNINGS INCREASED $10.8 MILLION OR 13%.

SALES FOR THE AGGREGATES DIVISION INCREASED 11% TO $329.0 MILLION FOR THE SECOND QUARTER, COMPARED WITH THE YEAR-EARLIER PERIOD WITH SHIPMENTS UP 4%, WHILE THE DIVISION'S EARNINGS FROM OPERATIONS FOR THE QUARTER WERE $68.7 MILLION, AN INCREASE OF 7% FROM THE YEAR-EARLIER PERIOD. OPERATING MARGIN FOR THE DIVISION WAS 20.9%, COMPARED WITH 21.6% IN THE PRIOR QUARTERLY PERIOD, THE DECREASE PRIMARILY AS A RESULT OF THE HIG HER FUEL COSTS, ACQUISITIONS OF LOWER MARGIN ASPHALT PRODUCTS OPERATIONS AND PROLONGED WET WEATHER IN CERTAIN OPERATING AREAS. HOWEVER, DESPITE THESE FACTORS, THE MARGIN ON HERITAGE OPERATIONS INCREASED 80 BASIS POINTS. YEAR-TO-DATE SALES OF $572.7 MILLION AND EARNINGS FROM OPERATIONS OF $86.4 MILLION EXCEEDED THE PRIOR-YEAR PERIOD BY 13% AND 9%, RESPECTIVELY.

MAGNESIA SPECIALTIES' SECOND QUARTER SALES OF $33.5 MILLION INCREASED 2% FROM THE PRIOR YEAR'S SALES OF $32.9 MILLION AS STEEL INDUSTRY DEMAND CONTINUED TO EXPERIENCE A REBOUND. EARNINGS FROM OPERATIONS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF $2.9 MILLION INCREASED $2.1 MILLION, RELATIVE TO THE YEAR-EARLIER PERIOD, AS A RESULT OF IMPROVED SALES AND A BETTER BALANCE BETWEEN PRODUCTION AND SHIPMENTS. FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 2000, SALES WERE $65.9 MILLION AND EARNINGS FROM OPERATIONS WERE $5.3 MILLION, AN INCREASE OF $0.9 MILLION AND $4.0 MILLION, RESPECTIVELY, FROM THE PRIOR-YEAR PERIOD.

COMMENTING ON THE QUARTER'S RESULTS, STEPHEN P. ZELNAK, JR., CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, STATED, "MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS ACHIEVED RECORD SALES AND EARNINGS DURING THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2000, DESPITE HIGH ENERGY-RELATED COSTS, UNUSUAL WEATHER PATTERNS WHICH AFFECTED OUR AGGREGATES OPERATIONS, AND A SLIGHT SLOWDOWN IN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION."

"Our heritage Aggregates division's operations continue to perform well, with operating margins increasing 80 basis points over last year's second quarter. This improvement was ex perienced as a result of aggregates' prices increasing in excess of 3%, offset by a 2% decline in volume and an increase in energy-related costs. THIS SHARP ESCALATION OF ENERGY-RELATED COSTS IS HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON EARNINGS. DIESEL FUEL, WHICH IS USED PRIMARILY TO OPERATE TRUCKS AND LOADERS IN QUARRY PRODUCTION, HAS INCREASED IN PRICE BY ABOUT 125% BETWEEN JANUARY 1999 AND JUNE 2000. THE COMBINED COST OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS-BASED PRODUCTS USED IN OUR HERITAGE BUSINESS INCREASED $4.9 MILLION IN THE SECOND QUARTER AND $9.2 MILLION YEAR-TO-DATE. THIS EQUATES TO A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON EARNINGS OF $0.07 PER SHARE IN THE SECOND QUARTER AND $0.13 PER SHARE YEAR-TO-DATE COMPARED WITH THE PRIOR YEAR. IN ADDITION, BARGE FREIGHT COSTS HAVE INCREASED $1.6 MILLION FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD. THIS INCREASE WAS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY AN INCREASE IN FUEL PRICES."

"MAGNESIA SPECIALTIES CONTINUED TO PERFORM WELL IN THE SECOND QUARTER. Despite ongoing concerns about a resurgence in steel imports, the steel industry's performance continued to exceed the prior-year period. In addition, the division's chemical sales were strong. Magnesia Specialties' results were achieved despite higher energy-related costs, which exceeded the prior year's quarter by approximately $0.4 million."

"Although the Company achieved record results with sales and operating earnings each up over 10%, performance was below our expectations due to the factors cited earlier. We currently believe that the higher-than-anticipated energy costs will continue to affect our results for the remainder of the year. However, based on current economic conditions, the impact of increased highway funding from the TEA-21 program and the resultant customers' backlogs, we believe that the balance of the year will result in high demand for our products and a continued positive pricing outlook."

"While we continue to experience an improvement at our Magnesia Specialties division, this business is not core to the Company. AS WE'VE INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, WE ARE CONTINUING TO EVALUATE OUR STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES WITH RESPECT TO MAGNESIA SPECIALTIES, AND IN THAT REGARD, WE HAVE RETAINED BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES TO ACT AS FINANCIAL ADVISORS IN CONNECTION WITH A POSSIBLE SALE OF THE DIVISION. This division has been well managed and has generated significant EBITDA for the Company. We would only enter into an agreement which we felt would enhance shareholder value."

MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.
Balance Sheet Data
(In millions)
June 30, Dec. 31,
2000 1999
--------- ---------
ASSETS (Unaudited)
Cash and cash equivalents $ 3.4 $ 3.4
Accounts receivable, net 233.4 197.6
Inventories, net 192.8 172.9
Other current assets 27.7 29.5
Property, plant and equipment, net 877.4 847.0
Other noncurrent assets 86.6 85.4
Intangible assets, net 416.8 406.8
--------- ---------
Total assets $ 1,838.1 $ 1,742.6
========= =========

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities $ 236.5 $ 182.7
Long-term debt (excluding current maturities) 601.7 602.0
Pension, postretirement and postemployment benefits 86.0 85.8
Other noncurrent liabilities 100.9 98.1
Shareholders' equity 813.0 774.0
--------- ---------
Total liabilities and shareholders' equity $ 1,838.1 $ 1,742.6
========= =========

---

Honeywell/Cat Logistics Alliance Bolsters Lockheed Martin JSF Affordability, Supportability

NewsEdge
July 19, 2000

FORT WORTH, Texas, July 18 /PRNewswire/ via NewsEdge Corporation - A commercial coalition comprising two widely recognized corporations will provide product-support and supply-chain management guidance for the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) team. The arrangement fortifies the team's stated commitment to keep the next-generation aircraft affordable and supportable.

The Strategic Alliance (the Alliance) -- a long term, contractual relationship between Honeywell and Cat Logistics -- has joined the Lockheed Martin JSF team through the signing of a memorandum of understanding.

"The efficient and effective management of our supply chain is absolutely critical to the overall success of the JSF," said Frank J. Cappuccio, vice president and program manager of the Lockheed Martin JSF team. "It's no secret that Honeywell and Cat Logistics together offer some of the most advanced supply-chain logistics support in the world."

Supply-chain management includes responsibility for the integration of business processes through the entire supply base to the end user. It incorporates products, services and information.

Honeywell and Cat Logistics formed the Alliance in 1998 to create a new, comprehensive business approach to product support and supply-chain management for customers in the defense and aerospace industries. The Alliance combines Honeywell's experience in aerospace product support, maintenance, repair and overhaul, and technical services with Cat Logistics' global presence and demonstrated capabilities in information systems and supply-chain management.

Lockheed Martin JSF team members expect the new relationship to be especially beneficial as the U.S. Department of Defense executes new acquisition strategies and enhanced support requirements. Major defense suppliers are expected to commit to Total Systems Performance and Support Responsibility (TSPSR) and assist the government in re-engineering the way a weapon system is supported throughout its life cycle.

"Using the Honeywell/Cat Logistics Alliance is consistent with our JSF philosophy of using 'best athletes' to provide our customer with the best product possible, while offering significant opportunities to reduce JSF sustainment costs and maximizing overall readiness," Cappuccio said.

"The Alliance is leveraging state-of-the art information systems with Cat Logistics' distribution and inventory-management experience to save time and money," said Garrett M. Mikita, vice president and general manager for Honeywell Supply Chain Services. "We are pleased that techniques from both Honeywell and Cat Logistics that work so effectively in the commercial marketplace can now be applied to critical military programs such as the JSF."

"The agreement will aid the Lockheed Martin JSF team in its quest to fulfill program logistics requirements," said Bill Springer, Cat Logistics president. "We believe our agreement with Lockheed Martin will better position us as a team to provide the DoD a totally integrated logistics, technical and product-support solution for the JSF program. We are excited about the opportunity to work together on this important initiative."

Lockheed Martin received one of two JSF Concept Demonstration contracts awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense in November 1996. The Lockheed Martin JSF team includes Northrop Grumman and BAE SYSTEMS. Flight evaluation of the demonstrator aircraft is scheduled to take place in 2000, with government selection of a single contractor set for 2001.

Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. (Cat Logistics), a wholly owned subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc. (NYSE: CAT), is a world leader in providing fully integrated logistics solutions that incorporate information technology, warehouse management, transportation management, inventory management and product support. Its parent company, Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc., is the world's leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines and industrial gas turbines.

Honeywell International, Inc. (NYSE: HON) (Honeywell) is a US $24-billion diversified technology and manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; power generation systems; specialty chemicals; fibers; plastics; and electronic and advanced materials. The company employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries.

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is headquartered in Bethesda, Md., and is a global enterprise principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced-technology systems, products and services. The corporation's core businesses are systems integration, space, aeronautics and technology services.

---

Deal Reached on Fighter Planes

NewsEdge
July 19, 2000
By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press Writer
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=h0718192.700&level3=139498&date=20000719

WASHINGTON (AP) via NewsEdge Corporation - Congressional negotiators have paved the way for St. Louis-built F-15E Strike Eagles to keep rolling off the production line through 2001.

The Senate and House are expected in the coming days to approve $400 million for five more of the Boeing Co. fighters. It's part of an agreement completed Tuesday on annual defense spending legislation.

Missouri and Illinois lawmakers for two years have struggled to keep alive a program that at full production employs more than 5,000 workers in St. Louis. The Air Force and the White House would rather spend all the available money on the next-generation F-22 Raptor, which eventually will replace the F-15.

Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., said the measure puts his colleagues ``on record in supporting the F-15 as the best air-to-ground weapons system in the world.''

``The set of skills and talent that go into the production of this aircraft truly constitutes a national crown jewel that must be protected,'' said Bond, a member of the Appropriations Committee defense spending panel.

He and other F-15 supporters, including House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of St. Louis, argue the Pentagon should keep buying Strike Eagles because production has yet to crank up on the Georgia- and Texas-made F-22 ``Stealth'' fighter, which is made by Lockheed Martin Corp.

``This funding allows Boeing's St. Louis workers to continue production of an aircraft that remains the backbone of our military superiority,'' Gephardt said.

---

U.S., Russia Bid for S. Korean Military Helicopter Project

NewsEdge
July 19, 2000
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=v0718070.4xi&level3=788&date=20000719

SEOUL (July 18) XINHUA via NewsEdge Corporation - U.S. and Russian aircraft makers become the final bidders for South Korea's attack helicopter-X (AH-X) project worth 1.8 billion U.S. dollars, the Defense Ministry said Tuesday.

Boeing, Sikorsky and Bell of the United States and Kamov and Mil Moscow of Russia are expected to submit their bids to the ministry late this week after Denel of South Africa and Eurocopter of Germany and France notified their withdrawal from the bid Tuesday.

Under the project, South Korea will import 30 to 40 attack choppers in 2002 and 2006.

The attack helicopters should navigate at a speed of 240 kilometers per hour, and equipped with two engines, anti-tank missiles, air-to-air missiles, machine guns and an ultramodern navigation system, according to the Defense Ministry.

The ministry will make a final decision on the type of chopper to be introduced early next year.

---

Logicon and Enterworks Announce Reseller Agreement to Offer E-Business Integration Solution to U.S. Air Force and U.S Intelligence Agencies

NewsEdge
July 19, 2000
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=b0718062.101&level3=36180&date=20000719

HERNDON, Va. and ASHBURN, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 18, 2000 via NewsEdge Corporation

Federal Systems Integrator and Provider of e-Business Portal and Marketplace Software Offer Federal Government Agencies Strategic e-Business Suite of Products and Services.

Logicon Inc., a Northrop Grumman Company (NYSE: NOC), and Enterworks(R), Inc. a leading provider of real-time content integration and process automation solutions for e-marketplaces and information portals, today announced an exclusive reseller agreement to offer e-business portal and marketplace solutions to the U.S. Air Force and all U.S. Intelligence Agencies, and preferred status to the rest of the Department of Defense (DoD). Under this agreement, Logicon, one of the largest suppliers of commercial off-the-shelf software in the Federal marketplace, will team with Enterworks, a leading provider of e-business integration solutions. Logicon will resell Enterworks' award-winning integration solutions through Logicon's GSA Schedule, the Air Force's IT2 Blanket Purchase Agreement and other Federal government contracts.

"Enterworks is making a commitment through Logicon to supply the U.S. Air Force and the rest of the DoD with e-business integration software that will enable them to effectively and securely develop e-business solutions. Using Enterworks products, Federal government agencies can quickly integrate existing applications and data to develop e-government solutions," said Vince Steckler, vice president of Logicon's Application Solutions unit.

"This partnership combines Enterworks' expertise in business process automation and real-time content integration of mission-critical business information with Logicon's ability to offer industry-leading capability and top-notch service to assist with e-business government integration projects," said Robert Lewis, president of Enterworks. "This joint solution will give Logicon's customers a complete solution for e-business integration projects across any number of agencies and suppliers."

The Enterworks(R) Suite for e-business integration includes Enterworks Content Integrator(TM) for data integration and Enterworks Process Integrator(TM) for business process automation and exception handling. Enterworks Content Integrator(TM) powers the full range of e-business interactions by managing content in real-time from disparate sources and integrating it into a single, Web-enabled view. This product will enable agencies to access far more content sources previously not integrated, including content from other agencies, partners and suppliers using any number and type of databases, legacy systems, enterprise applications, and XML as well as other Web-based sources. In addition, Enterworks Process Integrator(TM) will enable the management and coordination of e-commerce transactions based on retrieved information. This product automates end-to-end business transactions, including incorporating supply chains and enterprise applications across multiple agencies, partners and suppliers.

About Enterworks

Enterworks, Inc. develops and markets software for the real-time content integration and business process automation that drives e-marketplaces and information portals. The company's advanced solutions improve time-to-market for customers in healthcare, manufacturing, government, financial services, and telecommunications worldwide, including Boeing, IBM/Tivoli, and the Department of Defense. For additional details about Enterworks and its solutions, visit www.enterworks.com or call 1-888-242-8356.

About Logicon

Logicon Inc., headquartered in Herndon, Va., is a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman Corporation and a leader in advanced information technologies, systems and services. Areas of expertise include command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR); weapon systems; information systems; training and simulation; science and technology; base and range support; and commercial information services. The Company provides total product, maintenance, training and service needs for its customers, and its Applications Solutions unit negotiates flexible, cost-effective, enterprise-wide agreements for these customers with software manufacturers. For more information, visit www.logicon.com.

"Enterworks Content Integrator" and "Enterworks Process Integrator" are trademarks, and "Enterworks" is a registered trademark, of Enterworks, Inc. All other product, service, and company names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.

CONTACT: Enterworks | Warren Jones | 703/724-4612 | warren.jones@enterworks.com | or | Logicon Media Contact | Bob Koch | 703/713-4431 | kochro@mail.northgrum.com | or | Ketchum | Kate Paxton | 202/835-8832 | kate.paxton@ketchum

---

Summit Isle Asks Leaders to Look at American Bases

Yahoo News
Wednesday July 19 2:12 AM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000719/ts/group_voices_dc_1.html

OKINAWA ISLAND, Japan (Reuters) - The people of Okinawa, the southern Japanese island where the leaders of the Group of Eight nations gather this week, are renowned for their hospitality.

But one of group of guests long ago wore out its welcome -- the 17,000 U.S. Marines stationed there.

A Chinese emperor dubbed the Ryukyu Kingdom, the name of the Okinawa islands before it was annexed by Japan in the late 1800s, ``The Country of Courtesy.'' Its people are looking forward to the chance to show off the island's breathtaking subtropical scenery and unique culture during the G-8 summit beginning Friday.

Yet the image beamed around the world by the thousands of journalists covering the summit is likely to be one of a tropical paradise under foreign military occupation.

That is the message many Okinawans want the world to hear. But they worry the G8 leaders themselves may be deaf to it.

The G8 leaders are expected to busy themselves looking for ways to support the spread of information technology as well as ensure global fiscal and political stability. The people of Okinawa, however, want the leaders to look at the heavy concentration of U.S. military bases on their island and reduce the presence.

``I don't know what kind of summit it will be. But if they don't talk about the military bases, then I guess there is really nothing that I need to know about the summit,'' said 70-year-old pensioner Seiko Yamauchi.

Yamauchi was one of the some 7,000 people who showed up about a week before the summit to rally against the bases. The protests were called after two crimes allegedly committed by U.S. servicemen -- including the alleged sexual molestation of a 14-year-old girl while she slept at home -- that have fanned the flames of anti-base resentment on the island.

20% OF PRIME REAL ESTATE

People from Okinawa Governor Keiichi Inamine to Sunao Ginaha, a butcher in the G8 host city of Nago, said they hope that the leaders can get a sense of the situation on the ground by looking at the lay of the land.

U.S. bases currently account for about nine percent of the prefecture's total land, but 20 percent of its prime real estate.

Okinawans are also looking forward to the visit of President Clinton, the first sitting president to visit the island since it was returned to Japan's control in 1972. The United States had ruled the islands from the 1945 end of World War Two.

There is a great deal of affinity for Americans on Okinawa as they have shared the same island for over a half century, and people are quick to point out that they are not anti-American, but anti-base.

Thousands in the anti-base camp are in Okinawa for the summit, which includes a large contingent of local activists as well as protesters from the mainland. They plan to form a 25,000-person strong human chain around the U.S. Air Force Kadena base Thursday as well as other peaceful protests during the Friday through Sunday summit.

Naha office worker Takako Uehara, 36, would like to see the U.S. military presence reduced but she does not have much support for the anti-base activists from the mainland whom she sees as paternalistic protesters.

``The economy is tight here and we are working hard to make ends meet. It is difficult to sympathize with people who can take off of work so easily to protest in Okinawa and talk about our problems without ever having lived here,'' she said.

Nago Hosts Summit Today, Base Later

Nago, the community where the summit will be held, is currently going through a heated debate as to whether to allow the relocation of U.S. marine helicopter facilities from Futenma Air Station in the southern city of Ginowan to Camp Schwab, which lies in Nago's city limits.

Some cynics said that the nod for the sleepy town of Nago to host the G8 was a ploy by the Japanese government to win local support for moving the military functions.

``After all these years, we cannot be swayed so easily,'' said a 70-year-old herbal medicine merchant who has a shop near the press center.

``The people of Okinawa are always concerned about reducing the danger of having the U.S. military here. The summit makes us think more about the safety for people on the island with regard to moving the helicopters, but we really want to see the Marines moved off here and moved to the mainland.''

Still, after decades of watching Tokyo and Washington prove ineffective at reducing the military concentration in Okinawa, she does not expect a solution any time soon to the bases issue.

The G8 comprises the United States, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Britain, Canada and Russia.

---

USA Today
07/19/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Mississippi

Gulfport- The leader of the Gulfport High School Junior ROTC program has been relieved of duty, school officials said. Parents have complained since January about the behavior of Lt. Col. Duane Van Fleet Jr. The Marine Corps has not commented on its investigation of charges of alleged racism, sexual harassment and discrimination.

---

Joseph Murphy, 81 Aviation Journalist

Washington Post
Wednesday, July 19, 2000; Page B07
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-07/19/086l-071900-idx.html

Joseph S. Murphy, 81, the founder of World Aviation News and several other newsletters in the field of aviation, died of cancer July 13 at a hospital in Guam, where he was visiting his son.

Mr. Murphy, a resident of Chevy Chase, was born in Brooklyn, N.Y. He attended Columbia University and New York University. He worked for the New York Central Railroad until 1943, when he began his career in aviation with American Airlines at LaGuardia Field in New York. He became editor of the company's fleet service and maintenance manuals.

In 1952, Mr. Murphy moved to Washington and began working for American Aviation Publications, a pioneer in the field of covering the airline industry. He helped found its Missiles and Rockets and Air Transport World magazines.

In 1963, he started his own company and launched a new management publication, Air Transport World.

In 1977, he founded Airline Executive and served as editor and publisher until 1982, when he sold it.

He then joined Avmark Inc., a consulting firm, and also founded Airline Media Associates, which became a leading publisher of airline newsletters. Among themwas Commuter/Regional Airline News.

In 1990, Mr. Murphy sold Airline Media Associates, and the following year he started World Airline News. He was publisher until 1994, when he retired.

In the mid-1990s, Mr. Murphy helped found the Society of Aerospace Communicators.

Mr. Murphy was an avid golfer and he published a comprehensive list of golf courses in the United States. He was a member of Kenwood Golf and Country Club.

Survivors include his wife, Virginia Murphy of Chevy Chase; four children, Dr. James W. Murphy of Piti, Guam, Jo Ellen Mauceri of Margate, Fla., Marilyn Ulloa of Miami, and Jan Marie Faulkner of Brunswick, Md.; and nine grandchildren.

-------- OTHER
-------- environment

Freeing a Hydroelectric Giant, California Frets About Control

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By DOUGLAS JEHL
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/071900ca-dams.html

PIONEER, Calif., July 14 --It has been a long, long time since water cascading from the Sierra Nevada here flowed through its riverbed in anything like the way that nature intended.

Here, as across California, the route is determined by a network of elaborate plumbing: an extraordinary system of tunnels, canals, pipes, dams and reservoirs, all built decades ago by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company in order to transform billions of gallons of water into staggering amounts of electricity.

Now, in one of the most ambitious plans ever under electrical deregulation, every piece of the

utility's system of 174 dams, 99 reservoirs, 68 power plants, 380 miles of artificial waterways and hundreds of thousands of acres of land could be auctioned off by the end of next year.

The transfer would be the biggest of its kind, and, while details are still being worked out by state regulators, the plan has raised concerns about how the need for providing electrical power would be balanced against the need to protect the environment.

California is one of a handful of states that has taken the lead in deregulating utilities, as state lawmakers have moved to separate the generation of power from its distribution. But California, with its wealth of hydropower, must confront another issue: how to keep a hand in the fate of one of the largest hydroelectric systems in the world after it has been broken into pieces.

"I think the worst thing that could happen would be the kind of fragmentation that could result if these assets were sold off to new owners," said Doug Wheeler, who was, until last year, California's secretary of natural resources, and whose comments reflected a sense of apprehension about the potential environmental consequences of the planned transfer.

Until now, as in much of the United States, California's electric utilities have fallen under the scrutiny of a state watchdog whose muscle to press for good conduct is backed up a carrot: the authority to impose or withhold rate increases.

But under the deregulation plan, motivated by a desire to drive down electricity rates, and approved by the California Legislature in a unanimous vote, all power generated in the state is supposed to be opened to competition by the end of next year.

That will relegate existing utilities to the role of mere providers, while allowing the new owners of power generation to set prices freely, without the oversight that has for long been built into the system.

Pacific Gas and the state's other utilities have already sold most of their conventional generating plants, to companies like Duke Power and the Enron Corporation. But what is being debated now is whether, when it comes to hydropower, the free market is really the right recipe.

"Californians have been given a chance to decide how this system will be managed and, in turn, how our rivers will be cared for," said Thomas J. Graff, the Western regional director of Environmental Defense, a private advocacy group, and a leader in campaign by environmentalists and outdoors enthusiasts to subject any transfer to strict environmental conditions.

Across the country, about 40 percent of the nation's 96,000 megawatts of hydropower capacity is in private hands. Most of that still falls under state regulation, but as other hydropower-rich states like Oregon have begun to follow California toward the free market, corporate executives and government officials have been watching to see which way California turns at what could be a critical juncture.

[Indeed, a plan submitted on Tuesday by two United States senators would seek to accelerate the deregulation process. A bill by the senators, Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, would require all states to deregulate their electric power monopolies by 2002.]

By federal law, the conditions under which dams operate are supposed to be set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose 30-year licenses spell out such details as how much of a river's water must remain in its natural bed.

In practice, though, the federal relicensing process has been slow and so often delayed that it has kindled considerable mistrust.

To fly over the remote, rugged canyons of the Sierra of Northern and Central California is to see the extent to which the appetite for the power delivered by Pacific Gas and Electric has transformed the waterways.

From Bakersfield in the south to near the Oregon border, the hydropower system stretches for more than 300 miles. All along the way, beneath soaring peaks and snowy meadows, streams and rivers can be seen empty or diminished across long sections in which their flow has been diverted into canals, tunnels and turbines.

Among those blocked or drained, some since the early part of the 20th century, are portions of the Feather, Yuba, American, Kern, Stanislaus, San Joaquin and Eel, as well as the Mokelumne, where in the summer -- as is typical -- as many as 19 gallons in 20 is channeled away from the riverbed.

What is at stake, according to a 1996 report by a team of scientists convened by the United States Forest Service, are rivers and streamside areas "the most altered and impaired habitats of the Sierra." The report said that dams were principally at fault.

Among the major casualties have been populations of migratory fish like the salmon and steelhead, prevented by dams from returning to their river spawning grounds, and resident varieties like the trout, no longer able to thrive in rivers like the Mokelumne and the Feather, because of dams and inadequate water flow.

Instead of the river's natural course, the waters travel along what amount to giant staircases, channeled almost horizontally under mountains, through Ponderosa pine forests and along steep granite cliffs before being sent plunging downward in a rush, in order to turn the turbines that generate power.

Altogether, the Pacific Gas system generates some 3,800 megawatts of power per hour, or enough to light four million homes, and estimates of its value have soared as high as $5 billion.

In maneuvering leading up to the potential transfer, the utility's parent corporation, the P. G. & E. Corporation, has said that it would be willing to spend as much as $175 million to improve the hydropower system's environmental performance, in large part by reducing power generation and increasing the flow of water through stream beds.

But that offer was contingent on a deal that would allow the P. G. & E. Corporation to buy the assets itself, bypassing the kind of public bidding seen as most likely to bring ratepayers the highest return.

So far, P. G. & E. has been unable to win approval for such a guarantee, and it has said that unless it can do so, it sees no alternative but to proceed with the auction, which it says might leave the state, with limited legal powers, unable to force any kind of environmental repair.

No conditions have been set as to who might be deemed an acceptable bidder. But if there were a sell-off of dams, the transfer would have to be approved by federal regulators, whose main task would be to determine if the new buyer possessed the resources necessary to operate the acquisition.

Any decision on how to proceed with a sale is now in the hands of the state's Public Utilities Commission, which has spent the last several months conducting hearings. The commission has ordered a report, due in September, to examine the potential environmental impact of any hand-over.

In the Legislature, one leading Democrat, Fred Keeley, has introduced a bill that would postpone the process, by authorizing the state to purchase the utility's land and other assets and retain them for up to six years while deciding whether to transfer individual parcels to public agencies or to sell them to private bidders.

As one potential model for the kind of agreement that might be built into any sale, some advocates point to an accord struck last summer between the P. G. & E. Corporation and state and federal agencies to share the $50 million cost of removing five small hydropower dams on Battle Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River.

Those dams had been widely recognized as an impediment to salmon and steelhead populations, and the announcement of the deal was made jointly by the utility, Gov. Gray Davis of California, and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

Even if no other dams are to be razed, groups like Environmental Defense have said that any transfer of ownership should be prefaced at least by a deal that would restore water flows by a factor of 10 or 20 in rivers like the Mokelumne, in order to help restore fish habitats.

A report issued by the organization in California this week estimated that such a move would result in only a 10 percent to 20 percent decrease in hydropower generation.

Mr. Graff, the regional director, said the price tag for an acceptable package of environmental repair would be about $400 million.

At their San Francisco headquarters, P. G. & E. Corporation officials said they were preparing a proposal that they said would balance the need for power generation and environmental protection on condition, again, that the dams and other assets remain in the hands of the company.

They also warned that it would be foolhardy to move too drastically to reign in hydropower, particularly now, at a time when surging demand has been testing California's capacity to generate electricity, and when alternative means of power generation carry environmental consequences of their own.

"It all comes down to the fact that the state needs electric power, and this is a clean way to provide it," said Jon Tremayne, a Pacific Gas and Electric spokesman.

---

White House opposes removal of dams

USA Today
07/18/00- Updated 11:07 PM ET
By Tom Kenworthy
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncstue16.htm

Treading cautiously on a divisive political issue in the Pacific Northwest, the Clinton administration has decided it will not support removal of four dams on the Snake River to aid recovery of endangered salmon.

The decision caps years of impassioned debate among scientists, environmentalists and business leaders over the fate of dams that have harmed salmon stocks but provided important economic benefits.

The administration decision, to be conveyed to Congress Wednesday, could affect the presidential race in states key to Democrat Al Gore, who hasn't taken a stance on the issue. In May, Gore was chastised for "his continued silence" by his Oregon campaign chairman, Gov. John Kitzhaber, who unlike most elected officials in the region has supported dam removal. Republican George W. Bush has consistently said the dams should stay.

With salmon a cherished symbol in the Northwest, most voters support government efforts to recover salmon runs currently protected under the Endangered Species Act. However, they are deeply divided over whether tearing out the earthen portions of the dams is worth the cost.

Breaching the dams would raise electric rates, hurt farmers who irrigate and deprive grain farmers of cheap barge transportation to the West Coast.

The administration decision is a major blow to environmentalists, who have in the past two years escalated their campaign to remove the dams.

Led by Council on Environmental Quality chairman George Frampton, administration officials will tell Congress today that they will retain dam removal as a future option if they find over the next decade that other measures to save salmon have not succeeded.

"Dam removal may in the end prove to be necessary, but it is not the place to start," says National Marine Fisheries Service official Will Stelle in prepared testimony.

Says Jeff Curtis of Trout Unlimited: "The danger of all this is it perpetuates the myth that we can get there without anybody getting hit too badly."

---

Food Companies Urged to End Use of Biotechnology Products

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By ANDREW POLLACK
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/072000sci-gm-food.html

A coalition of consumer and environmental groups announced yesterday what they hope will be the biggest and best-organized effort yet in the United States to pressure food companies to abandon the use of genetically modified crops.

Starting with the Campbell Soup Company, the coalition said it would target well-known food companies and try to generate thousands of consumer letters, phone calls and signatures on petitions urging them to stop using genetically modified foods until more testing was done. The group also wants all companies to label products that contain such ingredients.

In Europe, food companies have largely abandoned the use of such ingredients because of consumer opposition fanned by aggressive campaigns. But in the United States, consumers have expressed little concern about genetically modified foods and many are not even aware that such foods are being sold.

"This is going to be the first sort of sustained effort on the European model," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, one of the groups in the coalition, the Genetically Engineered Food Alert.

The coalition could spend $1 million, or more, he said. That is still considerably below the $50 million a group of agricultural biotechnology companies committed in April to spend over several years on television advertising and other measures to defend their products.

The group has named no other targets yet than Campbell. But Jean Halloran of Consumers Union, which is cooperating with the coalition though not a member, said the coalition would choose "corporations that have food products that Americans really regard as staples of their kitchen, that they feed to their kids." Besides soup, Campbell makes Pepperidge Farm cookies, V8 juice, Prego pasta sauce and Godiva chocolates.

John Faulkner, a Campbell's spokesman, said the company saw no need to eliminate genetically engineered ingredients because they were as "equally nutritious and equally safe" as nonmodified ones. He said that fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of calls to the Campbell's consumer hotline concerned genetic engineering. And even if Campbell wanted to eliminate such ingredients, he said, it could not, because a large percentage of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States is genetically altered. "We don't control the supply chain," he said.

Gene Grabowski, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, a trade group representing food companies, said the companies were following federal guidelines that do not require labeling genetically modified ingredients. "If the activists have an issue, it's not with the food companies but with the federal government," he said.

Still, pressuring food companies could be effective. Already, companies like McDonald's, Frito-Lay and Gerber -- whose parent company is Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical giant that makes and sells genetically modified corn and soybean seeds -- are reducing or eliminating genetically modified ingredients. They are doing so not because they think they are unsafe but because they are worried about consumer reaction.

There is no evidence that anyone has been harmed by eating the genetically engineered corn, soybeans, potatoes or other foods now on the market. Such crops are typically altered to resist pests and chemicals.

But critics say the foods have not been tested adequately. And they say labeling would give consumers a choice to avoid them. Food companies oppose mandatory labeling, saying it would scare consumers away.

Analysts, however, have noted that some dairy products produced from cows that have not been injected with a bovine growth hormone produced in bacteria are labeled, and only a very small percentage of consumers seek them out.

The Food and Drug Administration maintains that labels should pertain to the quality of the food, not to how it is made. The genetically engineered foods so far have the same nutritional value and safety as other foods, it says, so the use of genetic engineering per se should not be on the label.

The other groups in the food alert coalition are the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Action Network North America and the State Public Interest Research Groups.

---

USA Today
07/19/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Indiana

Anderson - Seven months after a chemical release left 110 tons of dead fish in the White River, state wildlife biologists say the river is rebounding. As part of a weeklong survey, state crews have caught healthy fish along the river in northern Indianapolis and Hamilton County. But officials said it will take up to three years for a 55-mile stretch of the river to fully recover.

-------- imf / world bank

World bank resuming Kenya loan program

Washington Times
July 19, 2000
World Scene
http://208.246.212.80/world/ed-column-2000719215821.htm

NAIROBI, Kenya - The World Bank will resume aid to Kenya after a three-year suspension with a $150 million loan to reduce poverty and help achieve reforms, a bank official said yesterday.

Kenya, which is suffering its worst economic crisis since independence from Britain in 1963, with severe drought and nationwide power and water shortages, depends on multilateral lending institutions and grants from donors for development programs.

The crisis is so severe that Kenya will have to import almost half of its corn over the next 18 months because of a worsening drought in the Horn of Africa, a U.N. food agency recently announced.

Based on wire dispatches and staff reports.

-------- spying

British Authorities May Get Wide Power to Decode E-Mail

New York Times
July 19, 2000
By SARAH LYALL
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/biztech/articles/19britain.html

LONDON, July 18 -- As the Clinton administration formally enters the debate about law enforcement surveillance in cyberspace, the British government is about to enact a law that would give the authorities here broad powers to intercept and decode e-mail messages and other communications between companies, organizations and individuals.

The measure, which goes further than the American plan unveiled on Monday in Washington, would make Britain the only Western democracy where the government could require anyone using the Internet to turn over the keys to decoding e-mails messages and other data.

Such a measure would be an important tool for the government because data is increasingly being encrypted for reasons of security and privacy.

Despite a barrage of criticism from all sides, the bill is likely to become law as it passes through its final stage in the House of Lords and returns to the House of Commons next week because the Labor government, which offered the plan, holds a wide majority in Parliament.

Government officials maintain that the measure is essential if law enforcement agencies are to combat the sophisticated modern crime that is enhanced by access to the Internet, including pedophilia, drug smuggling, money laundering, terrorism and trafficking in refugees.

"The powers in the bill are necessary and proportionate to the threat posed by 21st century criminals, no more, no less," Charles Clarke, the Home Office official in charge of the bill, said last week.

But the measure has had a rocky time in Parliament, where lawmakers have vehemently objected to several provisions, including one that would give the government new powers to require Internet service providers to install "black box" surveillance systems that would sort and send a range of data and e-mail to a monitoring center controlled by the domestic security service, M.I.5.

Such systems are also being used in the United States by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where the technology is known as Carnivore because it is able to extract the "meat" quickly from vast quantities of e-mail messages and other communications between computers.

But one major difference in the British measure is that the authorities here would be able to require companies to install and maintain the black boxes at their own expense and according to technological specifications set out by the government.

In addition, to justify such surveillance, the authorities would not be obligated to take elaborate steps to persuade an independent arbiter like a court that a crime had probably been committed.

In contrast to the United States, Britain has a tradition of unfettered and often uncontested intrusion by the authorities into citizens' privacy,

In the United States, the F.B.I. must first obtain a search warrant before using the Carnivore technology, which is then installed and maintained by the bureau.

Under the British plan, failure to turn over a decryption key or to convert encrypted data or messages into plain text could result in a two-year prison sentence. Although many nations are considering similar bills to deal with encrypted data, only Singapore and Malaysia have so far enacted them.

The legislation would allow the British government to tap into and monitor electronic communication for a host of reasons, including to protect national security, to "safeguard the country's well-being," and to prevent and detect serious crime. That last, far-reaching category might include, for instance, "a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose."

The measure would not require traditional warrants signed by judges.

Instead, warrants for e-mail surveillance would have to be signed by the home secretary, who controls a range of domestic and legal matters. Other officials, including high-ranking police officers, would be empowered to approve requests for encryption keys.

The effect of this part of the bill "can justifiably be described as mass surveillance of Internet activities without judicial warrant or adequate oversight," according to a report prepared for the British Chambers of Commerce by a team of professors at the London School of Economics and University College London.

Opponents of the measure in Britain represent an extraordinarily diverse interests, ranging from trade unions and Amnesty International to representatives of big business and newspapers across the political spectrum. Not only does the bill violate basic civil liberties, they argue, but it would also impose onerous costs on Internet service providers, subject them to anti-competitive restraints, and drive business out of Britain.

"This is Big Brother government realizing that unless they get their act together, technology is going to make them impotent by allowing individuals to bypass the regulations, and the spies, of the state," said Ian Angell, professor of information systems at the London School of Economics and a consultant on the recent report.

"I'm a supporter of the police, and I believe they should be given powers, but there has to be due process, and this bill doesn't provide that," Mr. Angell said. "They'll be allowed to go on fishing expeditions."

It is not yet clear how much the measure will cost. The government has put aside 20 million pounds, or $30 million, to help businesses set up the new technology, but as it stands now, Internet service providers themselves would bear most of the costs of the "black boxes" themselves. This provision is roughly akin to asking "manufacturers to pay for the police cars the Home Office provides to the police," said William Roebuck, an executive on the legal advisory group at the E-Center, a trade association that studies standards and practices in e-commerce.

The London School of Economics report estimated that the measure would cost British business some 640 million pounds, or $960 million, over the next five years, a figure that could rise to 46 billion, or $69 billion, when opportunity costs and losses from the economy are included. But Mr. Roebuck said it was impossible to tell what the final figure would be.

"If Internet service providers are made to take on board the costs, then the costs will be put through to the consumer," he said. "What's going to happen is that companies are going to reroute everything away from the U.K. and take their business abroad."

Among the companies that have already said the measure would make them reluctant to do business here is Poptel, one of Britain's oldest Internet service providers. Poptel serves the noncommercial sector -- charities, trade unions, lobbying organizations and the like -- and many of its members have serious concerns about the bill's implications.

"There are a number of our users who come into quite legitimate conflict with the government," said Shaun Fensom, Poptel's chairman, who said he might transfer some of the company's operations offshore. "They are concerned that the government could classify some of their legitimate activity as being snoopable. My feeling is that they will want access to at least some kind of secure e-mail facility."

Some critics are charging that the measure has been sloppily and hastily drawn up to give the government as broad latitude as possible.

"What this does is contravene a large number of fundamental rights in the European convention on human rights and other international standards, which include the right to privacy, the right to liberty, the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of association," said Halya Gowan, a researcher at Amnesty International in London.

"As a human rights organization, our work is based on the confidentiality of statements we take from opponents of governments around the world who are possibly victims of human rights violations by these governments," she said. "But under this bill, we won't be able to guarantee confidentiality anymore."

The measure, known as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, or R.I.P., is an effort to extend a 1985 law setting out the government's powers to intercept and monitor communications across telephone lines to a host of modern technologies, including e-mail, Web sites, pagers and cell phones.

As it happens, said Mr. Roebuck of the E-Center, the government has already quietly been doing many of the things it will now be legally allowed to do. "They've already been doing covert surveillance, covertly intercepting e-mail," he said. "This gives them a legal basis to do so."

And the government agrees, in effect, saying it is merely setting out in law the parameters for what it has been doing informally anyway. "The bill is an important one which does not substantially increase the powers available to the law enforcement and security agencies but will make the U.K. a better and safer place to live for all," Mr. Clarke told The Daily Telegraph.

Some groups say that although they disagree with the nuts and bolts of the bill, they are encouraged that the government is, at last, trying to establish a legal framework for its surveillance activities.

"Generally, people should welcome the bill because it provides some kind of system of accountability for interferences with privacy where there hasn't been in the past," said John Wadham, the director of Liberty, a civil liberties group.

But that is not good enough, said Conor Gearty, a professor of human rights law at King's College London. "The British authorities have a history of engaging in activities outside the law which inflict on people's privacy or otherwise affect their liberties, and then suddenly saying that the time has come to bring the law into line with practice," he said.

-------- terrorism

U.S. wants antibiotic for anti-anthrax use

USA Today
July 19, 2000
By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/life/health/drugs/lhdru139.htm

At the government's urging, the maker of a top-selling antibiotic is seeking Food and Drug Administration approval of a new use for the drug: preventing illness after inhaling anthrax bacteria in a bioterrorism attack.

Besides the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense asked Bayer Pharmaceuticals in West Haven, Conn., to apply for the new use of Cipro, says Larry Posner, Bayer's global head of regulatory affairs. An FDA advisory committee is to discuss the new use July 28.

The CDC wants to include Cipro, the trade name for ciprofloxacin, in its National Pharmaceutical Stockpile program, says CDC's Barbara Reynolds.

Begun last year, the program's goal is to ensure that drugs and other critical supplies can be shipped quickly to the site of any biological or chemical terrorist attack in the USA, Reynolds says.

While the CDC manages the program, the Department of Veterans Affairs, experienced in buying large amounts of medications on behalf of the U.S. government, is in charge of purchasing. Some of the stockpiles are housed at VA medical centers, Reynolds says.

Besides the stockpiled supplies, which can be shipped anywhere in the USA within 12 hours, manufacturers are keeping a "bubble" of extra inventory on hand, she says.

Anthrax, which kills within a day or two, has been given a high priority by the stockpile program because it can be effectively treated with antibiotics, CDC says. Two other antibiotics, penicillin and doxycycline, are approved to treat anthrax, but published reports say the Russians have genetically engineered strains to resist those drugs.

Animal studies suggest that Cipro would be highly effective against anthrax, and there have been no reports of resistant anthrax strains, according to a May 1999 consensus statement in the Journal of the American Medical Association by the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense.

The Department of Defense has been vaccinating military personnel against anthrax, but last week questions arose about the accuracy of tests used to make sure the vaccine is safe and effective. As a result, spokesman Jim Turner says, DOD has initiated an anthrax vaccine "slowdown."

Previously, anyone who was going to be on the ground for even a day in the Persian Gulf or Korea - considered high-risk areas - was vaccinated. Now, only those who will be on the ground in those areas for at least 30 days will receive the vaccine, Turner says.

Cipro can help fill in the gap for people who have not been vaccinated, he says. "If you know you've been attacked, and you haven't shown the symptoms, you can take it and it will keep you alive until you can get the vaccine."

---

Lawsuits and Terrorism

New York Times
July 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l19kli.html

To the Editor:

I was pleased to read (news article, July 13) that a federal judge had ordered Iran to pay $327 million to the Eisenfeld and Duker families for the murder of their children in a 1996 terrorist bombing in Israel.

However, I am concerned by the reported efforts of the State Department and the Clinton administration to block the seizure of Iranian assets and thereby block payment.

I understand the government's sensitivity that negotiations with countries should not take place in the courtroom. But if the government would allow the court decisions against terrorist groups to be enacted, then a precedent would be set. It would mean that terrorist groups would know that these court penalties are not negotiable.

The State Department should not have the right to block these court decisions on its own. There needs to be a larger Congressional debate.

LISA KLINGHOFFER New York, July 14, 2000

---

Madrid police defuse bomb in official's car

USA Today
07/19/00- Updated 05:57 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nw1.htm

MADRID, Spain - In attacks blamed on Basque separatists, police defused a bomb in a politician's car hours after an explosion tore through a small shopping center in the Basque region. There were no injuries in Wednesday's incidents. The bomb was meant to explode in the car of Jose Asenjo, the vice-secretary general of the southern city's Socialist Party, as the engine started, but the fuse failed. They were the fourth and fifth attacks the separatist group ETA has been accused of in the past week in what is seen as an escalation of its war for an independent homeland in northern Spain. The other bomb exploded in the shopping center in a suburb of Vitoria shortly after midnight.

---

Police find a bomb in subway station

USA Today
07/19/00- Updated 05:57 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nw1.htm

LONDON - Bomb threats on several London subway stations plunged the city into disarray Wednesday as rush-hour commuters and tourists coped with diverted trains, closed stations and suspended services. At least one of the packages, found on the tracks near the Ealing Broadway Underground station in west London, contained a bomb, said police, who were able to detonate it safely. ''There were a number of phone calls made in the Dublin area this morning naming threats in three areas of London - Ealing Broadway, Victoria and Westminster stations,'' Scotland Yard spokeswoman Alex Hathaway said. Although the phone calls were made in Dublin, Hathaway refused to discuss possible links to Irish terrorists, saying police would not speculate on a motive.
-------- activists

DISARMAMENT AGENDA AGREED AT 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE

By John Burroughs
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
From: Abolition 2000 <admin@abolition2000.org>
Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:24:20 -0800

On 20 May 2000, the sixth Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, meeting at the UN headquarters in New York, produced the first consensus review statement since 1985 (see http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/revcon2000/Finaltext.htm). Coming five years after the treaty was extended indefinitely and the Abolition 2000 Network was founded, the outcome surpassed the low expectations coming into the Conference. No serious timebound commitments were made, and many of the agreed policies and principles are sufficiently vague so that whether progress has been achieved in coming years will be open to dispute. Still, under the influence of the New Agenda Coalition and civil society, 2000 differed from 1995 in that the Conference established a comprehensive agenda for disarmament. If the NPT Review Process is to avoid becoming an irrelevant sideshow, that agenda must now be acted upon.

The most remarked upon provision was an "unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapons States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all states are committed under Article VI." For the first time in the 30 years since the NPT entered into force in 1970, the nuclear weapon states did not use qualifiers such as "ultimate goal" or a linkage with "general and complete" disarmament. This provision was the bottom line of the New Agenda Coalition states (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden), which took the lead in negotiating with the nuclear weapon states. Meanwhile, back in Washington, plans continue for the maintenance of large nuclear forces for the "foreseeable future". Other nuclear weapon states have similar policies at home, if not in New York.

Other "practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI" include "concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems", and "a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination". These provisions reflect the demands of NGOs for marginalization of nuclear weapons through dealerting and the rejection of deterrence doctrines as the process of disarmament proceeds.

Ironically, during the Conference, diplomatic talking points released by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists revealed that US negotiators advised Russia that keeping its nuclear forces on alert is a good idea. Under "any possible future arms control agreement," the talking points say, Russia (like the United States), could maintain on "constant" alert a "large, diversified, viable arsenal", sufficient to mount an "annihilating counterattack" in response to a US first strike, regardless of any "limited" US national missile defense system. And in February, the US Defense Department 2000 report described an expanded role for nuclear weapons, "to deter any potential adversary from using or threatening to use nuclear, chemical, or biological (NBC) weapons Ö and as a hedge against defeat of US conventional forces in defense of vital interests". Britain, France, and Russia all also have doctrines of first use, the first two like the United States in defense of "vital interests".

Additional notable provisions of the NPT agenda include a moratorium on nuclear-weapons-test explosions pending entry-into-force of the CTBT; "increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to their nuclear weapons capabilities"; "further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons"; "the engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons"; "the principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament"; "the necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament"; and "the further development of the verification capabilities that will be required to provide assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world".

Unfortunately, the Conference did not squarely address the problems of missile proliferation and defense. For example, though a Russian proposal for a global missile monitoring and non-proliferation regime pointed in the right direction, the Conference did not call for the development of a missile control and elimination regime. Instead, the Conference referred to "preserving and strengthening" the US-Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the position adopted by the nuclear weapon states. The United States apparently believes that amending the treaty to permit national missile defense would "strengthen" the treaty!

Also, unlike the 1995 Principles and Objectives, which specifically and unambiguously set 1996 as the year by which a CTBT should be negotiated, the 2000 final document sets no clear timelines. 2005 is stated to be the year by which a fissile materials treaty should be completed, but this is tied to the consensus adoption of a program of work in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. But China, which is concerned about US plans for ballistic missile defense and may wish therefore to produce more fissile material to support an arsenal build-up, has been insisting that negotiations on a fissile materials treaty be accompanied by opening of negotiations on nuclear disarmament and on prevention of an arms race in outer space. In its closing statement, China said that the ABM Treaty is coming under great challenge and the danger of weaponization in outer space is increasing. Russia similarly stated that without the ABM Treaty, it will be impossible to make progress towards nuclear disarmament.

Other gaps in the agenda include a lack of any initiatives to respond to the overt nuclearization of South Asia and Israel's continuing reliance on the nuclear threat, and a failure to support non-nuclear sources of energy. Instead there was a ritualistic invocation of the "inalienable right" to nuclear power, ignoring its role, openly proclaimed in some states, most recently Turkey, as the foundation for weapons programs. Regarding the final document's ambiguous identification of "sustainable development as a guiding principle for the peaceful use of nuclear energy", Germany, Austria, and Denmark each made clear that nuclear power does not contribute to "sustainable development".

Abolition 2000 was a strong presence at the Conference, organizing a rally, presenting petitions to the Chair, releasing a special NPT edition of the Abolition 2000 report card, and holding a press conference. And Abolition 2000 member groups released policy papers, participated in the NGO presentations to the diplomats (see http://www.igc.org/disarm/nptngo2k.html ), and put on numerous dynamic panels, covering topics such as ballistic missile defense, the role of scientists, expanded laboratory capabilities, health and environmental effects of nuclearism, the model nuclear weapons convention, strategies for disarmament, and Russian anti-nuclear environmental activism. Several individual members of Abolition 2000 organizations served as NGO representatives on government delegations. But despite the efforts of Canada and other governments to obtain a greater role for civil society representatives in monitoring and participating in review proceedings, the Conference was able to agree only to institutionalize the practice of devoting a session of each PrepCom and Review Conference to NGO presentations.

----

Peace Action's Stop Star Wars Protest at the Capitol a Success!

Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From: "Jim Bridgman" <jbridgman@peace-action.org>

Thanks to everyone who came out yesterday to our Stop Star Wars protest at the U.S. Capitol featuring our 50-foot mock missile. Thanks especially to our speakers. We had eight(!) members of Congress speak: Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Lynn Rivers (D-MI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Bob Filner (D-CA), John Tierney (D-MA), George Miller (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA). Also speaking were Bill Hartung (World Policy Institute), Kimberly Robson (Women's Action for New Directions), Anne Gallivan (Physicians for Social Responsibility), Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey (Fellowship of Reconciliation) and our own Gordon Clark.

We have reports that CNN broadcasted a story on the event and are still checking on other coverage. Attached is a photo of Rep. Kucinich speaking taken by Rob Visser, the photographer we hired for the event.

The enthusiasm from the above members of Congress (and the other members who phoned in their regrets) and the good turnout by activists and media at the event confirm for us that momentum to stop Star Wars is growing. We will be in touch with you regarding further actions that Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund undertake to stop this obscene waste of taxpayer dollars.

Next up is the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. We plan to be there with our mock missile in the parade and rally on July 30. We will send out more information on this soon.

----

Hiroshima/Nagasaki Day Trident Actions

Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From: Stephen Kobasa <skobasa@pop.snet.net>

(1) CND is organising an action at AWE Aldermaston, the Trident warhead factory near the City of Reading which is about 40 miles from London, on Sunday 6th August.

Trident warheads are taken by road in unmarked military convoys to the operational submarine base at Faslane on the River Clyde in Scotland. They travel in secret, up to 60 mph, on busy main roads and narrow country roads under armed escort.

CND will be 'Pointing the Finger' at Aldermaston a large, military site that does not appear on any public maps and drawing attention to its role in developing the next generation of nuclear warheads in close co-operation with the US weapons labs.

We would welcome messages of solidarity from around the world. <nigel@cnduk.org>


----

The New Movement Thinks Like the '30s and Rocks Like the '60s.
But It Acts Like the Future Radicals Rising

Village Voice
Published July 19 - 25, 2000
by Richard Goldstein
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0029/goldstein.shtml

It's not easy interviewing Alli Starr. The signal on her cell phone wavers radically as she careens through the Malibu Hills, on her way to Ruckus Camp. At this weeklong training session, young activists learn about everything from talking to the media in positive sound bites to dealing nonviolently with the hard rain of pepper spray. Alli, who is 32, teaches them how to use music and dance to defuse a violent vibe. "When we sing 'Amazing Grace,' it has this profound effect," she says, recalling the moment in Seattle when police closed in on the crowd occupying an intersection. "We did a slow-motion dance in unison-a prayer-and the whole energy changed. People started singing, the police stopped spraying, and the sun broke through the clouds."

A very '60s moment. And from a distance, that's what the new movement looks like. There's the same manic yet mellow energy, the same emphasis on affinity, the same affection for agitprop. Those giant puppets hovering over the demonstrators in Seattle and Washington D.C. bore a striking resemblance to the Bread and Puppet Theater creations that once regaled antiwar marches. Even the sight of protesters, dressed as sea turtles and other species threatened with extinction, puts you in mind of yippies decked out in (then illegal-to-wear) American flags.

But something about these activists doesn't fit the '60s model. They're polite, even when charging down a street. They don't throw cow blood at the cops, or holler "kill the pigs!" And they don't spell America with three ks. "We were unnecessarily anti-American," says organizer Kevin Danaher, who cut his teeth in the '60s. "People understand now that it's about an alliance of elites around the world. You don't say 'America sucks!' You say the people running this society suck."

These days, Danaher works at Global Exchange, whose mission is to make Americans care about the rest of the world. Though he's a founder of this group, Danaher wants you to know he has no power to command it. Nor can his colleagues order up the mass mobilizations being planned around both the Republican and Democratic conventions. But organizers are crisscrossing the country in a traveling activist caravan known as the Democracy Road Show. It's not exactly Lilith Fair, but this festival of speeches and performances aims to bind together an activism that has fragmented into dozens of colliding causes. The goal is to instill in unlike-minded people a common conviction that the problems besetting them are tied to the same corporate dominance that torments the third world (or, as these organizers like to call it, the Global South). That kind of talk hasn't been heard since the days when Commies chanted "Workers of the world, unite!"

"I'm a fan of Marx, myself," says David Thurston, a 21-year-old coordinator for United Students Against Sweatshops, a key group in the resurgence of campus activism. But, as Thurston proudly notes, "there's a lot of ideas out there." In this movement, it's legit to be a socialist, but it's also cool to be a member of the Black Bloc, as young anarchists who dress as Rothko painted are known. Some of these people are fighting for a hunter-gatherer society, but there are also mainstream Democrats and even a few Republicans. This profusion of beliefs is the result of a movement that thinks a lot like radicals did in the '30s, but rejects a defining part of their ideology.

The new movement has no use for centralized authority. Instead, it cherishes the word convergence, leaving ample room for lefties, libertarians, and synthesizers of every stripe. Ask organizer Juliette Beck, 27, whether she's a socialist and she replies: "It's hard to say, because socialists don't support fair trade, but as internationalists, we back poor communities that want to sell their products to the U.S. for a fair exchange. I guess we're also very skeptical of the government. There's no ism to describe my politics. Maybe humanism."

On July 31, the whole ruckus will descend on Philadelphia, haunting the coronation of George W. Bush. The streets will be alive with people marching against "the prison-industrial complex," the perils of genetically altered food, and new laws that make graffiti a felony. Turtles will join forces with Teamsters, hip-hoppers with Greens. "It's a movement of movements," says Beck. From this principle flows everything that makes the new wave of activism distinct.

An anarchist at the April demonstration in Washington, D.C.

Here's a scene that could never have happened in the '60s. Police bear down on demonstrators chained together in the street. The response is to take a vote. If everyone consents, the action is on. If anyone objects, the protesters walk away.

This emphasis on process-sometimes painful to behold-has the advantage of putting real conviction behind the risks activists must take in this era of rubber bullets and hose-fed pepper spray. It also embodies an organizing strategy that can reconcile the postmodern sense of personal freedom with the pre-war idea of a popular front. And it's tech-savvy to the core. As writer Naomi Klein has pointed out, the new movement is modeled on the Internet, with its web of linked interests and instant affinities. At strategy sessions, each group sends a "spoke" to stand-sometimes literally-in the web that plans an action.

There's an earnestness to their affect that recalls the civil rights movement, or ACT UP in its prime. But despite that group's dedication to fighting AIDS worldwide, the wealthy white males who dominated ACT UP prevented any global analysis of the epidemic from setting their agenda. And Martin Luther King never lived to link his movement with the anti-war crusade, as he intended to. But in this age of multinational commerce, when governments go with the flow of capital, globalism seems like much less of a reach. It's the key to all sorts of oppression; the principle that allows these activists to imagine a politics that transcends race, culture, and especially identity.

Though you won't find anyone in the sea-turtle legion who thinks abortion should be a crime, or homosexuality grounds for discrimination, the new movement doesn't make a lot a noise about these "social issues." Most activists step gingerly around any criticism of identity politics, but some are willing to put their disdain into words. "I think identity politics has demoralized a lot of activists," says David Thurston, the anti-sweatshop organizer. Even as abortion rights slip away, he charges, feminists "have been too afraid of embarrassing Clinton to call for national demonstrations." As for the gay movement: "The debate has shifted from challenging homophobia to defining people's lifestyles and scandalizing those who don't share your values, which doesn't do much to build a movement."

This critique will sound familiar to gays and feminists who lived through years of dismissal by the left, on the grounds that they were a bourgeois distraction from class analysis. That line has been a progressive cover for bigotry since the days of Marx, and it remains to be seen whether the new movement will give a fresh face to the old indifference. But there's another possibility: integrating women and gays into the larger agenda of human rights. A full day of protest at the Democratic convention will be devoted to the principle that "an attack on one is an attack on all."

For this movement, it's all about context. Like poverty and pollution, sexism and homophobia should be seen as products of a system that exploits and divides people to maintain its dominance. "Ten years ago I might have been marching with NOW," says Juliette Beck. "But we see the root as unaccountable governance and overwhelming corporate influence. And we've seen the way the media have used the abortion issue to distract people from the global problems of our day."

You can take these words at face value or wait and see whether they represent a retreat. But one thing is clear: This new rhetoric has a real potential to unite groups that haven't been seen at the same rally in at least 20 years. It's poised to take advantage of a moment when the boom economy has produced a willingness to take risks. As in the '60s, a decade of expansion unprecedented in America-until now-this prosperity has created an opening for a politics that collapses categories. "What's going on is a redefining of ideology from left/right to bottom/top," says Kevin Danaher. "I keep coming back to the same touchstone, which is: It's money rule versus people rule."

A very '60s sentiment. So why does it seem fresh again? You might speculate that power breeds resistance, and corporate triumphalism is as absolute a power as exists in the world today. The global economy provides a tangible model for analyzing oppression, even as the World Wide Web makes instant communication between cultures possible on a breathtaking scale. But when it comes to inspiring the young, cool counts. And in this age of hyper-reality, the act of confronting the system f2f seems thrillingly x-treme.

If this is a generation without a cause, the new activism fills that void. It offers something mere ambition cannot: the gratification of being part of something bigger than yourself. To twentysomethings who labor under the illusion that making a fortune is the only thing worth fighting for, now there's a choice. You can live in the Matrix or struggle to change the world. You can settle for an invented Internet identity or find yourself in an ideal that's also real. Down with the pony-tailed hegemony of the dotcom masters! Up with tangibility!

Still, for all its real-time vitality, THE movement hasn't made its mark on electoral politics. (Hey, it's only seven or two years old, depending on whether you date its formation from protests against NAFTA in '93 or the sweatshop campaigns of '98). But that may change with Ralph Nader's campaign. Nader's group, Public Citizen, played a major part in organizing the Seattle demonstrations, and every activist interviewed for this piece praised his positions. But as Michael Dolan, a longtime Nader associate who now works with the Citizens' Trade Campaign, puts it: "It's unclear whether these people vote. The students probably do, but the anarchists?" An even bigger uncertainty is whether Nader's association with the movement gains him the support of rank-and-file workers. "Ralph talks about how his campaign has been animated by the spirit of Seattle," Dolan says, "but the question is, does that incite moderates to reject their slavish devotion to the Democratic Party?"

There's another way of posing this question: Does a vote for Nader amount to a vote for Bush? This is the classic progressive dilemma, and as the election draws near, many activists will be caught on its horns. It's significant that most protesters reached by this reporter couldn't say who they would vote for. Much depends on how both Nader and Gore conduct their campaigns-and then there's the unanswerable question of how the protests at both conventions will play. This is the ultimate echo of the '60s.

When my generation went wild in the streets (egged on by the police), we won the media war-and lost the battle for America. We destroyed Hubert Humphrey, whose hypocrisy we rightly detested, and paved the way for Richard Nixon, who in turn laid the groundwork for Ronald Reagan. The consequences of the choices we made are all too evident in retrospect. In fighting for the people, we became their unintended enemy.

Hopefully, these sea turtles are savvier than we were. But that may not be enough. What the movement hasn't yet faced is the bloody resistance we met when our revolution looked like more than an acid flash. Our leaders were assassinated before our eyes. Our best and brightest were shot down by the police, dragged by the hair down flights of stairs, clubbed and gassed into a frenzy. For all our determination to smash the past and make the future up, we had no tradition to sustain us. At the end of the day, we were exhausted, depressed, and ready for the mercy of the marketplace.

Will the new movement-with its leaderless structure and its penchant for singing "Amazing Grace"-be spared this violent initiation? Don't count on it. Under the smile of the CEO who knows the words to "Come Together," there are fangs. Threaten him and he will bite. To survive requires more than a gift for acronyms and analysis. The movement needs to become a culture, as deeply grounded as the one that enabled civil-rights protesters to overcome. That means more than raising a ruckus. It means using the past to make the right decisions through the pain.

What you believe is only the start of the struggle. How you act on that belief is the future you create.

For information about joining the movement, see "Act Up!
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0029/lefkowitz.shtml

Here's How".
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0029/lefkowitz.shtml

Research: Julia Gayduk
Tell us what you think. editor@villagevoice.com

---

Falun Gong, police clash on Tiananmen

USA Today
07/19/00- Updated 09:44 AM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/nwswed01.htm

BEIJING (AP) - Scores of Falun Gong followers raised banners in Tiananmen Square on Wednesday in a burst of protest that provoked a frenzied police response and proved the sect remains a force in China a year after being outlawed.

Police swarmed over groups of followers - middle-aged women and children among them - wresting away banners and knocking protesters to the ground. A uniformed officer locked his arms around a woman's neck, pulling her away. Others were dragged along the ground by their arms or clothes.

All told, police detained more than 100 group members in a 10-minute explosion of seemingly coordinated protests across the vast plaza in central Beijing. Police immediately cleared the square, slightly earlier than scheduled for a midmorning visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

That the protests happened, and in such numbers, showed the popular spiritual movement's resilience despite a year of persecution and a police force on alert for demonstrations this week - the anniversary of the crackdown against the group.

A year ago Thursday, security agents detained dozens of key sect organizers. Group members, tipped off by fellow believers in the upper ranks of the communist government, met the arrests with mass protests. Two days later Chinese leaders banned Falun Gong as a public menace.

A smear campaign in state media, the jailing of thousands of members and pressure on followers to renounce ties to the group have thinned Falun Gong's ranks. But members have persisted in defiant protests, mounting the most sustained public challenge to the Communist Party in 51 years.

Followers have streamed into Beijing this month for protests, and police have picked up at least 200 practitioners from Tiananmen Square every day for the past week, said a Communist Party official involved in security work.

Chinese leaders have ordered police in Beijing and other cities to watch airports and railroad and bus stations to prevent followers from reaching the capital, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Names of practitioners have been distributed to local police stations, the official said. He added that followers who have renounced their ties have been put under surveillance, while those who refused have been detained in police stations.

''Still some have slipped through our net,'' the official said.

The government has called Falun Gong an unprecedented threat to communist rule. It has accused Falun Gong of cheating followers and causing 1,500 deaths, mostly of followers who it said refused medical treatment according to what it claims are the group's teachings.

Founded eight years ago, Falun Gong attracted millions of followers with its blend of slow-motion exercises, meditation and ideas drawn from Buddhism, Taoism and its founder, an ex-government grain clerk. Followers believe practice unleashes energy from a spiritual orb, or Wheel of Law, in the stomach and promotes health, moral living and supernatural powers.

Tuesday's protest seemed triggered by eight followers who boisterously unfurled a yellow banner, its red Chinese characters partly reading ''The Wheel of Law forever turns.'' As police ran to detain the group, other banners emerged from among clumps of followers in other parts of the square.

The police clampdown in Beijing has been complicated by the commitment and discipline of Falun Gong followers. Four in five of those arrested in recent days have refused to tell officers their names or hometowns, making it difficult for city police to file the proper arrest forms, the party official said.

Instead, police have commandeered a stadium in western Beijing to hold the detainees until their hometowns can be determined and they can be shipped off to local detention centers, the official said.

Also Wednesday, a Hong Kong-based rights group reported that Li Zaiji, a 44-year-old sect follower in the northeastern city of Jilin, was beaten to death July 7 while serving a year's sentence in a work camp. Another follower, Wang Peisheng, 68, died the same day, apparently asphyxiating after being held for days in a tight cell with a large number of other people, the Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said.

Their deaths bring to 24 the number of Falun Gong followers confirmed to have died of mistreatment while in detention, the report said.

Although the government has not responded to each alleged death, it has denied Falun Gong followers are mistreated in custody.

---

Lettuce entertain you

Washington Times
July 19, 2000
Inside the Beltway
John McCaslin
http://208.246.212.80/national/inbeltway.htm

Wearing nothing but strategically placed lettuce leaves, a pair of vegetarian Playboy centerfolds are sure to raise eyebrows as they greet congressmen during PETA's meat-free hot dog party today (high noon, guys) outside the Rayburn House Office Building.

Meanwhile, in the congressional courtyard, the American Meat Institute will be holding its annual hot dog lunch, which attracts members of Congress, their staffs, and usually features a retired baseball player or two.

But outside, PETA for once is offering, well, a feast: Playboy playmates Julie McCullough and Kari Kennell, serving vegetarian "Not Dogs" to promote what they call a healthy and humane diet (Independence Avenue entrance, boys).

"Playboy is helping us put the 'T & A' in PETA," Dan Mathews, PETA's director of campaigns, tells Inside the Beltway. "We're expecting quite a crowd, but we can dish it out as well as take it. We'll be loaded down with veggie dogs and expect to sign on plenty of new supporters."

Invitations mailed to members of Congress explain: "You would probably lose your lunch if you knew what actually went into a wiener. A meat hot dog contains every imaginable part of abused animals, including pig stomach, snout, intestines, spleens, and, yes, even lips."

The letter says the three biggest killers of people in the United States - heart disease, cancer and stroke - have been conclusively linked to meat consumption.

PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, advocates vegetarianism to help prevent these diseases, as well as to help end cruelty to animals.

---

USA Today
07/19/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Alabama

Dothan - One of the vans carrying a church group from Minnesota to Alabama went up in flames. The 15 passengers lost their belongings, and one adult and two youths suffered burns in the fire near Nashville. But the group pressed ahead to Dothan to build houses for Habitat for Humanity.

OneList subscribers:

1. NucNews 00/07/19 - Daybook; Bush tour; Nikitin event tomorrow; Peace Action
From: Ellen Thomas <prop1@prop1.org>

2. DOE presents cleanup options
From: magnu96196@aol.com

3. Paducah-plant water pollution could last 7,000 years
From: magnu96196@aol.com

4. Report downplays uranium threat
From: magnu96196@aol.com

5. Shedding nuclear names was survival skill
From: magnu96196@aol.com

6. Contract announcement delayed
From: magnu96196@aol.com

7. Fw: French & British MOX problems
From: "Vina Colley" <vcolley@earthlink.net>

8. K-25 cleanup ongoing for time being
From: magnu96196@aol.com

9. ORNL plans $30 million budget cut
From: magnu96196@aol.com

10. Decision delayed on Y-12 contract
From: magnu96196@aol.com

11. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill providing $1 million
From: magnu96196@aol.com

12. SIGN-ON LETTER: FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE 3 MILE ISLAND COVER UP BY PRESIDENT CARTER, Part 1 Of 2
From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>

13. THREE MILE ISLAND COVER UP BY JIMMY CARTER & RICKOVER SIGNED, NOTORIZED STATEMENT, PART 2 OF 2
From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>

14. The National Security News Service (NSNS)
From: magnu96196@aol.com

15. [OFF TOPIC POST] BUSH AND GORE MAKE ME WANNA RALPH [LONG]
From: df7332@aol.com

16. Monster international Sign-On letter on NMD/BMD/Star Wars Seeks Signatures
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <nonukes@foesyd.org.au>

----------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:44:58 -0400
From: Ellen Thomas <prop1@prop1.org>

NucNews 00/07/19 - Daybook; Bush tour; Nikitin event tomorrow; Peace Action

1) Washington Daybook, by FIND/AFP and The Washington Times. - July 19, 2000 http://www.washtimes.com/national/daybook-2000719213641.htm

10 a.m. - House Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on military capabilities of the People's Republic of China. Location: 2218 Rayburn House Office Building. Contact: 202/225-4151.

10 a.m. - House Budget natural resources and environment task force holds a hearing on fire-safety failures of the Park Service. Location: 210 Cannon House Office Building. Contact: 202/226-7270.

10 a.m. - House Government Reform national security, Veterans Affairs and international relations subcommittee holds a hearing to assess the status of the State Department's strategic and performance-planning process. Location: 2247 Rayburn House Office Building. Contact: 202/225-5074.

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:

Buchanan, Gore and Nader unknown

Bush - Austin TX today 11:15 a.m. - Bush for President Web Site Launch, Austin Children's Museum, 201 Colorado Street, Austin, TX, 512/472-2499

The schedule for Governor Bush's pre-convention tour is as follows. Additional stops may be added:

Friday, July 28: Springdale, Arkansas Joplin, Missouri

Saturday, July 29: Owensboro, Kentucky Louisville, Kentucky Kenton County, Kentucky

Sunday, July 30: Cincinnati, Ohio

Monday, July 31: Dayton, Ohio Columbus, Ohio

On Tuesday, August 1: Charleston, West Virginia Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

On Wednesday, August 2: Philadelphia and to the Convention

------

Tomorrow: An Award Reception for Environmental Heroes: Aleksandr Nikitin and the Bellona Foundation Thursday, July 20 @ 5:30 pm in Room 2172 Rayburn

On Thursday July 20, 2000 at 5:30 pm in Room 2172 Rayburn, the Sierra Club will host an event to honor Mr. Aleksandr Nikitin, an environmental activist from Russia and the Bellona Foundation, a Norwegian environmental organization. You should have already received an invitation to this event from the Sierra Club, which will present Nikitin and Bellona with their highest international honor, the Earthcare Award.

Mr. Nikitin is a former Russian Navy officer who was imprisoned in 1996 by authorities on treason charges for blowing the whistle on the Russian navy's practice of routinely dumping nuclear waste in the Arctic Ocean. He spent 10 months in a St. Petersburg jail. Only recently, Russia's Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Nikitin did not commit espionage or treason and acquitted Mr. Nikitin of all charges. Nikitin worked with Bellona to publish a bleak, groundbreaking report revealing the ecological dangers of Russia's crumbling nuclear submarine fleet.

American, Russian, and international environmental organizations have called on Russian President Putin to re-establish the State Committee for Environmental Protection, which was abolished as an independent agency and placed under the Ministry of Natural Resources. Legislation which passed the House under suspension in June, HR 4249, mandates a study on the threat that decaying Russian submarines and unsafe nuclear waste storage pose to the region and to U.S. National Security.

Both Members and Staff are welcome to attend this event to learn more about the brave work of these environmental heroes and the environmental and proliferation threats surrounding this situation. For more information, please feel free to contact Jason Gross of the International Relations Committee Staff at 225-6735 and David Goldston with Rep. Boehlert's staff at 5-3665.

Sincerely, SAM GEJDENSON, SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

To learn more about Aleksandr Nikitin and the Bellona Foundation please click on http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=15049&sub=1

-------

NOTE: Apologies to Peace Action for overlooking their announcement about the action on Capitol Hill yesterday. Mike Flugennock has posted a videotape of the "Protest Star Wars Scam" Capitol Hill press conference video online: http://flow.mediavac.com/ramgen/sinkers/2000/CapitolHillJul1800.rm RealVideo format, 14 mins 19 secs.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and others join Peace Action, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, World Policy Institute and Womens' Action for New Directions in calling for an end to "defense" industry graft and corruption, rampant militarism and the "Star Wars" scam in a press conference on Capitol Hill.

Photographed and edited by Mike Flugennock, flugennock@sinkers.org .

To inform, to inspire, to amuse, to offend: "Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine" http://www.sinkers.org

------------

DOE presents cleanup options

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:19:12 EDT
From: magnu96196@aol.com
By Jennifer Sacharnoski
http://www.paducahsun.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200007/19+01aX_news.ht ml+20000719+news

Plant cleanup will be costly in either time or money - from 0 money and 7,000 years or $900 million and 15 years.

The U.S. Department of Energy released eight options for the cleanup of groundwater contamination at and near the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, ranging in price from $68 million to $917.8 million and in completion times from 15 to 7,000 years. A presentation of the options followed by a question-and-answer session took place Tuesday night at the Paducah Information Age Park Resource Center.

The first option, "no action," which must be included in the study, would cost nothing and take about 7,000 years to rid the groundwater of all the identified contaminants. The option is used to provide a basis for comparison with other options and is rated a "high residual risk."

The costliest plan would have the contamination reduced at the source and treated in the surrounding areas in about 15 years. No other options estimate a completion time of less than 1,000 years, and only one other option suggests a timetable to clean off-site groundwater in less than 100 years.

"No one wants to spend $900 million, but no one wants to take 2,000 years to complete the cleanup either," DOE site director Don Seaborg said. "We want to find some solution between $100 million and $900 million."

The Feasibility Study for the Groundwater Operable Unit at the plant was prepared to evaluate possible alternatives to the contamination cleanup. The work was performed by Bechtel Jacobs Co. to summarize areas of contamination both off-site and on-site, and to provide the remedial options in detail.

This study is the first step toward eventual cleanup. The next step includes a 90-day feedback period in which the DOE is looking for public comment on the options. Implementation of any decision on any option or combination of options is not expected until the end of next year.

"We are looking to get a sense of what they (members of the public) want us to focus on," said Greg Cook, spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs.

After public comment, the Environmental Protection Agency, DOE and the state of Kentucky will work together to draft the final plan. The final phase will include a budget approval from Congress.

"If any of the alternatives or maybe a combination of the alternatives are selected, we have an obligation to request the complete funds from the Congress," DOE spokesman Walter Perry said. "We want to see what the people see as the best alternative."

Merryman Kemp, a member of the Site Specific Advisory Board, said public views could vary greatly.

"Some of the people will say we need to spend the money," she said. "Others will say it doesn't make any sense to spend $900 million."

She said she did not know which view the majority would take, but she would like an alternative that would ensure the safety of her grandchildren and eventual great-great-grandchildren.

The DOE is asking for feedback from the community concerning the eight alternatives for groundwater contamination cleanup. Copies of the Feasibility Study are available at the McCracken County Public Library and the DOE Environmental Information Center in the West Kentucky Technology Park, 175 Freedom Blvd., in Kevil. The center is open Monday through Thursday from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and on Friday from 7 to 11 a.m. For information call 462-2550. Copies of the study are available for free on CD.

Comments on the study may be sent to Gary Bodenstein at the U.S. Department of Energy, Box 1410, Paducah, KY 42001.

------------

Paducah-plant water pollution could last 7,000 years
Faster cleanup than nature's costs $1 billion

Message: 3
From: magnu96196@aol.com
July 19, 2000
The Courier-Journal
By JAMES MALONE
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0007/19/000719uran.html

PADUCAH, Ky. -- They might shock it, heat it or mix it with ozone -- but polluted ground water around Paducah's uranium plant could take thousands of years to clean up, federal officials said last night.

Any of the experimental technologies proposed for the gaseous diffusion plant's cleanup will be expensive and time-consuming, the Energy Department officials said at a community meeting. What humans polluted in 50 years could take up to 7,000 years to dissipate if nothing is done, engineering estimates show.

The officials and representatives of their cleanup contractor, Bechtel Jacobs Co., spoke at a meeting called to unveil the expensive options to suck toxic trichloroethylene from the water table around the plant. They said completely removing the contaminants could take between 15 and 7,000 years and cost nearly $1 billion.

As part of a cleanup from the legacy of enriching uranium for nearly five decades at the government-owned plant, even the best engineers have been stumped by pesky trichloroethylene. As equipment was cleaned, an estimated 200,000 gallons of the gooey solvent leaked out of sewers and broken pipes into the soil and then into the water table. That in turn contaminated billions of gallons of underground water.

"Think of it like molasses; then picture it spread throughout your carpet," an Energy Department statement said, discussing how the solvent moved underground. And other department documents played down the danger of using the tainted groundwater, saying its cancer threat was below that of smoking or secondhand smoke, skin cancer from the sun or "natural radon in your home."

The eight options for public comment are not set in stone, said Bechtel Jacobs spokesman Greg Cook. They range from doing nothing -- in which the chemicals would naturally degrade over 7,000 years -- to deploying nearly a billion-dollar combination of underground vaporizers, ozone injection, an electrical grid to shock chemicals out of the water and building a vast underground dike that would remove all the chemicals in 15 years.

But the path to the quickest and most costly cleanup also will bring disruption to the surrounding area as hundreds of injection and monitoring wells are drilled on private land and in the popular West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area, which borders the plant.

And with a $917 million price tag spread out over 30 years, it would require far more funding -- about $30 million a year -- than the Energy Department or Congress has proposed to spend.

"We want citizen feedback on the eight alternatives we have laid out," said Walter Perry, an Energy Department spokesman.

The government will take early public comments on the preliminary drafts until Oct. 9 and will take formal follow-up comments for another month after that deadline.

After hearing last night's presentation, Jim Smart, a University of Kentucky engineering professor, said, "It will take a long time to remediate this -- maybe longer than they think, because we don't have the funding."

The pooled solvents have been flowing offsite in three plumes, one of which mingles with the Ohio River about 2.5 miles away. It also was in residential drinking-water wells until the government began providing municipal water to nearby residents in 1990.

----------

Report downplays uranium threat
NRC says surplus items in Paducah well-dispersed

Message: 4
From: magnu96196@aol.com
July 19, 2000
By JAMES MALONE
The Courier-Journal
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0007/19/000719nrc.html

PADUCAH, Ky. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has confirmed that three pieces of surplus equipment at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant each hold enough highly enriched uranium to, in theory, fuel a small uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

In a June 26 report, the federal agency said each piece has more than the "minimum critical mass" of 400 grams, but it said that the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction was remote and that there was no danger to workers or the public.

To begin a chain reaction, the uranium in the Paducah equipment would have to be in an optimal shape and geometric configuration. The NRC report said "there are no credible mechanisms" for that to occur because of the dispersal pattern in the equipment.

Uranium found in nature is inert, but enriched uranium -- which has been processed to increase the concentration of the fissile form of uranium -- can react and is used to fuel nuclear power plants or weapons.

Several weeks ago, the U.S. Energy Department's Paducah cleanup contractor, Bechtel Jacobs Co., would disclose only that the enrichment level "exceeded" 10 percent.

But yesterday spokesman Greg Cook confirmed that figures in the NRC report, showing about six pounds of uranium enriched as high as 57.45 percent, were accurate.

"I don't think we have criticality concerns with the individual units as they sit," Cook said. "There is no danger to workers where it currently sits. They are well-spaced."

The material was discovered as the United States Enrichment Corp. was surveying Energy Department equipment-storage areas. The department owns the 49-year-old Paducah plant and leases the production facilities to USEC to produce commercial nuclear reactor fuel.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended in the report that a 10-foot exclusion zone be established around the equipment and that any openings be covered to prevent contact with water, should sprinklers be activated. In response, a fence was erected last week, Cook said.

Security restrictions preclude identifying where the uranium is stored, Cook said, though it is inside a building. "We do not consider it highly attractive material in terms of what somebody might want to steal," he said.

The Energy Department is discussing with USEC transferring control of the material from the company and fencing it off and controlling access, Cook said. The Paducah plant is not licensed to have enriched uranium higher than 2.75 percent. The equipment in question came from other plants.

Old equipment in the storage areas came under scrutiny during a structural upgrade to make the Paducah plant more earthquake-resistant.

-------

Shedding nuclear names was survival skill

Message: 5
From: magnu96196@aol.com
July 19, 2000
By Frank Munger News-Sentinel staff writer
http://www.knoxnews.com/editorsview/munger/fm07192000.shtml

The World Wide Web has globalized all of us to some extent. I'm reminded of that every time I hear from a reader I might not otherwise, thanks to the magic of online newspapering and electronic mail. Ed Stokley, retired official from the U.S. Department of Energy (whose early career included a stint as telegraph editor at The Knoxville News-Sentinel in the early 1950s), wrote this week about a recent column on the demise of things atomic in Oak Ridge.

In that column, one of the examples I used was the name change at the American Museum of Atomic Energy, which became the American Museum of Science & Energy.

Stokley said he made that decision in 1975 while serving in Washington as assistant director of public affairs for the Energy Research and Development Administration. ERDA, as many will remember, was the federal agency that bridged the change from the Atomic Energy Commission to the current-day DOE.

Here is Stokley's account of what took place and why:

"In ERDA, it quickly became apparent that anything nuclear or associated with it was in jeopardy. The museum already had enough enemies in the old Bureau of the Budget and in certain areas of Congress that it didn't need any more if it was to survive. Thus, I had the name changed to eliminate the word atomic and incorporate the more popular word 'energy' in its title.

"About the same time, I also abolished the agency's scientific abstract journal called 'Nuclear Science Abstracts' and replaced it with 'Energy Abstracts.' "

Thanks for the info, Mr. Stokley.

MANHATTAN MYSTERY: David Hillman of Johnson City wrote recently and included a copy of a letter that his father, Sid Hillman, who worked in Oak Ridge on the Manhattan Project, wrote to his brother, Lt. W.C. Hillman.

The letter, dated March 7, 1945, contains many of the usual niceties of personal correspondence, including an update on family members, etc.

But the letter also contains an intriguing section that reflects the atmosphere of the A-bomb work in Oak Ridge.

David Hillman thought his father's letter might be of particular interest, given the current climate regarding worker illness at the government's nuclear facilities.

Here's an excerpt from the wartime letter:

"... Now to tell you how little anyone knows about this place. To start with, I have a very good friend that worked beside me every day for the last two or three months. On Thursday, we -- 'My Group' -- threw a big banquet and of course we had a grand time and were supposed to work Friday. Well, my friend called in and said he wouldn't be able to work. Still didn't work on Sat., Sun., or Mon. and by Tuesday the supervisor called to see what was wrong and found that he had died on Friday and was buried on Sunday.

"That is only one thing out of hundreds that happens around here that no one knows about. They are really strict and, believe me, this place is guarded so well it has to remain a secret. No one will know what we are making for some time. Probably not until after the war. I sometimes think I am not doing as much as I should be doing, though they seem to think differently and say it is more essential than anything else that could be done. I wonder."

Thanks for sharing that letter, Mr. Hillman.

THE NEW DOE: Given the huge controversy surrounding nuclear recycling and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson's recent decision to halt the release of potentially contaminated scrap, you'd think DOE would want to deal with the issue head-on.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

Dolline Hatchett, a spokeswoman at agency headquarters in Washington, called last week to say she wanted to clarify some information in a story I wrote about Richardson's decision. She said she wanted me to talk with a senior DOE official.

Sure enough, Hatchett called back later with Brian Costner on the line. Costner is the secretary's senior policy adviser who served as point man on the rad recycling issue.

As it turns out, Costner wanted to rebut the statements made by U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., who accused Richardson of making a "nonsensical decision" that ignored good science and pandered to special interests in an election year. The DOE official said he wanted to give some background to the story's estimates on job losses -- information attributed to Wamp.

However, Hatchett and Costner insisted that the information be off the record, without attribution to the secretary's key adviser. Hatchett said that was departmental policy.

When I refused to conduct a source-less interview, saying it would be a disservice to readers in this instance, Hatchett said we'd have to cut the telephone session short.

On that particular point, I didn't disagree.

Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News-Sentinel. He can be reached at 423-482-9213 or at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This column is also available on the Web at www.knoxnews.com/editorsview/munger/

-----------

Contract announcement delayed

Message: 6
From: magnu96196@aol.com
July 19, 2000
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/12021.shtml

The announcement of a new contract to manage the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant will be delayed by about a month, a U.S. Department of Energy spokesman said Tuesday. David Page of DOE's Oak Ridge office said the evaluation board needed more time to study the proposals. Four teams submitted proposals, and Page said each of the teams is still in the running.

Originally, a contract announcement was scheduled for July 31, to be followed by a 60-day transition, with the contract winner taking over operation of the warhead factory on Oct. 1.

Page said the contract award now is expected in late August. He said there still will be a 60-day transition period, so the takeover date will be changed accordingly.

Y-12 currently is operated by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, which submitted a new bid in partnership with Duke Engineering.

Other bidders include teams headed by BWX Technologies/Bechtel National; Westinghouse; and EG&G.

Roane business park under way

Highway Inc., of Cookeville was to begin clearing the site and preparing it for the infrastructure for the Roane Regional Business and Technology Park near Interstate 40 and the Loudon County line.

Roane County's other industrial park is 80 percent developed.

The Regional Business and Technology Park has 655 acres, with 570 that are suitable for development. The park will have a park-like atmosphere with a 61-acre greenbelt to preserve the natural surroundings and historical landmarks in the area as much as possible.

-----------

French & British MOX problems
Quake fear for nuclear plant

Message: 7
From: "Vina Colley" <vcolley@earthlink.net>
GUARDIAN [London],
Wednesday July 19, 2000
David Hearst in Paris

The French nuclear safety inspectorate has demanded the closure of a key nuclear reprocessing plant in the south of the country because it is built on an earthquake zone which seismologists fear could soon become active. One of the jewels in the crown of France's once unchallenged nuclear industry, the plant at Cadarache, on the mouth of the Rhone, has become a massive liability, producing mixed oxide fuel for the German nuclear industry, which Berlin says it is going to phase out.

After five years of fruitless negotiation between safety inspectors and plant operators, details of an official seismological survey have been leaked to a watchdog group in Paris.

The survey reveals a "significant growth" of activity in the area around the plant since December 1993. The last big earthquake in the area was in 1913, but the surveyors say the fault line is capable of generating a major earthquake once in a hundred years.

A map shows fault lines running on three sides of the plant on the river Durance, a tributary of the Rhone. Without challenging the seismologists' findings, Cogema, the operator of the installation, has offered to encase the plutonium treatment plant in a concrete shell. But the inspectors say this is fraught with difficulty.

Far from responding to the safety concerns, Cogema has increased its production of mixed oxide fuel (MOX ) to 40 tonnes a year, five times greater than at the Sellafield plant in Britain.

The director of the nuclear safety inspectorate, André-Claude Lacoste, told Cogema that it would have to close the plant "shortly after the year 2000". He said the closure date should be "definitive and non-negotiable" and complained about the delay and obfuscation that his inspectorate had encountered. He told Cogema in a letter: "I consider the situation unacceptable."

Cogema threatened to transfer the production of MOX to another southern plant, at Marcoule, itself at the centre of an environmental row.

The threat infuriated the safety inspectorate, to the extent that one of its top officials scribbled the comment "blackmail" on the Cogema letter before sending it to the French environment minister, Dominique Voynet, who is the leading Green minister in the government.

Photocopies of the increasingly terse correspondence also arrived at the offices of a Paris-based nuclear watchdog, the World Information Service on Energy .

Mycle Schneider, the group's director, argued: "The fact that this has been going on for five years without the industrial side of the nuclear industry having come up with a clear answer to the requests of the official safety authority, means that the French goverment has to step in and seize control."

The group claims that the Cadarache plant, built in 1962 to service France's now defunct Superphénix fast breeder reactor programme, has never been properly licensed, making it unclear which minister has the authority to close it. But it believes that the writing is on the wall for European production of mixed oxide fuel, which was one way of using the quantities of plutonium produced in spent fuel rods at civil reactors.

Cadarache takes the plutonium separated from the spent fuel rods at the main reprocessing plant at La Hague in northern France and converts it into MOX fuel which services two-thirds of Germany's nuclear reactors.

France: Disposal of spent MOX fuel would present new problems for an eventual geologic repository, according to an expert committee reviewing the country's high-level and long-lived nuclear waste management programme. The National Assessment Committee (CNE) says that the characteristics of MOX, and the high burnups that EDF envisages for it, differentiate it from spent uranium oxide fuel. Spent MOX would require a longer period of interim storage under water and at least 50 years of above-ground storage before being put in a repository. (NuclearFuel, 10 July, p1)

--

A-PLANT ROW LOOMS

NORTH WEST EVENING MAIL [Barrow, near Sellafield]
18 July 2000 NEW

A Whitehall row is delaying a crucial government strategy for tackling Sellafield's growing stockpile of nuclear waste. Two ministers are arguing over whether a long-awaited consultation paper should consider the future of reprocessing at the plant.

Environment Minister Michael Meacher is insisting that any proposals to deal with existing waste must consider the process that produces it.

But Energy Minister Helen Liddell has pledged that reprocessing will continue, despite the crisis facing BNFL after the suspension of overseas orders.

And she is adamant that the Green Paper should concentrate exclusively on what to do with the existing stockpile.

The document was due to be released in the spring, but could now be delayed beyond next week's break-up of the Commons for the summer recess.

It follows the recommendation 16 months ago by a House of Lords committee that the waste be buried underground in a repository.

That raised the prospect of a dump near Sellafield where 65 per cent of intermediate level waste and more than 50 tonnes of plutonium are stored.

----

WHITEHAVEN NEWS,
13 July 2000
RADICAL LOOK AT SELLAFIELD

COPELAND'S Liberal Democrats want to see a change in direction at Sellafield because they fear fuel reprocessing could end bringing a major threat to West Cumbrian jobs. They are calling for urgent Government action to strengthen West Cumbria's economy by supporting and funding radical new initiatives. Otherwise the group is convinced that the area's long term future is bleak.

In a discussion paper sent to Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers as well as to BNFL and local civic leaders, the Liberal Democrats have asked for a long-term strategic change of direction "to ensure that employment at Sellafield and in the surrounding community is sustained."

Local party secretary Roger Putnam said: "We want to see employment at Sellafield not only maintained but increased.

"If, as we believe is becoming clear, there is no long-term future for reprocessing, then an alternative strategy must be developed now.

"We want the Government to encourage BNFL to change direction, turning Sellafield in the years ahead into an internationally-recognised centre of energy research and development, exploring and testing leading-edge technologies for green energy generation and use.

"We believe that the effect in this area of ending reprocessing will be devastating unless action is taken now to generate new sources of employment. Skilled and well-paid jobs are quick and easy to loose, but hard and slow to create."

The Lib-Dems three-point plan put to Government is:-

A long-term programme of Government investment in new energy technologies at Sellafield

A major expansion of further and higher education in West Cumbria including the foundation of a technological university college specialising in energy studies

A clear decision to retain BNFL in public ownership

"Other countries are making massive investment in the areas of developing and marketing new energy technologies.

"We would be foolish not to devote substantial resources to developing and testing them in this country and in my view Sellafield could and should be a centre of excellence."

Harry Davidson, chairman of Copeland Lib Dems, said: "We believe that every setback can be turned to advantage and that this principle applies at Sellafield today but we must face the situation with realism, vision and creativity."

-------

House of Commons (British Parliament)
EARLY DAY MOTION (non-legislative)
EDM 976 THE OSPAR CONVENTION AND RADIOACTIVE DISCHARGES INTO THE SEA
13.07.00
David Chaytor MP (Labour)

That this House notes the legally binding vote at the June 2000 meeting of the OSPAR Convention in favour of a review of radioactive discharges into the sea with a view to ending the reprocessing and adopting the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel; further notes that the vote was carried nem con with the support of 12 European countries (including Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Spain all of whom currently contract for the reprocessing of spent fuel); is aware of the recent statement supported by members of the Japanese Diet critical of the Anglo-Japanese plutonium trade; and urges the Government to recognise the widespread opposition to the environmental and economic impact of nuclear reprocessing throughout Europe and the growing opposition from the general public and parliamentarians in Japan, accept its responsibility as sole shareholder in British Nuclear Fuels Limited and actively support a policy of renegotiation of existing reprocessing contracts into new contracts for the dry storage of spent nuclar fuel.

-----

EXCITE NEWS
Tough targets needed for nuclear phase-out
Wednesday 19 July 2000

The phasing out of nuclear power stations after 2010 will require a toughening of the UK's targets for reducing greenhouse gases, science minister Lord Sainsbury of Turville has conceded.

Liberal Democrat Lord Ezra, a former National Coal Board chairman, warned at question time in the HOUSE OF LORDS: "Whereas the Government have a demanding objective for 2010 and we may get somewhere near it, the problem after that date, with the withdrawal of nuclear stations, is very much more serious. We ought to be planning for that from now."

Lord Sainsbury, who had earlier promised an autumn response on the climate change programme, replied: "The target for 2010 is very demanding. The situation after that becomes even more difficult, particularly on the assumption of the rundown of nuclear energy."

-------

ELECTRONIC TELEGRAPH,
Saturday 15 July 2000
Saturday Profile: The catalyst of nuclear change

Sophie Barker penetrates the shield around BNFL boss Norman Askewto find what makes him react

NORMAN ASKEW is late. Annoying, but not a sacking offence. Not as bad as, say, four bored workers not bothering to measure the diameter of Japan-bound mixed oxide fuel pellets and filling in a safety form with made-up measurements, the problem that faced Askew as the new chief executive of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL).

The workers at BNFL's flagship Sellafield plant were fired. Unfortunately, the regulatory inspectors who uncovered the "falsification of data" in February found that this episode was not an isolated incident. It was symptomatic of a safety management system on the verge of collapse at one of the world's two largest nuclear services companies.

In the latest installment in this appalling saga, BNFL this week agreed to take back the suspect fuel and pay Kansai Electric £40m compensation in return for resuming relations with Japan - its most important overseas customer.

Waiting for Askew in a Sellafield meeting room, I am entertained, for want of a better word, by his "transformation team" - four down-to-earth Northerners who have the daunting task of edging the BNFL tanker around. This delicate process means addressing the nuclear regulator's 43 recommendations point by point. These range from improving plant labelling to introducing a simpler corporate reporting structure.

After piling on all this, the regulator's list adds a request to avoid "initiative overload" and "minimise the impact of the workload on management".

Askew finally sweeps in, fresh from a meeting with his chairman, Hugh Collum, looking pale, exhausted and clutching a bunch of papers. He does not look like a manager whose workload has been minimised. "This job is not a burden. It doesn't weigh me down," he assures me.

We have 40 minutes before he must return to Collum for a three-hour session, with the transformation team, to survey progress so far, "line by line". "Then we'll have a drink down the pub and bullshit and be scandalous to one another," Askew says, breaking into a hamster-cheeked chuckle. That's before he catches some sleep, wakes up at six and faces another day.

"I am seeing 750 people in a three-and-a-half-hour session tomorrow. I must have seen 2,500 people in meetings since I took the job. It's so important for staff who ask 'what's the bugger like?' not to find out second hand. They can see the bugger for themselves."

Even those among Sellafield's 10,000 workers who have yet to meet the "bugger" can't have failed to notice his impact. They are now threatened with instant dismissal for breaking the 40mph speed limit around the plant and are subjected to random alcohol and drugs tests. The whole site is littered with cartoons about "elephants never forgetting" and framed photocopies of Askew's autograph - he has very publicly signed up to BNFL's official response to the regulator's recommendations.

Askew likes words like "bugger", "damn" and "bloody", and hates words like "bumf" and "spin". "Life's too short to talk in fantasy. People have got to be frank and straight with you, otherwise you are trying to solve problems that are not there," he tells me, gesticulating with his pencil. Those who have worked with him testify to his ability to speak plainly. Hence his policy of explaining BNFL's strategy to everyone on the company's 32 UK and US sites.

"Norman leads from the front," says Bob Davies, Askew's former finance director at East Midlands Electricity, who succeeded him as chief executive and is now chief executive of transport company Arriva. "You can stand him up in front of a load of workers and he won't mince his words and will engage in conversations with them." The flipside is that any staff member who disappoints Askew will know about it sharpish, and in colourful language.

Unfortunately for me, "journalist" is another Askew hate-word. This Preston Grammar School boy conveniently manages to lose his plain-speaking, salt-of-the-earth Northern instinct when it comes to talking about his private life. "I hate these profile articles. Seriously, I do. There are many people could do what I do. I know it. Therefore, the only reason I am talking to you is to get the message across that we are changing things." Former colleagues say he is a terrible networker and shies away from the trappings of a big ego - big house, big car, flash holidays, famous friends.

As a result, whenever I ask a personal question, Askew very obviously fails to answer it. Instead, he tells me for the second or third time about the benefits of bringing Sellafield under one line manager and the importance of relying on his team - Askew's similarly straight-talking colleagues-cum-drinking mates. "Putting third-rate people in charge is a cardinal sin; it really puts my teeth on edge. People here are doing difficult things. It's not simple engineering," he says.

So let's cut the spin, then Norman - what do you do when you aren't living, breathing and eating BNFL? I get a sanitised version, a cut-down Who's Who, of his hobbies and family commitments: b Preston, of a painting contractor; m Dorothy, one s, two d; recreations: golf, fell-walking; address: North Derbyshire. His son says he plays golf with the clod-hopping instincts of a fell walker.

But his life is not quite as boring as it sounds. Dorothy Askew is not plain-old Derbyshire Dot. She is half Greek Dot, the product of a British soldier who fell in love overseas and returned with his prize to what was Britain's crumbling cotton industry in 1950s Lancashire.

When I ask him to relate his first encounter with the apparently equally plain-speaking Dot, Askew blushes, admits he is getting all "sentimental" and threatens to burst into tears. "We met at Sunday school when I was 12 or 13," he says coyly, adding: "But if you write that, she will kill you." So enamoured of our Norman was Dot that she followed him through sixth form to Durham University. Those who know the couple say that Norm and Dot are inseparable.

This helped at the time he moved to America when he switched from East Midlands to become chief executive of its sister company Virginia Power, with a brief to introduce the electricity group to a competitive marketplace. Askew interjects that "following him there" is not the way Dot would put it.

His accent bears no trace of the two-year Virginian stint, and his predilection for no-bullshit frankness cannot have sat well with America's have-a-nice-days. But the snappy, can-do business culture suited him down to the ground. At his new employer, his every decision must be approved by the Government, and this one is not renowned for plain speaking. "I have got to learn a bit of patience. When I know what we should do, I want to go ahead and do it. The Government has put up with me going: 'Let's do it, come on, come on'," he says impatiently.

If he manages to turn the tanker around within two years, Askew's prize will be the part-privatisation of BNFL. That is unless dealing with the energy ministers (currently Helen "name and shame" Liddell) has not overwhelmed his finger-snapping private-sector instincts by then.

"This is the biggest management challenge of my life - and it's not just 10pc bigger. Defeat is not an option," Askew says defiantly. I could almost see him glowing.

8 July 2000: [International] UK to take back Japan's nuclear fuel
28 May 2000: British Nuclear Fuels faces bankruptcy
19 April 2000: Executives ousted as Sellafield tries to improve safety
16 April 2000: Sellafield to sack 45 supervisors
5 March 2000: BNFL goes critical
19 February 2000: BNFL chief determined to stay despite damning safety report
18 December 1999: BNFL in move to reassure Japanese
25 July 1999: Askew tipped for NatPower

Susan Gordon, Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
www.ananuclear.org
1914 N 34th, Suite #407,
Seattle, WA 98103
ph 206-547-3175 fax 206-547-7158
ANA is a national alliance of organizations working to address issues of nuclear weapons production and waste clean-up.

--------

K-25 cleanup ongoing for time being

Message: 8
From: magnu96196@aol.com
July 19, 2000
by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff
http://www.oakridger.com/

It's business as usual for BNFL Inc., its Oak Ridge cleanup project and the 600-plus workers employed locally by the company and its partners.

David Campbell, spokesman for BNFL headquarters, said the company continues to honor its contract to clean up three gaseous diffusion processing plants at the Oak Ridge K-25 site despite Energy Secretary Bill Richardson's suspension last week of the release of potentially contaminated scrap metals from Department of Energy facilities.

"We don't exactly know what the suspension means," Campbell said. "We've had no conversations with DOE."

Campbell said BNFL representatives tried to contact DOE officials after last week's announcement, but department authorities have yet to respond.

The suspension of metal recycling was announced Thursday in a press release from Richardson. It stated the suspension is part of a new policy aimed at ensuring contaminated materials are not recycled into consumer products and at improving management of scrap materials at DOE sites.

Richardson added the suspension will remain in effect until DOE sites can confirm that recycled metal would contain "no detectable contamination from departmental activities."

Locally, it appears BNFL will be most affected by the suspension.

BNFL's contract, awarded in 1997, requires the company dismantle, remove and decontaminate the process equipment and support systems materials within the three gaseous diffusion plant buildings.

A provision in the contract allows the company to recycle the low-level radioactive metals and keep the money from sales of the metals. When the contract between DOE and BNFL was announced, the company projected it would receive about $55 million from the sale of recycled metal.

BNFL is removing more than a million and a half pounds of materials from the three buildings on a weekly basis.

"It's a huge, huge job," Campbell said.

As for those working on the Oak Ridge cleanup, Campbell said he could not specify how many jobs might be affected by the suspension. However, he did say more than 600 people are employed through BNFL and its partners on this project.

And, until BNFL hears otherwise from DOE, the company is conducting "business as usual," Campbell said.

Dolline Hatchett, a spokesman for DOE headquarters, confirmed Wednesday morning that no talks between BNFL and DOE have occurred yet. Hatchett said she anticipates those talks occurring "very soon," but said no date has been set.

-----

ORNL plans $30 million budget cut

Message: 9
From: magnu96196@aol.com
July 19, 2000
by Paul Parson Associated Press
http://www.oakridger.com/

In keeping with its goal to reduce costs, UT-Battelle announced Tuesday a plan to cut operating costs for Oak Ridge National Laboratory by $30 million over the next two years.

ORNL Director Bill Madia, in an e-mail to ORNL staff Tuesday, stated, "I am firmly convinced that these actions are necessary for ORNL to grow."

ORNL's estimated annual indirect operating cost is $237 million. Those costs have to be reduced by approximately $30 million over the next two years for the lab to be more competitive.

Jeff Smith, deputy for operations at ORNL, said this morning the plan is to cut costs by $20 million during the 2001 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, and $10 million for the 2002 fiscal year.

"Our goal is to deal with as much of it as we can during the first year," Smith said. He added it would be extremely difficult to cut the $30 million during one fiscal year.

To make the cuts, Madia has commissioned eight groups to determine cost reduction recommendations and identify the associated effects with each. Those recommendations are due by Aug. 15.

These cost reductions were a vital part of UT-Battelle's proposal that won the contract to manage ORNL. However, the reductions may come at a price.

"We do believe the targets we've set will have some staff impacts," Smith said. Those impacts -- potential layoffs -- could be announced in September.

----------

Decision delayed on Y-12 contract

Message: 10
From: magnu96196@aol.com
July 19, 2000
by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff
http://www.oakridger.com/

Tick-tock, tick-tock -- the wait continues.

The announcement of what company will get the management and operation contract for the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant has been delayed until late August, according to Department of Energy spokesman David Page.

Although DOE won't set a specific date for the announcement, Page confirmed Tuesday afternoon the delay was at the request of the Source Evaluation Board, which is assessing the proposals of the four competing companies.

The announcement was expected to be announced by the end of July or the first of August.

Page said the contract delay will not affect the 60-day transition period for the new company, which means the start-up day will be changed. It was originally set for Oct. 1, the beginning of the fiscal year for the federal government.

The four companies in the running for the five-year Y-12 management contract are:

Oak Ridge Defense Systems (a partnership between Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Duke Engineering and Services and TENERA);

Westinghouse Government Services;

Defense Operations of East Tennessee (a partnership between EG&G Technical Services Inc., Brown & Root Services, M.H. Chew and Associates Inc., Informatics Corp. and Arthur D. Little);

and BWXT-Y-12 (a partnership between Bechtel National Inc. and BWX Technologies Inc.). Calls were placed to representatives from the companies, and spokesmen for three of the companies were available for comment. All the representatives said they were aware of the announcement delay.

Robert Campbell with Westinghouse said his company is anxiously waiting to find out who'll obtain the contract. He added Westinghouse is ready to start doing business if selected.

Stuart Nordberg with BWX said he also had heard about the delay. He said BWX and its partner Bechtel Jacobs understand extensions can happen.

Dianne Knippel of Lockheed Martin, which is currently operating Y-12, said the delay does not affect operations.

"Things are moving forward," she said.

Y-12 is a manufacturing facility in DOE's nuclear weapons complex. It consists of 811 acres, spanning 2.5 miles, with some 250 buildings that house about seven-million square feet of laboratory, research and development, machining and storage areas. Y-12 is in Bear Creek Valley, within the Oak Ridge city limits.

In a similar situation, DOE's Pantex Plant, near Amarillo, Texas, is also involved in a management and operation contract bidding process. Four companies were vying for the contract, but officials recently narrowed the bidders down to two there.

Officials recently narrowed the list to two competitors -- Day & Zimmerman Inc., parent company of Pantex contractor Mason & Hanger Corp., and a three-tiered group headed by BWX.

However, unlike the Pantex contract situation, officials for DOE operations in Oak Ridge say no bidders here have been eliminated.

--------

Committee approves cleanup bill
The Senate Appropriations Committee also approved a bill providing $1 million for an emergency response system in Paducah.

Message: 11
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:06:37 EDT
From: magnu96196@aol.com
http://www.paducahsun.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200007/19+01aY_news.html+20000719+news

WASHINGTON--Legislation calling for increased funding for cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant moved one step closer Tuesday to final approval in the U.S. Senate. The bill, approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, allocates $78 million from the Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund that was established when the uranium enrichment industry was privatized almost two years ago.

Also included is $33 million for a depleted uranium conversion plant that will be used to recycle more than 60,000 cylinders of depleted uranium. The figure represents an increase of $9 million over previous funding. Sen. Mitch McConnell requested the funding.

The bill must still be approved on the Senate floor, after which a House-Senate conference committee would work out differences between the Senate bill and a version already approved by the House.

The bill also includes $1.75 million for an epidemiological study of workers at the Paducah plant and contains language urging the U.S. Department of Energy to extend lung screening to include all current workers.

The appropriations panel also approved $27.76 million for construction of a new lock at Kentucky Dam and $53.1 million for continued construction of the Olmsted lock and dam on the Ohio River between Ballard County and Olmsted, Ill.

The committee also approved another bill of local interest that provides $1 million for an emergency response system in Paducah. The funding would allow Paducah and McCracken County to complete the installation of the Public Safety Mobile Data System, which allows police and other emergency personnel to share and coordinate information including 911 calls and criminal records.

In still another funding bill, the Senate has approved $1 million for the Clark's River National Wildlife Refuge. Half the money would be for land purchase and half to build a storage barn and visitors' center.

----------

Message: 12
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:20:52 -0400
From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>

SIGN-ON LETTER:
FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE 3 MILE ISLAND COVER UP BY PRESIDENT CARTER, Part 1 Of 2

Dear Friends, Please SIGN-ON to the letter below which calls on President Carter to hold a press conference with the 1,990 victims of the Three Mile Island Accident now suing, Dr Rosalie Bertell and her colleagues from the public sector[NO NRC or DOE personnel] of President Carter's Blue Ribbon Panel convened to investigate the Three Mile Island accident and finally reveal the complete truth about the full nature and extent of the accident.

Please forward this SIGN-ON LETTER to other lists and to other individuals and NGOs.

I will be posting this SIGN ON LETTER on a regular basis and engaging in a faxing campaign to President Carter to try to get President Carter to finally disclose all the facts. If you live outside of the USA please realize that such a disclosure would probably have ramifications for all commercial nuclear reactors throughout the world, not just Three Mile Island or any of the other reactors in the United States.

In the meantime, please fax President Carter at: 404-331-0283

You can also, after you fax him, mail the fax to him at:

President Carter
The Carter Center
1 Copenhill 453 Freedom Parkway
Atlanta, Ga. 30307 USA

PLEASE SEND ALL SIGN-ONS TO ME, BILL SMIRNOW, AT: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com

Dear President Carter,

We, the undersigned, call on you to ask that you `hold a press conference and tell the world what you had originally intended to about the Three Mile Island Accident. That is, just how extensive the radiological releases and the full extent and nature of the accident were and that your former mentor, Admiral Hyman Rickover strongly encouraged you to not tell the complete truth as to just how dangerous the accident really was.

I have spoken with Jane Rickover, daughter-in-law of Admiral Rickover, in depth a number of times and have read her signed, notorized statement [http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/rickover.html] made July 18, 1986 in the wake of the Chernobyl catastrophe. This statement, corroborated by what Ms. Rickover has told me herself and the testimony of several pro-industry nuclear employees and scientists who have independantly contacted me, some sworn to secrecy, all indicate that the accident at Three Mile Island was much more extensive and dangerous than the American and world public were ever lead to believe.

In addition to this, the growing number of leukemias, other cancers and deaths that are appearing in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area cry out for your publiclly addressing this issue. This is both your moral and legal responsibility not only to the victims of the Three Mile Island accident and their families but to the world which now has 433 commercial nuclear power reactors operating,103 of them in the United States alone, anyone of which could melt down at any time bringing Chernobyl like or even more catastrophic results to humanity. Now is the time for you to tell the world just what really happened at Three Mile Island.

In addition to Ms. Rickover's signed, notorized statement and repeated personal corroboartion of said statement, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, winner of the Right Livelihood Award or alternative Nobel Prize and a reknown biostatistition was among those invited to investigate what really happened at Three Mile Island by your Blue Ribbon Panel. She and some of her colleagues in the public sector of the panel did not have FBI clearance and access to certain information which might prove to be extremely valuable to her and those of her colleagues without such clearance in determining the true nature and extent of the accident. When Dr Bertell raised this issue of security clearance and access to information and one of her colleagues also without such security clearance raised a similar, related question to that part of the panel staffed with NRC and DOE officials, this was enough to have the entire panel dissolved by Dr. Kemmeny, one of the key people on the panel who the final report was named after.

This all appears in Dr. Bertell's signed, notorized statement of July 10, 1998 at: http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/bertell.html

A recent study by Dr Joseph Mangano shows that the closing of 5 commercial nuclear reactors in the United States was accompanied by a statistically significant drop in infant mortality: http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/infant.html The most vulnerable segment of our population are the ones that have and continue to suffer the most. They need and deserve not to be KILLED by the commercial nuclear industry. You have the information, responsibility, and media access to simply tell the truth about the entire nature of the Three Mile Island accident. This is exactly what you had originally intended to do before Admiral Rickover convinced you to hide the true nature of the accident from the public.

Once again, we implore you to exercise your legal and moral responsibility and to hold a press conference with many of the key players like Dr Bertell and her colleagues on this dissolved panel and the 1,990 residents of the Three Mile Island area who are suing over adverse health effects they have suffered. We call on you in this press conference to tell the people of the United States and the world exactly what the full nature of the Three Mile Island accident was and continues to be.

Please respond to me at the contact information below:

Most Sincerely/Warmest Regards, Mr. William Smirnow

Mr. William Smirnow
168 Maple Hill Road
Huntington, New York 11743 USA
Phone:631-421-0836 Fax:631-421-0818

-----------

Message: 13
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:28:01 -0400
From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>

THREE MILE ISLAND COVER UP BY JIMMY CARTER & RICKOVER SIGNED, NOTORIZED STATEMENT, PART 2 OF 2

Friends,

Yesterday, July 18, 2000 was the 14th anniversary of Admiral Hyman Rickover's daughter-in-law, Jane Rickover's signed notorized statement on President Carter's Cover Up Of the Three Mile Island Accident. Please keep this in mind as I circulate the SIGN-ON LETTER to lobby Jimmy Carter to finally tell the truth about the full extent and nature of the accident.

-Bill Smirnow

http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/rickover.html

Admiral Rickover's Statement

The following statement was signed by Jane Rickover, daughter-in-law of Admiral Hyman Rickover, "father" of the nuclear navy. It was notorized by William Lamson July 18, 1986. Jane Rickover has verified the authenticity of the document and the events described in it.

"In May, 1983, my father-in-law, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, told me that at the time of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, a full report was commissioned by President Jimmy Carter. He [my father-in-law] said that the report, if published in its entirety, would have destroyed the civilian nuclear power industry because the accident at Three Mile Island was infinitely more dangerous than was ever made public. he told me that he had used his enormous personal influence with President Carter to persuade him to publish the report only in a highly "diluted" form. The President himself had originally wished the full report to be made public.

In November, 1985, my father-in-law told me that he had come to deeply regret his action in persuading President Carter to suppress the most alarming aspects of that report.

[Signed] Jane Rickover

Jane Rickover appeared before me and swore as to the truth of the above statement.

Dated at Toronto this 18th day of July A.D. 1986
[Signed] William F. Lamson
William F. Lamson Q.C. Notary Public for the Province of Ontario

-------

The National Security News Service (NSNS)

Message: 14
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:46:55 EDT
From: magnu96196@aol.com
http://www.publicedcenter.org/nsns.html

The National Security News Service (NSNS) works to increase and improve the major news media´s coverage of intelligence, arms trade, arms control, military, and national security stories. The News Service's original and exclusive investigative stories expose secret arms sales, mercenary armies, the dangers posed by new nuclear weapons and proliferation, wasteful military spending and official malfeasance. Our staff relies on a network of inside sources as well as government documents, whistle blowers and Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover major national security stories.

Recent National Security News Service stories include:

-- A Rare Look at the Arms Trade

The Discovery Channel, on July 12, 1999, broadcast a rare look into the life and business of the world's major arms dealers. The one-hour documentary, produced with extensive assistance from the News Service, boasts exclusive interviews with Monzer Al-Kassar and Sarkis Soghanalian.

-- The New Chinese Threat: Made in America

China's newest anti-shipping missile, the C-802, can penetrate American ships' vaunted Aegis radar system from ranges up to 120 miles. The Chinese have licensed production of the weapon to Iran, which has produced more than 200, changing forever the balance of power in the Persian Gulf. The story of how a French company - and its American subsidiary - provided key parts and technology for this missile is a case study in weapons proliferation at its worst. The News Service unraveled this strange tale, which appeared in The Washington Post on April 3, 1999 in an article entitled "Tracking Arms, a Study in Smoke."

The missile appears to be based on a copy of an Israeli missile called the Sampson, developed at the Army's Aberdeen, Maryland laboratory in the 1980s. The Israelis routinely do joint defense projects with the Chinese. U.S. defense experts are most concerned because the missile has a very sophisticated rocket engine and seeker head - beyond the technical capability of both the Chinese and the Israelis. The News Service established that both those devices are being supplied by a French company, Labinal. That firm has an American subsidiary, Microturbo, which operates a turbo-pump factory in Texas. We are not sure whether these U.S.-made pumps have been used in the C-802. However, the sale of the pumps, whether made in the U.S. or France, may violate embargoes restricting sales of such devices to both Iran and China.

The C-802 is a cruise type missile that, at $60,000 a copy, can cripple a $5 billion carrier. The U.S. AEGIS anti-missile defenses aboard U.S. ships are ineffective against it. (See Bill Curtis' story on "Investigative Reports," 1997, entitled "Buy Now, Test Later"). The United States missed an opportunity to get one of the missiles to see what made it tick because the CIA did not want to do business with the arms dealer who offered it for cost.

-- Lost Opportunities

U.S. News and World Report ran a feature story on the NSNS investigation into a CIA mission for peace that died with former CIA director William Casey. With tensions as high as they are right now between North and South Korea, it is hard to imagine that the United States was very close to brokering a historic peace agreement. But that was the case when Casey sent secret emissaries to North Korea in 1987. Shortly after the plans for peace were negotiated, William Casey died of cancer. The iniative died as well.

-- H-Bomb Alley: Nuclear weapons on America's Highways

The stretch of Interstate-40 from Oak Ridge, Tennessee to Amarillo, Texas - called H-bomb Alley by those in the know - is only one of the routes frequented by trucks hauling nuclear weapons and their components. Almost every day, these nuclear convoys travel American highways in unmarked but distinctive semis, with Department of Energy guards riding shotgun. The men and women who guard the convoys are extremely demoralized for a variety of reasons, chiefly the inadequacy of their weapons to repel ambushes, their exposure to radiation hazards, and the duration of their convoy duty (typically 36 hours nonstop). The convoys have been tracked cross-country by Nukewatch, a small group of untrained activists. The guards know that if a loosely organized group of grassroots activists can track the weapons, so could terrorists. Despite the convoys' extreme vulnerability to terrorist ambush, DOE management does not take the guards' fears seriously.

The News Service's investigation revealed widespread radiation exposure, safety and security shortcuts. On March 25, 1998 ABC's "World News Tonight" exposed the weapon shipments for the first time. Despite the shipments' vulnerabilities and the risks guards face daily from radiation and potential terrorist attack, the Energy Department chose to punish the whistleblowers rather than correct the problems.

-- Secret Deals, Awkward Bargain

America's intelligence agencies are willing to do almost anything to obtain potential adversaries' missiles and other weapons; a fact that some old soldiers and spies took to the bank. News Service reporter Roger Charles waded through a morass of bribery and fraud to expose two such men, former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots and Donald Mayes, founder of Vector Microwave Research Corporation. Mayes and Perroots apparently covertly acquired foreign missiles, radar and other weapons on behalf of the CIA and DIA. In the process, they allegedly bribed foreign officials and defrauded the American government. Federal agents raided Vector's offices in late 1997, but the story of corruption within the government's multi-billion dollar black programs would have remained untold except for Charles's diligent reporting. The front-page Washington Post story ran on December 30, 1998.

-- Blinding Lasers

NSNS learned that an American naval officer and a Canadian colleague were injured by a laser attack from a nominally commercial Russian ship. Our investigation revealed that the ship, the Kapitan Man, has had a long and illustrious career as an electronic spy ship. Of more concern, however, was the first documented operational use of a blinding laser, a grisly new weapon whose development in both the United States and Russia we have tracked for several years. While shadowing the Kapitan Man less than ten miles off the coast of Port Angeles, Washington, the men received debilitating and permanent eye injuries which have ended their careers. They were flying in a Canadian military helicopter as part of a joint U.S.-Canadian operation. Neither the American nor Canadian governments wanted to provoke an international incident, and both governments have tried to cover up the attack.

NSNS gave the story to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporations award winning "Fifth Estate" program. The show aired November 17, 1998 across Canada. The News Service also worked with ABC's "20/20" on a piece that aired on February 10, 1999. The "20/20" piece also included information about laser attacks against U.S. helicopters in Bosnia.

-- Espionage

The uncovering of allegations by the New Service that Iraqi nationals were allowed access to sensitive supercomputer-generated missile data at the Army Research Lab at Aberdeen, Maryland resulted in a story that featured on ABC's "20/20" in November 1997. An ongoing massive FBI espionage investigation resulted.

-- Merger Mania

This story described how American taxpayers subsidize the mergers of weapons contractors making billions in profits in a story entitled "Merger Mania" on CBS's "60 Minutes."

-- Mini-nuke

This story exposed the existence of a new American nuclear capability, the B-61-11 earth-penetrating "mini-nuke," which became the subject of a one-hour prime-time documentary broadcast on Hiroshima Day (August 1997) on NHK, the largest TV network in Japan.

If you have any questions or comments about NSNS or story ideas, please contact:
Jeff Moag NSNS Bureau Chief moag@publicedcenter.org

--------

Message: 15
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:32:44 EDT
From: df7332@aol.com

BUSH AND GORE MAKE ME WANNA RALPH
A Letter from Michael Moore to the Non-Voters of America

Dear friends,

DISCLAIMER: If you are planning to vote for Al Gore in November, good for you. Don't let what I'm about to say change your mind because I've been told by all the experts that if you do change your mind based on what I'm about to say, George W. Bush might win the election and I certainly couldn't live with myself if that connoisseur of pharmaceuticals (the kind you snort up your nose or the kind you inject on death row) won, in part, because of a letter I spit out over the Internet.

So let's review -- you like Gore, you vote for Gore. He's a decent guy. I met him last year at some benefit, he came up to me, big hug -- whoa, this veep is no stiff, I thought -- and thanked me for this and that. He even quoted lines from "The Awful Truth" - whoa, scary, I thought, what's he doing watching cable channels above 40 on the box...not much to do on this veep gig, eh?

I told him I admired what he did when he came home to America as a Vietnam Vet and spoke out against the war. That took a lot of courage, I said (his dad lost his Senate seat for being an early opponent of the war).

So, if Al Gore is your man, go for it. In fact, I insist on it, even if you are just throwing your vote away.

What I am about to say, though, is not intended for any Al Gore (or George W.) voters. If you are one, please click off now.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I address this letter to the largest political party in the United States - the 55% of you in the voting public who are so disillusioned with politics and politicians, so sick and tired of all the broken promises, so disgusted with all the b.s. that you have absolutely no intention of voting in November.

You know who you are.

AND YOU ARE THE MAJORITY!

You rule. You are the Non-Voters, all 100 million of you!

Until now, you have been the subject of scorn and ridicule. You've been called apathetic, lazy, ignorant. Your actions have been viewed as unAmerican (I mean, what kind of citizen in the World's Greatest Democracy would not exercise his or her most important and cherished right - the right to freely choose your leader!).

Well, may I be the first to tell you that, not only are you NOT stupid and apathetic, I believe you are smarter than all the rest of us combined. YOU figured it out. YOU uncovered the scam. And YOU had the guts to no longer participate in a lie. Way to go! In 1996, you helped set the all-time American record for lowest turnout ever at a presidential election.

The reason you, the majority, no longer vote in America is because you, the majority, realize there is no real choice on the ballot. The "two" parties both do the bidding of the wealthy and agree with each other on 90% of the issues. They take 90% of their money from people who make over a hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those contributors want passed.

On the ballot this November, you already know there is no contest. The independent Cook Political Report in D.C. last week announced that, out of 435 House seats up for election in November, there are only 47 seats where there is a "true race" between opponents - and, of those, only 14 seats have a race that is even "close" between the two candidates. 14 out of 435!

"Ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent of incumbents running for re-election will be returned to Congress in November," according to the Cook Report.

The Non-Voters already understand this. And they are not going to waste one iota of their day on November 7 driving to some smelly elementary school gymnasium to participate in a Soviet-style election with no friggin' choice on the ballot.

So, to you brave voter-resisters, I say congratulations on your act of civic disobedience! I joined you this primary season and refused to go along with this charade of "choice." Nearly 80% of those of us of voting age - over 160 million Americans - staged a sit-in on our living room couches during this year's primaries. THAT is the great untold story of this election year. How much longer will the punditocracy be able to get away with dismissing this massive no-show as "a sign Americans are content with the booming economy?"

Now that we have made our presence known (you all don't mind me speaking for us, do you? Good. In fact, I'll just assume the currently-vacant mantle of this majority party and serve as your leader until you say otherwise...), it is time to find a way that says, loudly and clearly, just how mad as hell we are and how we are not going to take it anymore. We need to find a way where our vote screams "None of the Above!" A chance to act, like that Chinese guy in Tieneman Square, standing in front of a moving tank and stopping it in its path.

In November, we should find a way to follow in the footsteps of those intelligent Minnesotans who, even thought they could care less about professional wrestling (and even less, I'm sure, for Jesse "The Body"), proved to the world that they not only have a sense of humor, but they know how to stick it to the whole bloody system. Think of just how high their level of anger must have been against the One-Party-With-Two-Heads monopoly! I mean, state government is no joke - somebody's gotta build the roads, run the schools, catch the criminals. You don't want to turn the asylum over to the chief lunatic but, damn it, that's what the people of Minnesota did - just to send a message! Wow. That took some guts.

So, for those of you who weren't going to vote anyway, well...what if you actually did? What if you drove down to that stinky gym where the little shell game behind the pretend curtains is taking place ("Pay no attention to the voters behind the curtains!"), walk in, sign in, take the ballot they hand you, and toss yourselves inside the booth like a political molotov cocktail.

Boom!

"You wanna tell me there's a choice here between two guys who both support NAFTA, WTO, the death penalty, the Cuban embargo, increased Pentagon spending, sleazy HMOs, greedy hospital chains, 250 million guns in our homes, more bombing of Iraq, the rich getting richer and the rest of us declaring bankruptcy?"

Boom!
Not me.
Boom!
I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
KAAAABOOM!

Friends, we are losing our democratic control over our country. We may have already lost it. I hope not. But in the last 20 years of the Reagan administration, Corporate America has merged and morphed itself to such an extent that just a handful of companies now call all the shots. They own Congress. They own us. In order to work for them, we have to take urine tests and lie detectors and wear bar codes on chains around our necks. In order to keep our jobs we have had to give up decent health care, the 8-hour day (and time with our kids), the security that we'll even have a job next year, and any unwillingness we may have to compete with a 14-year old Indonesian girl who gets a dollar a day.

And how frightening (and great) is it that the last place we can freely try to inform and communicate with each other is on this very Web? Six companies run by six men control the majority of the news we now get from newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. One out of every two books is bought at a bookstore owned by one of only two companies. Is it safe in a "free society" to have the sources of our information and mass communication in the hands of just a few wealthy men who have a VESTED interest in keeping us as stupid as possible - or at least in keeping us thinking like them so that we vote for THEIR candidates?

I fear the cement on this new oligarchy of power is quickly drying, and when it is finished hardening, we are finished. The democracy, the one that's supposed to be of, by, and for the people, will cease to exist.

We must not let this happen, no matter how cynical and disgusted we've become at the whole electoral process.

Ralph Nader, to me, represents a chance for us to at least temporarily stop the cement from drying. We need him in there kicking things up, stirring the pot and forcing a real debate about the issues. Whether it's Ralph as Candidate or Ralph as President, he may represent our last hope to get our country back from the clutches of the powerful few.

I am not writing these words lightly. I am hoping to sound a siren and rally the majority who, for good reason, have given up - but might just have it in them to find the will for one last fight against the bastards.

Can Ralph win? Well, stranger things have happened in the past decade. C'mon, think about it, not a single one of us ever thought we'd see the Berlin Wall come down or Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa. After those two things happened, I joined a new school of thought that said ANYTHING was possible. Jesse Ventura started with 3% in the polls and won. Ross Perot in '92 started with 6% and, after proving to everyone that he was certifiably insane, still got nearly 20% of the vote.

Ralph already has between 7% and 10% in the polls - before he's done any serious campaigning. He's gone from 3% to 8% in my home state of Michigan. These are amazing numbers and the pundits and lobbyists and Republicrats are running scared. Hey, you like to watch scared Republicrats running? Tell a pollster you're voting for Ralph.

Now, look, before you all send me a lot of mail about how weird Ralph is 'cause he doesn't own a car or is a "sell-out" 'cause he's got a few million dollars, let me say this: I used to work out of his office, and Ralph is definitely one of a kind. In a future letter I will write of those experiences but, for now, let's just agree that Ralph is at least half as crazy as Jesse Ventura - and about a hundred times as smart. I'd say he's also saved about a million or so lives, thanks to the consumer and environmental legislation he has devoted his life to.

And between Gore, Bush, and himself, he's the only person running who would guarantee universal health care for all, the only candidate who would raise the minimum wage to a decent level, the only one who would get up each morning asking himself the question, "What can I do today to serve all the people of this country?" The list goes on and on. You can read more about what Ralph stands for by going to his website <http://www.votenader.org>. You'll agree, I'm sure, there's lots of common sense there, regardless of what political stripe you are.

But remember. If you are even THINKING of voting for Al Gore, vote for Al Gore. Ralph Nader does not need a single Gore vote. There are a hundred million of us out there who are uncommitted and currently not voting. Right now, Gore and Bush are each hoping to win by getting only 40 million votes.

If you are in the Non-Voting majority and want to let 'em all have it, if you want to get our country back in our hands...well, if even half of you show up and vote November 7 then you won't be held responsible for Bush winning the White House.

In fact, you won't be held responsible for putting Gore in the White House, either.

Rather, you will have made history by putting a true American hero at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And you will have given every company, every boss who's done ya wrong, the worst nightmare of their lives.

November 7. Payback Time.

The revenge of the Non-Voters!
So sayeth their unappointed leader, yours truly,

Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com <http://www.theawfultruth.com> <http://www.michaelmoore.com>

PS. Come to think of it, Democrats should be on their knees thanking Ralph for running. Rather than taking votes from Gore, Ralph's going to be the one responsible for turning the House back over to the Democrats.

When millions of these Non-Voters enter that booth to vote for Ralph, and they come across their local race for Congress, they will find no Green Party candidate in most of the 435 Congressional districts. So who do you think Ralph's army of Non-Voters will plunk down for Congress? The Republican? I don't think so.

The Democrats are only six seats short of regaining control of the House. Ralph Nader will be the reason the Democrats get the House back for the first time since Newt's Contract on America in 1994.

Democrats should send their checks to: Nader 2000, P.O. Box 18002, Washington, DC 20035.

(Or, better yet, let's try to elect enough Greens to Congress -- a dozen or so -- and they'll hold the deciding votes because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will have the majority. It'll be a friggin' Knesset!)

PPS. If you're still worried this letter might convince a weak-kneed Gore voter to flip over to Nader - and thus lead to President George W. stacking the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal, well, it's all a bunch of hooey. Please read my latest grassroots.com column entitled, "I Ain't Fallin for That One Again" at: <http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html>.

PLEASE PASS THIS LETTER ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRINT ANYWHERE.

-------

Message: 16
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:13:32 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <nonukes@foesyd.org.au>

Monster international Sign-On letter on NMD/BMD/Star Wars Seeks Signatures

Dear All,

This letter to President Clinton, Defence Secy Cohen, presidential candidates Bush and Gore and to all US allies plus Russia and China is to be faxed around mid August.

It is seeking the signatures of NGOs, prominent people, parliamentarians, and religious bodies.

I hope you or your organisation can sign it.

John Hallam,
Letter Coordinator

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, 1-202-456-2461, 1-202-456-2883, 1-202-456-6218, 1-202-456-6201,
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN, +7-095-205-4330, +7-095-206-5173, +7-095-205-4219,
PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR, 44-171-925-0918,
PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC, +33-147-42-2465,
PRIME MINISTER LIONEL JOSPIN +33-142-34-2677
GERMAN PRESIDENT, JOHANNES RAU, +49-030-20-00-19-99,
CHANCELLOR GERHARD SCHROEDER, +49-228-56-2357, +49-30-4000-2357,
PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN, YOSHIRO MORI, [FAX NO?]
JEAN CHRETIEN, PRIME MINISTER, CANADA, +1-613-941-6900,
KOSTAS SIMITIS, PRIME MINISTER OF GREECE, +301-671-6183
POUL NYRUP RASMUSSEN, PRIME MINISTER OF DENMARK, +45-33-11-1665
PRIME MINISTER DAVID ODDSSON, PRIME MINISTER OF ICELAND, +354-622373,
PRIME MINISTER MASSIMO D'ALEMA, PRIME MINISTER OF ITALY, +39-6-678-3998
PRIME MINISTER KJELL MAGNE BONDEVIK, PRIME MINISTER OF NORWAY, +47-2224-2796
PRIME MINISTER WILLHEM KOK, PRIME MINISTER OF THE NETHERLANDS, +31-70-356-4683,
CC US SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT +1-202-647-6047,
US SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE, WILLIAM S. COHEN +1-703-695-1149,
FOREIGN MINISTER OF RUSSIA IGOR IVANOV, +7-095-247-2722, +7-095-293-3323,
ROBIN COOK, UK MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, +44-171-829-2417, +44-171-270-2833,
HUBERT VEDRINE, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF FRANCE, +33-1-4317-5203,
JOSCHKA FISCHER, FOREIGN MINISTER OF GERMANY +49-228-168-6662, +49-1888-171-928, +49-228-173-402, +49-30-201-861-924,
YOHEI KONO, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF JAPAN, +81-3-3581-9675
LLOYD AXWORTHY, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, CANADA, +1-613-952-3904, +1-613-996-3546
LOUIS MICHEL, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BELGIUM, +32-2-511-6385,
THEODOROS PANGALOS, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF GREECE, +30-1-362-4195
George Bush Presidential Candidate, +1-512-637-8800.
Al Gore, Presidential Candidate, +1-202-456-2461

Dear Presidents and Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers,

The undersigned NGO groups and Parliamentarians, representing millions of people, are writing:

1) To urge the US not to proceed with proposals for a National Missile Defence System (NMD),

2) To urge US allies to make the strongest representations in appropriate forums or bilaterally, to press the US government not to proceed with the deployment of NMD, and to maintain the integrity of the ABM Treaty.

Proceeding with National Missile Defence threatens to undermine the basis of existing and future offensive nuclear arms reduction measures.

We note the strong statements made on NMD by the Governments of France, Germany and Sweden, and the expressions of concern by other US allies including the UK, Canada, and the European Union.

At the recent NPT Review Conference, the US together with 187 other countries, signed a final declaration that commits it to an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of its nuclear arsenal. Plans to deploy a missile defence system threaten that vital goal, to which the US is legally committed, together with all other NPT signatories. The final declaration of the NPT Review Conference expressly calls for: "the early implementation and entry into force of START-II and conclusion of START-III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons in accordance with its provisions."

We do not believe it is possible for this to be interpreted in a way that will allow the deployment of an NMD system, nor should it be so interpreted. We therefore urge the US and Russia instead to proceed to the negotiation of START-III at the lowest possible force levels and to the immediate implementation of START-II.

We note that the UN Secretary-General, and representatives of Russia, China, the UK, France, Sweden, the European Community, the New Agenda Coalition and the Non-Aligned movement have expressed the view that the ABM treaty is the cornerstone of global strategic stability.

The recent meeting of G8 foreign ministers has also expressed strong concern over the possibility that the ABM treaty may be abrogated to allow NMD to proceed, and has stated that they are 'deeply concerned' over missile proliferation as a result of NMD.

The Australian Senate on June 29th, passed a motion in which it called on the US not to proceed with the deployment of an NMD system and in which it called for the implementation of START-II as soon as possible, and the negotiation of START-III at the lowest possible force levels.

We note also recent expressions of concern within the US, by Congresspeople, Nobel laureates, and other distinguished and influential people and organizations.

America should not simply ignore the strongly repeated opinion of governments and NGOs of the whole world, that NMD should not proceed, and that the integrity of the ABM treaty should be maintained.

Missile defence schemes respond to an exaggerated perception of the missile threat from so-called 'Rogue States', (now termed 'States of Concern') are not the solution to missile proliferation, sabotage nuclear disarmament efforts to which the US is legally committed along with the rest of the world, and decrease overall US and international security.

There are serious doubts whether this system, or whether any missile defence system, can ever work. The problems posed even by relatively simple decoys are probably technically insoluble. The Welch Panel, an independent team of scientists, released a report outlining the probability of NMD systems failure due to time and schedule constraints.

Instead of pursuing missile defence, it is vital that the US focus on practical solutions to global strategic security. We therefore urge the US and Russia, as the highest priority, to proceed to the elimination of as many warheads as possible under any START-III agreement, the removal of obstacles to the implementation of START-II, and the removal of strategic missile forces from high alert status as advocated by the Canberra Commission, subsequent UN resolutions and the final NPT declaration.

Yours Sincerely, (Signed)

Bruna Nota, International President, Womens International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Geneva/NY.,

Commander Robert D. Green, RN (Retd.) Chair, World Court Project UK., NZ/UK., Dave Webb, Yorkshire CND, Yorks, UK.,

Vladimir Sliviak, 'ECODEFENSE', Russia, Alisa Nikoulina, Social-Ecological Union Antinuclear Campaign, Moscow,

Galina Ragouzhina, World Information Service on Energy(WISE) Russia,

Niel Arya, President, Physicians for Global Survival,(PGS) Canada.,

Rear-Admiral Eugene J. Carroll Jr, US Navy (Retd), Vice-President, Centre for Defence Information,(CDI) Washington, USA.,

Carah Ong, Coordinator, Abolition 2000, Santa Barbara, Calif, USA.,

Martin Butcher, Director of Security Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Washington DC, USA.,

Sally Light, Nuclear Weapons Program Analyst, Tri-Valley CARES, Livermore, Calif, USA.,

Alice Slater, President, Global Resource and Action Centre for the Environment, (GRACE) NY, USA

Ellen Thomas, Executive Director, Proposition One Committee, Washington DC., USA.,

Bruce Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, Gainesville, Florida.,

John Hallam, Nuclear Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Australia Sydney, Australia, Irene Gale AM, Australian Peace Committee, Adelaide Australia