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

U.S. Eyes Russia's Nuclear Waste

Excite News
September 1, 2000
By ANATOLY MEDETSKY, Associated Press Writer
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/000901/14/russia-us-nuclear
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-US-Nuclear.html

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia (AP) -- Pushing ahead with a major campaign to help the cash-strapped Russian government clean up its aging nuclear arsenal, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has unveiled facilities to handle nuclear waste and create civilian jobs for military scientists.

In a tour across Russia this week, Richardson inspected the progress of a U.S. program to ensure that nuclear materials are disposed of safely. On Friday, he unveiled two storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned submarines at Vladivostok, the main base of Russia's Pacific Fleet.

The impoverished Russian government has been floundering in its efforts to clear up hundreds of decaying nuclear weapons systems and warheads left from the Cold War.

The United States has taken a major role in funding nuclear decommissioning and storage projects. The Clinton administration says the program is vital to prevent nuclear weapons or weapons-grade material from falling into the hands of terrorists or hostile governments.

``Our nonproliferation programs are working and must continue, as it is in America's best interest to help Russia convert these massive Cold War-era facilities into non-weapons work,'' Richardson said at the start of his visit to Russia this week.

Environmentalists have long warned of the dangers posed by the deteriorating Russian nuclear storage areas and dismantling facilities, and urged the government to accelerate its efforts to safely dispose of the decommissioned nuclear submarines and their waste.

Current plans call for some 125 Russian nuclear submarines and their reactors to be dismantled by 2010. Many of the submarines now lie beached at Vladivostok and other naval bases around Russia, while some reactors have been dumped in the sea.

Russian officials have acknowledged that some of the submarines were decommissioned 25 years ago, and have languished dockside far longer than safety permits, posing increasing threats of leaking deadly radiation.

The Russian government has been unable to provide enough storage to handle the buildup of waste from its nuclear fleet, and it has asked the United States, Japan and other nations to help deal with the problem.

``The Russian military initially grumbled about Americans getting close to their coveted secrets and disarming Russia, but gradually they abandoned such complaints,'' said Ivan Safranchuk, an analyst with PIR-Center, an independent think tank dealing with nuclear issues. ``Russia desperately needs foreign money to deal with its nuclear waste.''

The United States has already provided several hundred million dollars to help Russia build new nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities.

Thomas Nilsen, a researcher for the Norwegian environmental group Bellona, said the possible consequences of theft of nuclear materials made such programs worthwhile.

``I think I would agree with Mr. Richardson that these are good programs, especially when you consider the risk of theft of highly-enriched uranium in Russia,'' Nilsen said.

The theft of highly-enriched uranium from a submarine base near Murmansk in 1993 was in part what spurred the U.S. aid program, he said.

Richardson said that an automotive parts manufacturing plant will take over another building, and he promised another $13 million to help speed up Sarov's transfer to civilian use.

---

Vice President Gore Signs US-Russia Plutonium Agreement

US Newswire
1 Sep 13:15
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0901-123.html

Vice President Gore Signs US-Russia Plutonium Agreement To: National and International desks Contact: Matt Gobush of the Office of the Vice President, 202-456-7035

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Vice President Gore signed today the United States-Russian Federation Agreement for irreversibly transforming excess weapons plutonium into forms unusable for weapons, announced by President Clinton and President Putin at the June 4 Moscow Summit. With this action and Prime Minister Kasyanov's signature, the Agreement shall be applied as of today's date. This accomplishment advances the critical task of reducing stockpiles of excess weapons plutonium and contributes to key U.S. arms control and non-proliferation objectives.

The Agreement requires that 68 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium, 34 tons for each Party, be disposed. This is enough plutonium for thousands of nuclear weapons. It will be disposed by irradiating it as fuel in reactors or by immobilizing it with high-level radioactive waste, rendering it suitable for geologic disposal. Implementation will require the construction of new industrial-scale facilities to convert and fabricate this plutonium into fuel in both countries, and to immobilize a portion of the U.S. material. The Agreement sets 2007 as the target date to begin operating such facilities with a minimum disposition goal of 2 metric tons per year and an obligation to seek to at least double that rate.

The Agreement establishes the goals, timelines, and conditions for ensuring that this plutonium can never again be used for weapons or any other military purposes. Both the process and the end products will be subject to monitoring and, thus, transparent. The Agreement bans reprocessing of any of this plutonium prior to the disposition of all 34 metric tons. Any reprocessing thereafter must be under mutually-agreed, effective monitoring measures. Plutonium immobilized under the program must never be separated from the immobilized forms. The Agreement allows plutonium that may be designated as excess to defense needs in the future to come under the same program.

As the Presidents' Joint Statement noted, the Agreement will enable new cooperation to go forward between the United States and the Russian Federation. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Domenici and others in the U.S. Congress, $200 million has already been appropriated to help implement the Russian program.

Other G-8 countries have strongly endorsed and advanced this cooperation. This United States and Russian Federation have urged the G-8 leaders at their recent summit to accelerate this cooperation by directing development of necessary multilateral arrangements and an international financing plan for assisting Russia's program. The plan will consider both public and private sector financing mechanisms.

Also present at today's signing was Michael Guhin, U.S. negotiator.

---

Gore, Russia Sign Plutonium Accord

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 5:03 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-US-Russia.html
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000901/pl/us_russia_2.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States and Russia signed an agreement Friday to begin disposing of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium each -- enough for thousands of nuclear weapons.

Vice President Al Gore signed at his residence here and Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov in Moscow. The arms control agreement was reached in Moscow in June by President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It demonstrates a joint commitment to reduce nuclear dangers despite occasional blips in relations between the two countries.

However, Paul Levanthal, president of the nonprofit Nuclear Control Institute, said the agreement does not deal with very important problems associated with processing plutonium for nuclear power reactor fuel.

He said there remains no agreement on who would be held responsible if another severe Chernobyl-like accident occurred in Russia. And he said it is a mistake to let Russia use plutonium as fuel rather than dispose of it as waste.

New facilities will be built beginning in 2007 to convert some of the plutonium into fuel. The rest will be buried.

The process will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Congress has approved providing Russia with $200 million to help carry out its side of the agreement.

Gore's signed in private at his official residence on Massachusetts Avenue. The event was off-limits to the media.

Clinton's meeting in Moscow with Putin was their first. They are due to meet again next week in New York while attending the Millennium summit.

The two leaders also agreed in Moscow to set up a joint center to monitor missile launches.

Clinton called the two developments ``major steps to reduce the nuclear danger.''

Disposing of the plutonium will cost an estimated $5.75 billion -- $4 billion in the United States and $1.75 billion in Russia. Other countries will be asked to contribute.

The Russian plutonium is to be converted for use in civilian nuclear power reactors. Some of the U.S. material will be used for reactors, the rest will be buried.

---

ISRAEL, IRAQ: NUCLEAR ROW

New York Times
September 01, 2000
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/00/09/01/news/world/090100world-briefing.html

In a sharp exchange at the United Nations disarmament conference in Geneva, Israel and Iraq accused each other of having weapons that threaten the Middle East. Israel's delegate said Iraq "devoted a major part of its vast income" from oil to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Iraq's representative said Israel "possesses hundreds of nuclear bombs, which threaten not just our region but the entire world." Elizabeth Olson (NYT)

---

Putin To Focus on Economy in Japan

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 12:54 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-Japan.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- Working on a broad foreign policy agenda, President Vladimir Putin plans to focus on economic cooperation during his trip to Japan and address global security challenges while attending the Millennium Summit in New York, officials said Friday.

With Russia and Japan still far from resolving their territorial dispute, the Kremlin hopes that Putin's three-day trip to Tokyo, which begins Sunday, will give a strong boost to bilateral economic cooperation.

It will be Putin's third meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori this year, and Russian officials voiced hope that it would become a landmark event. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that Putin's visit would ``turn a new page'' in bilateral relations and help make them ``truly neighborly.''

Russia and Japan both claim four small islands in the South Kuril chain that were seized by Soviet troops in the end of World War II. The dispute has prevented the countries from signing a peace treaty to formally end their wartime hostilities.

Both Putin and Mori have been coy when speaking about prospects for achieving a solution by the end of the year, as was previously planned. Each tacitly acknowledges that there is little chance of a quick breakthrough.

Like his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, Putin has offered to focus on building stronger economic ties, saying that would eventually help the two nations find a compromise on the territorial issue.

Russian and Japanese officials plan to sign a dozen agreements, including a program of developing trade and economic relations and a separate document on joint efforts to aid the economic development of the Kuril Islands.

Putin and Mori are also expected to make a joint statement on regional and global issues.

Separate agreements will address cooperation in the energy field, Japanese assistance in dismantling Russian nuclear arsenals and strengthening cooperation between the two nations' border guards.

Anatoly Chubais, the head of the state-controlled electricity company, will be among officials accompanying Putin on the trip. He said Friday that Putin and Mori may also discuss a Russian proposal for a so-called power bridge, the Interfax news agency reported.

The project envisages building a power plant that would use rich the natural gas resources off Sakhalin Island to provide power to Japan through a deep-water cable.

After wrapping up his visit to Japan on Tuesday, Putin will fly to New York, where he will take part in the three-day Millennium Summit of world leaders at the United Nations.

In his speech at the summit Wednesday, Putin will focus on global challenges, such as international terrorism and environmental pollution, and advocate a stronger role for the United Nations, Kremlin officials said.

Putin will also hold a long series of bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the summit, including one with President Clinton. According to Putin's aides, the talks will address nuclear arms issues, the role of the United Nations, and regional issues including the Mideast peace process and the situation in Kosovo.

-------- china

Senate To Discuss China Trade Bill

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 5:56 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Congress-China.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After months of delay, the Senate is taking up House-passed legislation next week that would extend normal trade relations to China, a priority of President Clinton that remains snarled in a dispute over Chinese exports of military technology.

Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who wants to punish China with sanctions if it violates international nonproliferation nuclear agreements, expects to use the Senate debate to bring the arms issue to a head. The move could scuttle the trade agreement this year.

Thompson, unable to get a vote on his measure before the summer recess, says he sees little choice other than to attach it as an amendment to the China trade bill, which passed the House in May.

``Unless they change their mind, it looks like I'm not going to get a separate vote,'' he said in an interview.

Lawmakers and business lobbyists have scurried for weeks in search of a lower-profile vehicle they could attach Thompson's measure to without objection, but none has been found.

``I don't really see anything that would lend itself to that,'' he said.

To appease critics, Thompson and his measure's co-sponsor, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., have revised their proposal to target countries other than China deemed to be potentially major suppliers of dangerous technologies.

The new version also gives the president more flexibility, making sanctions against a foreign government discretionary rather than mandatory.

But with Congress in session for only four weeks to complete all work on tax and spending bills before adjourning for the election, free traders argue that adding the Thompson language to the China trade bill would doom it.

``We would be saying no to a permanent China trade bill this year,'' said Michael Siegel, a spokesman for China trade advocate Sen. Max Baucus D-Mont.

Business and agriculture groups who see China as the biggest untapped market for U.S. exports as well as a future location for low-cost factories have been lobbying against Thompson's measure.

``We're going to try to fight all amendments and try to keep the bill clean,'' said Bill Morley, vice president of congressional affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Clinton also opposes tying arms sanctions to trade with China. ``It unnecessarily limits the president's flexibility in conducting foreign policy,'' said White House spokesman Jake Siewert.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., has said he would vote for Thompson's amendment, but finds himself under pressure not to let it become part of the trade bill. ``I think it's going to be close. We may have to have Al Gore come up here and break a tie,'' said John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Lott. As vice president, the Democratic presidential candidate is Senate president but votes only to break ties.

Thompson and his supporters maintain the new sanctions threat is needed because Clinton has been reluctant to use existing law to punish China for selling arms to Pakistan and other countries.

``The general problem is the Chinese don't think we're serious about this,'' said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a watchdog group.

Thompson doesn't know whether he'll prevail. On the one hand, a vote against a nonproliferation measure is ``a very untenable election-year position,'' he said. On the other, he doesn't expect to win any new converts to his side.

``They just have concerns that this will irritate the Chinese at a time when they're trying to expand trade with China,'' he said.

-------- czech republic

Czech utility CEZ files lawsuit against Greenpeace

Planet Ark
September 1, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=8016

PRAGUE - Czech utility CEZ said yesterday it had filed suit against Greenpeace accusing the environmental activist organisation of libelling it over the controversial new Temelin nuclear power plant.

In a statement, CEZ said Greenpeace's Czech chapter had organised a "smear campaign of untrue news" that has brought the firm's name into disrepute. As a result, it is seeking five million crowns ($127,033) in damages.

"The untrue statements by Greenpeace are unlawful knocks against the good name of CEZ both in the Czech Republic and abroad," the statement said. It did not specify the libellous comments it felt Greenpeace had made. Environmentalists have been protesting against the Temelin plant for more than 10 years. But they have stepped up their actions in recent weeks after the Czech government said it wanted to activate fuel in Temelin by mid-September.

CEZ loaded the first 1,000-megawatt block of the $3 billion nuclear power plant with fuel in July.

Greenpeace Czech Director Jiri Tutter, who is named in the lawsuit, told Reuters he hoped the action would force courts to quickly determine the substance of his organisation's case that Temelin is unsafe.

"To look on the bright side, hopefully this will force a quick study into the plant, maybe before the fuel is activated, and show that what we have been saying is true - that this plant should not be opened," he said.

The plant is based on Russian-designed VVER-1,000 reactors which Greenpeace and other critics have said are unsafe.

Czech authorities say the plant, which has been modified and fitted with Western control systems supplied by Westinghouse, a unit of British Nuclear Fuel Ltd, meets international safety standards.

Both Austria and Germany, which have borders within 50 kilometres (30 miles) of Temelin in the southwest of the Czech Republic, recently came out against opening the plant.

On Tuesday Austria threatened to block the Czech Republic's admission to the European Union if Temelin is put into operation this year. Czech officials brushed aside the threat, saying Austria should not link the two issues.


-------- depleted uranium

EU Parliamentary questions

From: "Marco Saba" <marcosaba@xoommail.com>
September 1, 2000

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1645/00
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1256/00
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/00
ORAL QUESTION H-0786/99
ORAL QUESTION O-0072/99
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/99
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/99
ORAL QUESTION H-0431/99
ORAL QUESTION H-0429/99

Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1645/00
by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 May 2000)

Subject: Video games and depleted uranium

In the 'Starcraft' video game (marketed in Italy by Blizzard),which - like all too many products of this type - is basically a war game, players can use uranium 238 to upgrade their weapons. An entry on page 43 of the Italian manual reads: ' U238 ammunition research; this depleted uranium ammunition can improve the range of Gauss guns.' A further entry on page 41 reads: 'Radiation: an enemy unit hit by one of these weapons will be bathed in highly radioactive particles capable of inflicting considerable damage (...) The radioactive field will create serious problems (...) Eventually radioactivity levels will decrease'.

Does the Commission believe that it is right for young people and little children to become accustomed to the idea of using nuclear weapons?

Does the Commission agree that it should take steps to prevent the concept of nuclear weapon use becoming commonplace in Europe's youth culture?

Does the Commission agree that it it would be appropriate to stem the flood of violence to which young children are being exposed by video games?

Original language of question: IT Question not yet answered

Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1256/00
by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (05 April 2000)

Subject: Radioactive bombs in Kosovo

During last eleven weeks of the war in Kosovo, NATO aircraft dropped depleted uranium bombs in quantities amounting to hundreds of kilos of radioactive material.

The bombs, devised as anti-tank weapons, are fairly cheap since depleted uranium is a by-product of other processes. They release a very fine uranium oxide powder (the diameter of each particle is 400 times smaller that that of a grain of sand), which is dispersed over tens of kilometres by the wind or carried in surface water. The radioactivity produced in this way is extremely dangerous if inhaled or ingested as it causes internal contamination. The uranium particles are easily soluble in body fluids and lodge in the victim's organs, such as kidneys, liver and bones.

People in the contaminated area thus suffer serious damage to their organism, as a result of radiation or direct contamination.

>From the experience of the Gulf War, when similar bombs were used and hundreds of US soldiers are still suffering the effects, it has emerged that the most immediate effects on human beings include cancer, leukaemia, miscarriages and congenital malformations and diseases of the liver and nervous system. Then there are the long-term effects on the environment.

1. Does the Commission not consider that it is necessary to adopt measures to ascertain the extent of the radioactive pollution in Kosovo?

2. Does the Commission not think it should encourage decontamination measures?

3. Does the Commission not think it should introduce a specific screening programme for high risk groups, such as pregnant women and children?

4. Does the Commission not consider it necessary to promote an international campaign to ban depleted uranium bombs?

Original language of question: IT Question not yet answered

Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/00
by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (07 February 2000)

Subject: Eliminating the dangers of using depleted uranium in (civil)aviation

1. Is the Commission aware of the report in the New Scientist (UK) for 15 January 2000 investigating the crash of the Korean-Air Boeing 747 in Essex, UK, in December 1999, which reveals in particular that the (civilian) airliner was carrying 300 kg of depleted uranium in the tail, not as cargo but as a counterweight?

2. Is the Commission aware that such quantities of depleted uranium are built into older aircraft in particular on a large scale?

3. Is the Commission also aware of the serious dangers to public health that can be caused by depleted uranium, the best known examples being the Bijlmermeer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) air crash and, on a vastly greater scale, the Gulf War in Iraq?

4. Can the Commission state to what rules, European or worldwide, the use of depleted uranium in aircraft construction is subject?

5. Can the Commission state what rules exist concerning the processing of depleted uranium during the dismantling of aircraft and the processing of depleted uranium in the event of disasters?

6. What action will the Commission take to eliminate completely the dangers posed by the use of depleted uranium in aircraft?

Original language of question: NL Question not yet answered

Parliamentary questions
ORAL QUESTION H-0786/99 for Question Time at the part-session in January 2000 pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure by David Bowe to the Commission

Subject: Depleted uranium weapons

Has the Commission conducted any studies of the potential effects upon EU states of transboundary pollution arising from the use of depleted uranium weapons in the Kosovan conflict? If not, why not?

Parliamentary questions
ORAL QUESTION O-0072/99 pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure
by Patricia McKenna, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group to the Council

Subject: Depleted uranium

When the Secretary-General of the European Union Council and the High Commissioner of CFSP, Javier Solana, was still Secretary-General of NATO, was he aware that the NATO planes had used ammunition with warheads containing depleted uranium (DU) in their bombing of Yugoslavia? Was this ammunition used by planes coming from Member States of the EU and, if so, which countries were involved? Has the EU - with or without NATO and WEU - produced any study of the eventual dangers of DU in terms of radiation of the ground and air, in particular in areas where civilian targets were hit? If not, is the Council going to propose such a study? Are any such studies completed or under way? Is it true that soldiers of the NATO-armed force now stationed in the region undergo special tests for nuclear radiation and that such measures are not applied to the civilians living in the same region? Will the use of warheads containing DU be forbidden for use during so-called peace-enforcing operations in any future EU Military Crisis Management Force?

Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/99
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1999)

Subject: Report on use of uranium bombs by USA in Yugoslavia

The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, whose headquarters are in Budapest, has drawn up a report for the Commission - as yet unpublished - on the environmental impact of the bombing of Yugoslavia. The report notes that each of the special uranium-tipped bombs used by the US lightning-strike force against Serb armoured vehicles contained 275 grammes of depleted uranium, which is "possibly the most dangerous of the carcinogenic and toxic substances" released into the environment in Yugoslavia. Moreover, "many of the substances released can cause deformities and genetic complications, while others are linked to fatal diseases of the nervous system and liver in humans". The most alarming aspect of the report is its observation that this radioactive substance can become a "moving aerosol" with a wider geographical range. The report also notes that US military regulations require personnel to wear gloves and protective masks when handling this type of material. It is also stressed that the use of depleted uranium weapons in the Gulf War caused serious illness in American and British veterans and congenital malformations among the Iraqi population.

Please indicate:

1. Why does the Commission not publish the report of the Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, which it commissioned itself?

2. Why does it not issue warnings, information and practical proposals for the protection of the population in the regions affected by the bombing?

3. Will it, as a matter of urgency, examine the climatological conditions under which radioactive pollution can turn into a "moving aerosol" and will it propose practical measures for the populations of other regions in the Balkans?

4. Will it call for the "polluter-pays" principle to be applied, which would mean the USA footing the entire bill for the clean-up operation?

Answer(s) Original language of question: EL OJ C 27, 29/01/2000 (p. 103).

Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/99
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-429/99 during question time at Parliament's September 1999 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (September 1999).

OJ C 27, 29/01/2000 (p. 103).

Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/99
by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1999)

Subject: Pollution resulting from the war in Kosovo

During the war in Kosovo, NATO bombing attacks were deliberately targeted on refineries and chemical plants, in other words industries which pose a serious risk to the environment.

The levels of pollution caused are extremely high on account of the strong concentrations of nitrogen and sulphur oxide and other toxic chemicals which have polluted the air, the ground water and all the rivers in the region, including the Danube which is now full of toxins which are discharged into the Black Sea. The use of impoverished uranium weapons (containing 97,8 % Uranium 238) has created clouds of radioactive dust which give off radiation and may lead to the development of tumours.

1. Has the Commission prepared a specific emergency aid plan to combat the environmental pollution which has affected all of the region's inhabitants indiscriminately?

2. What sum of money has it set aside for the implementation of such a plan?

3. What urgent action has it taken to monitor air flows which are capable of transporting the radioactive dust?

4. What urgent action does it intend to take to clean up sources of drinking water?

Answer(s) Original language of question: IT OJ C 203 E, 18/07/2000 (p. 2). __

Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/99
by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies it gave to Oral Questions H-429/99 by Mr Alavanos and H-431/99 by Mr Papayannakis during question time at Parliament's September 1999 part-session(1).

The Commission would add that it has taken a leading role in the broader international effort through actions carried out by its humanitarian office and the task force for reconstruction of Kosovo (TAFKO). The problem of polluted drinking water is recognised and being addressed in particular through the Community's integrated rehabilitation programme for Kosovo where the financing of the repair and reconstruction of various water facilities, including a new pumping station at Gracanica is underway. Additional funds are earmarked for water projects especially in the area of Mitrovica. In addition a municipal development fund is planned, for the financing of local infrastructure projects, including water treatment.

The United Nations environment programme/United Nations centre for human settlements (habitats) (UNEP/UNHCS) Balkans task force has conducted a technical mission to assess the environmental situation in Kosovo and a full report is expected in September 1999. The Commission will examine the findings. It is, therefore, too early to say at this stage what intervention may be envisaged in the field of environment.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (September 1999).

OJ C 203 E, 18/07/2000 (p. 2).

Parliamentary questions
ORAL QUESTION H-0431/99 for Question Time at the part-session in September 1999 pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure
by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission

Subject: Environmental impact of war in Yugoslavia

Has the Commission assessed the extent of the environmental damage in the Balkans caused by NATO bombing and the cost of repairing that damage? What is the outcome of its assessment, which it was also asked to carry out by the Council of Environment Ministers in May 1999?

Parliamentary questions ORAL QUESTION H-0429/99 for Question Time at the part-session in September 1999 pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission

Subject: Report on use of depleted uranium bombs by USA in Yugoslavia

The Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, whose headquarters are in Budapest, has drawn up a report for the Commission - as yet unpublished - on the environmental impact of the bombing of Yugoslavia. The report notes that each of the special uranium-tipped bombs used by the US lightning-strike force against Serb armoured vehicles contained 275 grammes of depleted uranium, which is 'possibly the most dangerous of the carcinogenic and toxic substances' released into the environment in Yugoslavia.

Why does the Commission not publish the abovementioned report, which it commissioned itself, and why does it not issue warnings, information and practical proposals for the protection of the population in the regions affected by the bombing? Will it, as a matter of urgency, examine the climatological conditions under which radioactive pollution can turn into 'mobile aerosol' - as the report puts it - and will it propose practical measures for the populations of other regions in the Balkans? Finally, will it call for the 'polluter-pays-principle' to be applied, which would mean the USA footing the entire bill for the clean-up operation?

---

Sting in the tail 15 Jan 00

The Korean Air Boeing 747 that crashed in Essex last month has contaminated the site with depleted uranium (DU). Boeing included 300 kilograms of the exceptionally dense material in the tail of the plane to act as a counterweight.

Air investigators insist there is no danger because the fire would have needed to exceed 800 °C for several hours to have released harmful quantities of DU. However, given suggestions that DU contributed to the symptoms known as Gulf War syndrome, local residents are concerned. As New Scientist went to press, nearly a third of the DU remained unaccounted for.

From New Scientist magazine, vol 165 issue 2221, 15/01/2000, page 5

Note: the same old lie about 800° C fire. Same as Amsterdam 1992.

-------- europe

Relief in Europe at U.S. Delay on Missile Shield

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 6:27 PM ET updated 8:07 PM ET Sep 1
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/wl/arms_europe_dc_1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-arms-eu.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/02/europe.missile.reut/index.html

LONDON (Reuters) - European leaders expressed relief on Friday that President Clinton had delayed development of a defensive missile shield widely viewed as a threat to the global arms balance.

Russia, which with China vehemently opposes U.S. plans for the high-tech system, hailed Clinton's announcement that he would effectively leave a decision on the project to his successor, who will be elected in November.

In a speech at Georgetown University on Friday, Clinton said he would not authorize deployment of the system because of test failures and diplomatic disputes.

In Moscow, Russia's Interfax news agency quoted General Leonid Ivashov, head of the ministry's international cooperation department, as saying that Clinton's announcement showed ''elements of a constructive approach'' to the issue in the U.S. administration.

Moscow had said the shield runs counter to the landmark 1972 U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (ABM), which limits such systems, and would stop nuclear arms cuts under other treaties if Washington violated the ABM accord.

``There is a hope that a balanced approach toward solving the world's key problems, primarily those concerning global security, will prevail,'' Ivashov said.

Several NATO states in Europe had expressed hope that the project would be delayed after two spectacular $100 million test failures this year. Washington said it needed the system, expected to cost $25-$60 billion, to ward off threats from ''rogue states,'' such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

FUTURE COSTS, FUTURE STABILITY?

Europe is concerned about the potential cost of buying into future missile defense systems, as well as the threat to existing arms control treaties and the possibility of a new arms race.

``The decision...to continue testing and development of a limited national missile defense system, while reserving judgement on eventual deployment, appears to be a prudent course of action that balances the many factors involved in this issue,'' George Robertson, secretary-general of the NATO military alliance, said in a statement in Brussels.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder warned Clinton in June not to destroy European cohesion by going ahead with the missile defense plan.

Government spokesman Bela Anda said Germany viewed Friday's announcement as a ``wise decision'' greeted with ``understanding and respect.'' Anda said, ``The government's reservations about this project are well known.''

French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine called it ``wise and reasonable.''

Vedrine, a Socialist, noted that he and conservative French president Jacques Chirac ``have often had occasion to express our doubts about this issue.''

``The consequences of such a project should be considered very carefully,'' Anne Gazeau-Secret quoted Vedrine as saying.

Denmark, whose vast Greenland Arctic island hosts the U.S. Thule military base needed by the United States for the planned system, also welcomed Clinton's announcement.

The Danish government has been under pressure to stand by a commitment to forbid any role for Thule in the missile shield in violation of the ABM treaty.

---

Leaders Relieved At Missile News

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 4:49 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Missile-Defense-World-Reax.html

Russian President Vladimir Putin and NATO allies praised President Clinton's decision to shelve a national missile defense system, saying Friday the move will help preserve the world's strategic balance of power.

Putin, who has been rallying worldwide opposition to Clinton's missile defense plan, called the move a ``well thought-out and responsible step.''

``The given step ... will lead to strengthening strategic stability and security in the whole world, and will raise the United States' authority in the eyes of the international community, especially on the eve of the Millennium Summit,'' Putin said, referring to next week's summit at the United Nations in New York, which both Clinton and Putin plan to attend.

The 1972 ABM treaty with Russia prohibits a national defense against ballistic missiles, and the U.S. administration has tried unsuccessfully to persuade Moscow to amend the treaty.

Putin said the decision did not mean Washington and Moscow share common opinions about a national missile defense. He said Russia will continue to promote nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.

Clinton said Friday he is not convinced the technology is at hand to build an effective anti-missile shield and will leave it to the next president to decide when, or if, to deploy a national missile defense.

Rapid deployment of the system is strongly supported by Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush. Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, has been noncommittal on the issue.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said his country welcomed Clinton's approach, saying that the president had taken careful account of the views of U.S. allies and other international partners who cautioned him against making a rushed decision.

``We look forward to continuing dialogue on this subject with the current U.S. administration, and in due course with its successor and with our NATO allies and others,'' Cook said.

A British Foreign Office spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity, added: We think the way forward is to consult and talk, rather than the U.S. going forward on its own. We've also always said we'd like to see the ABM treaty preserved.''

French President Jacques Chirac took note with ``great interest'' of Clinton's decision, saying that the project ``risks jeopardizing the strategic balance and restarting the arms race,'' according to Catherine Colonna, presidential spokeswoman.

A German government spokesman praised Clinton's move as a ``wise decision.'' The spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had personally urged Clinton ``not to make a hasty decision.''

Canada weighed in as well.

``We are gratified that, among other things, the president has taken into account the concerns of U.S. allies and the potential risk for global strategic stability in not committing at this time to proceed with deployment,'' said Michael O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The proposed national missile defense, projected to cost about $60 billion, is designed to protect all 50 states from attack by a limited number of long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea or the Middle East. It is a scaled-down version of the global missile defense pursued during the Reagan administration that became known as Star Wars for its focus space-based lasers and other exotic weaponry.

-------- finland

German lobby urges fifth nuke reactor for Finland

Planet Ark
FINLAND: September 1, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=8026

HELSINKI - Finland should build a fifth nuclear reactor to ensure a long-term supply of energy instead of importing a share of it, a German nuclear power body said yesterday.

Building another nuclear power reactor has been discussed for years in Finland, but the country is still divided on whether one should be built, especially with neighbouring countries like Sweden moving away from nuclear power.

The Finnish nuclear industry, led by Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO), is expected to soon present a proposal to parliament on a new reactor, according to local media.

German nuclear power body Kerntechnische Gesellschaft (KTG) Chairman Wolf-Dieter Krebs said unlike other nuclear power producing countries like France and Germany, Finland did not have overcapacity in energy production and had to import electricity.

Krebs said Finland needed nuclear power because alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, were not enough to replace imports.

But he agreed that it was not economically viable to build another reactor if Finland wanted to get the costs back within the next 10 years.

"If you operate the plant for 40 or even 60 years as some plants in the United States then they're money-printing machines," Krebs said.

He added that because Finland already had nuclear waste disposal facilities costs would be lower than some other nuclear producing countries who do not have these facilities.

Finland relies heavily on nuclear power, and while two of its four reactors were made in the Soviet Union safety levels in the country are considered to be very high.

It imports four percent of its energy, and some 18 percent of its energy is supplied by nuclear power.

-------- germany

Greens pledge to stop nuclear sale to Russia

London Times
September 1 2000 EUROPE
FROM ROGER BOYES IN BERLIN
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/09/01/timfgneur01006.html

GERMANY'S Greens, haunted by the image of the sunken Kursk, are threatening to disrupt the government coalition with the Social Democrats if Gerhard Schröder goes ahead with a plan to sell a plutonium plant to Russia.

"We will do everything in our power to stop this deal going ahead," Winfried Hermann, a leading anti-nuclear lobbyist, said. His views are shared by many within the Green Party, but not by the effective leader of the Greens, Joschka Fischer, the Foreign Minister, who is reluctantly going along with the deal.

Coming on top of other controversial decisions - the sale of a munitions factory to Turkey particularly irritated the pacifist wing of the Greens - the Russian deal is sure to spell serious trouble for the Chancellor's ruling coalition.

"Look at how the Russians handled their nuclear submarine," one senior Green said yesterday. "How can you expect us to approve a project that will make Russia into a major exporter of nuclear fuel rods?"

Herr Fischer has tried to fend off the anger from his party colleagues by denying government credits to the deal, but this is unlikely to satisfy the restless rank and file.

Russia has agreed to destroy 34 tonnes of plutonium as part of its internationally sponsored efforts to switch its focus from military to civilian use of nuclear energy. Its aim - using German technology - is to convert the plutonium into fuel rods. With the help of the German MOX factory, at present sited in Hanau, east of Frankfurt, it could reprocess as much as 20,000 tonnes of used rods from other countries during the next ten to 15 years, earning about £14 billion.

Germany's Greens are not the only group worrying about this project. Nine Russian environmentalist organisations yesterday joined two leading German environmental lobbying groups in urging Herr Schröder to think again. The German leader said this week, however, that he has no objection to the Siemens sale.

Siemens spent more than £330 million on the plant, but was never allowed to operate it. The regional Environment Minister of Hesse - a certain Joschka Fischer - turned down the application in 1995.

He argued that the position of the plant was an invitation to catastrophe - all it would take was a plane suddenly losing height after take-off from Frankfurt airport. Such a disaster would have devastated much of western Germany.

After 1998 the Greens entered the federal Government and it was agreed to phase out nuclear power completely within 30 years. The Hanau plant, conceived at a time when it seemed sensible to reprocess German waste in Germany rather than send it to Sellafield, was never used.

Siemens now hopes to recoup at least a fraction of its investment in the mothballed factory. The talk is of "several million marks".

Germany's commitment to the international programme to dispose of Russia's nuclear stockpile is about £30 million. Plainly, some of that could be spent on the Siemens factory, but some ministers - not only Greens - are reluctant to see German funds directly used for the manufacture of Russian fuel rods.

Siemens vows that not a single component of the factory will be loaded on to trucks until the international financing of the deal is properly worked out. The Green rank and file are already organising opposition to the sale.

More significantly, Green fundamentalists, ignored for so long by Green Cabinet ministers, could upset the Government. The party has about 6 per cent support in the opinion polls, barely a percentage point above the minimum needed for parliamentary representation. If the Greens split on the nuclear issue (and on controversial arms sales) Herr Schröder will be left without his partner in government.

-------- india / pakistan

South Asian nuclear dialogue

By V. R. Raghavan,
The Hindu 1st Sept 2000 Op-Ed.

NATIONS WHICH seek security through nuclear weapons place themselves in the control of a relentless logic. A nation possessing nuclear weapons finds it cannot give them up. It also does not wish the colossal dangers from nuclear weapons to increase. The realisation that nuclear weapons in larger numbers do not provide additional security leads to the inevitable need to negotiate with the adversary about ways to limit the possibilities of a nuclear exchange. The inexorable logic of nuclear weapons rests on the juxtaposition of two contradictory needs. One has to have strong capability to be credible as a nuclear weapons state. One also needs to be seen as a credible, rational and predictable state by the nuclear adversary. That provides stability to nuclear deterrence. It ensures security without the dangers of a calamitous nuclear exchange through fear and misperceptions. Deterrence stability comes not through fears and anxieties but through reassurance. Reassurance is obtained through direct and honest talks with the adversary. It is sustained through mutually-agreed measures which not only reduce fears but also build confidence, about the presence of nuclear weapons with the adversary.

The South Asian nuclear weapons scene, in the two years since the tests of 1998, shows two disturbing trends. The first is linked to the understandable imperative of India and Pakistan to be recognised as nuclear weapon states. The denial of that reality by the major powers has generated pressures in the two countries to go further up on the nuclear ladder. There are demands for further nuclear tests, for thermonuclear and neutron bomb capabilities, and for not joining the CTBT. There is an urge to seek nuclear doctrines which are predicated on punitive second strike capabilities requiring large arsenals. There is a desire for a full spectrum of nuclear infrastructure, without regard to strategic needs or economic capacity. There is ill-informed talk and worse still irresponsible political rhetoric, in both India and Pakistan, about the use of nuclear weapons as instruments of influencing political disputes. This route to nuclear weapons based security is more likely to create a mutually- reinforcing negative spiral of competitive capability acquisition. There is in it the serious likelihood of a nuclear exchange through misunderstanding or a nuclear accident.

The second disturbing trend in South Asia is of an unwillingness to engage in official talks on nuclear matters. This inflexible attitude in India is part of the larger issue of the undoing of the Lahore initiative by Pakistan and its direct role in the violence let loose in Jammu and Kashmir. In Pakistan, inflexibility is rooted in its insistence on the prior resolution of the J&K issue. A stage is reached where Pakistan seems fixated in its belief that the Kashmir issue is vital for its ideological survival. In both India and Pakistan, the ruling establishments appear unconcerned about the dangers of nuclear uncertainties remaining unresolved. The risks of nuclear uncertainties, fears and misperceptions being considered unimportant is a serious danger. The two trends of increased demand for nuclear weapons capability and of inflexibility on a nuclear dialogue are potentially hazardous. These dangers can translate into calamities over which neither Government can have complete control. It is not without reason t hat some analysts in the west give India and Pakistan no more than a decade before a nuclear conflict takes place between them.

There is an urgent need for a South Asian nuclear dialogue. If the two Governments are unable to find a way out of the impasse, experts on the subject can be encouraged to begin the dialogue. The purpose of the dialogue is more to understand each other's anxieties, compulsions, technical and operational needs, and political dilemmas on the nuclear weapons issues. The requirement is to use the time before official dialogue commences - as it must before long - to create a higher threshold of clarity on each side's position and its ability to accommodate the other's concerns. Informal and candid dialogue outside the Government channels can assist the two establishments in preparing better for a fruitful outcome from the formal talks. A slow but sure beginning is taking place on the dialogue process at informal and non-official levels. Recently, a very useful dialogue on nuclear risk reduction in South Asia was organised by the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) of Stanford University at Bangkok. This was attended by some members of the National Security Advisory Board and other experts in India and Pakistan. Another such meeting is being held in early September in Honolulu by the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies.

An important non-governmental dialogue on ``Nuclear Risk Reduction in South Asia'' was held in New Delhi on September 24. This was organised by the Delhi Policy Group and the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, which facilitated an interaction between two sets of experts comprising former Foreign Secretaries, defence services officers, nuclear strategy analysts and academicians. It was the first such meeting on the subcontinent after the nuclear tests of 1998 without any of the major nuclear powers' experts providing a stimulus. The frank and forthright exchange at the meeting allowed a wider but select audience to get a first- and feel of each other's perceptions. There was surprise at the differing interpretations placed on commonly-used nuclear phraseology. It was also a revelation to note how adversely, immature political rhetoric in one country affects the mood in the other. A special attempt was made at this meeting to keep away from the polemics of core issues and ideological divides, even as some amongst the participants found it difficult to shed habits cultivated over the years. This approach led to the real possibility of identifying the specific issues which need to be addressed on the question of nuclear weapons, dangers, and ways of reducing the risks of a deliberate or accidental nuclear exchange.

An insightful presentation was made at the meeting by a young analyst on the lessons from the Cold War nuclear experience and how it can or cannot apply in the South Asian context. There was an interesting session on the nuclear command and control arrangements. It became clear that there is wide disparity and opacity on the subject in both countries. There was tacit agreement that without transparency on the nuclear decision making processes adopted by both sides, the chances of misunderstanding will remain high. Neither side was fully able to convince the other about the reliability of its command and control arrangements. There was a reference to how far the political leadership can be immune to populist public pressures when a nuclear countdown starts. The question of nuclear deterrence led to issue of who gets deterred. This brought about a better understanding of how the deterrent might really operate in South Asia, which was not a small gain. There was the inevitable reference to China and its relevance in the South Asian nuclear dynamic. There was general agreement that the China-India-Pakistan triangle needs to be squared.

The Delhi dialogue came to some specific conclusions on the measures India and Pakistan can unilaterally take to reduce the risks of a nuclear weapons exchange and of accidents. An experienced diplomat rightly pointed out that this need had been agreed upon by the two countries in the Memorandum of Understanding which was part of the Lahore Declaration. The real question is whether the urgency of the need for nuclear risk reduction should wait until other issues between the two countries are resolved. There was unanimity at the meeting on the urgent need for a South Asian nuclear risk reduction regime. The two Governments should use the informal dialogue process to assess each other's commitment to risk reduction. They should better understand the distance each wishes to travel in search of nuclear stability. While the two Governments would have some difficulty coming down from their positions of high principles, much ground work can be done for them through informal and candid meetings between think-tanks and expert groups. It is, therefore, to be hoped that having got themselves nuclear weapons, neither Government will remain complacent, about living in a condition of dangerous deterrence instability.

-------- kazakhstan

Kazakhstan to close nuclear power plant next year

Planet ark
September 1, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=8015

ALMATY - Kazakhstan will close its nuclear power plant at Mangyshlak in the west of the country next February, the Ministry of Energy, Industry and Trade said yesterday.

"Work on closing the reactor began in December 1998 and will be completed in February 2001," a ministry statement said.

The United States will give $3.8 million for the closure. Washington is already helping Kazakhstan, which has given up its nuclear arsenal, to resolve non-proliferation issues and to protect nuclear installations.

Kazakhstan closed its Semipalatinsk nuclear weapons testing ground in July, bringing to an end nearly 40 years of nuclear testing at the site.

The Mangyshlak power station was built to provide power for a plant producing drinking water from sea water for the city of Aktau on the Caspian and for a number of large industrial enterprises in the region.

The water plant will receive electricity from thermal power plants now under construction.

-------- russia

U.S. Eyes Russia's Nuclear Waste

The Associated Press
9-01-00
By ANATOLY MEDETSKY

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia (AP) - Pushing ahead with a major campaign to help the cash-strapped Russian government clean up its aging nuclear arsenal, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has unveiled facilities to handle nuclear waste and create civilian jobs for military scientists.

In a tour across Russia this week, Richardson inspected the progress of a U.S. program to ensure that nuclear materials are disposed of safely. On Friday, he unveiled two storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned submarines at Vladivostok, the main base of Russia's Pacific Fleet.

The impoverished Russian government has been floundering in its efforts to clear up hundreds of decaying nuclear weapons systems and warheads left from the Cold War.

The United States has taken a major role in funding nuclear decommissioning and storage projects. The Clinton administration says the program is vital to prevent nuclear weapons or weapons-grade material from falling into the hands of terrorists or hostile governments.

``Our nonproliferation programs are working and must continue, as it is in America's best interest to help Russia convert these massive Cold War-era facilities into non-weapons work,'' Richardson said at the start of his visit to Russia this week.

Environmentalists have long warned of the dangers posed by the deteriorating Russian nuclear storage areas and dismantling facilities, and urged the government to accelerate its efforts to safely dispose of the decommissioned nuclear submarines and their waste.

Current plans call for some 125 Russian nuclear submarines and their reactors to be dismantled by 2010. Many of the submarines now lie beached at Vladivostok and other naval bases around Russia, while some reactors have been dumped in the sea.

Russian officials have acknowledged that some of the submarines were decommissioned 25 years ago, and have languished dockside far longer than safety permits, posing increasing threats of leaking deadly radiation.

The Russian government has been unable to provide enough storage to handle the buildup of waste from its nuclear fleet, and it has asked the United States, Japan and other nations to help deal with the problem.

``The Russian military initially grumbled about Americans getting close to their coveted secrets and disarming Russia, but gradually they abandoned such complaints,'' said Ivan Safranchuk, an analyst with PIR-Center, an independent think tank dealing with nuclear issues. ``Russia desperately needs foreign money to deal with its nuclear waste.''

The United States has already provided several hundred million dollars to help Russia build new nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities.

Thomas Nilsen, a researcher for the Norwegian environmental group Bellona, said the possible consequences of theft of nuclear materials made such programs worthwhile.

``I think I would agree with Mr. Richardson that these are good programs, especially when you consider the risk of theft of highly-enriched uranium in Russia,'' Nilsen said.

The theft of highly-enriched uranium from a submarine base near Murmansk in 1993 was in part what spurred the U.S. aid program, he said.

Another part of the U.S. program focuses on helping convert Soviet-era nuclear weapons plants to civilian use. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union left thousands of highly-skilled scientists with no way to make a living, raising fears they might work for states such as Iran and help create missiles and other advanced weapons.

Richardson on Wednesday visited a premier Russian nuclear weapons design center in Sarov, where he inaugurated a civilian technological park.

Sarov, known as Arzamas-16 during Soviet times, is Russia's equivalent of the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico. Russian officials have said that the facility will end nuclear weapons work by 2003.

Officials in Sarov have already transferred 10 buildings to civilian use. Last October, Richardson inaugurated a computer center in Sarov and a firm producing kidney dialysis equipment has moved into one of the other buildings.

Richardson said that an automotive parts manufacturing plant will take over another building, and he promised another $13 million to help speed up Sarov's transfer to civilian use.

----

Gore, Russia Sign Plutonium Accord

The Associated Press
By BARRY SCHWEID
09-01-00

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States and Russia signed an agreement Friday to begin disposing of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium each - enough for thousands of nuclear weapons.

Vice President Al Gore signed at his residence here and Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov in Moscow. The arms control agreement was reached in Moscow in June by President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It demonstrates a joint commitment to reduce nuclear dangers despite occasional blips in relations between the two countries.

New facilities will be built beginning in 2007 to convert some of the plutonium into fuel. The rest will be buried.

The process will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Congress has approved providing Russia with $200 million to help carry out its side of the agreement.

Gore's signed in private at his official residence on Massachusetts Avenue. The event was off-limits to the media.

Clinton's meeting in Moscow with Putin was their first. They are due to meet again next week in New York while attending the Millennium summit.

The two leaders also agreed in Moscow to set up a joint center to monitor missile launches.

Clinton called the two developments ``major steps to reduce the nuclear danger.''

Disposing of the plutonium will cost an estimated $5.75 billion - $4 billion in the United States and $1.75 billion in Russia. Other countries will be asked to contribute.

The Russian plutonium is to be converted for use in civilian nuclear power reactors. Some of the U.S. material will be used for reactors, the rest will be buried.

----

Human Rights Group Has Sub Opinion

Excite News
September 1, 2000
By DAVID McHUGH, Associated Press Writer
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/000901/12/russia-nuclear-submarine

MOSCOW (AP) - Investigators of the Kursk submarine tragedy are unfairly focusing on alleged mistakes by the lost crew and not on possible wrongdoing by the top brass, a human rights group said Friday.

The Soldiers' Mothers Committee said that even as the 118 dead crew members were being awarded posthumous medals, prosecutors chose to narrow the legal phase of the investigation to their behavior alone.

Flora Salikhovskaya, the group's deputy chairman, said that higher-ups should be the ones under the microscope.

"We don't understand why, when foreign specialists offered help, our government was silent so long," she said at a news conference. "If they had accepted help on the first day, maybe they could have saved someone."

It's not known whether anyone on the submarine survived the initial catastrophe on Aug. 12 - two explosions that tore the hull open. The submarine sank in the frigid Barents Sea.

Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said a government commission would examine all possibilities in the Kursk accident. Before that verdict, he said, "to search for the guilty is both thankless and premature."

Some observers think the submarine may have sunk as the result of a mishandled or malfunctioning torpedo, but other scenarios include a collision with a World War II mine or foreign submarine.

Attorneys for the Soldiers' Mothers said military prosecutors had opened an investigation under Article 263 of the Criminal Code, covering violations of transportation safety rules.

"If they were alive, they would be called in front of investigators as suspects," said attorney Alexander Zamota. "The criminal case is opened only according to this version - yet we know that the fleet did not have rescue equipment. This we know for sure."

The Interfax news agency reported that the safety investigation was aimed instead at a foreign submarine that officials maintain may have collided with the Kursk.

The Soldiers' Mothers lawyers said that the investigation should have been opened under Article 293, covering criminal negligence - which could include all the theories about what happened, Zamota said.

Given the dilapidated state of the Russian Navy, attorney Oleg Barykin questioned the decision even to send the fleet to sea for maneuvers.

"The fleet is in such condition that even to hold maneuvers could be criminal," he said.

The navy has had to decommission some 1,000 ships over the last 10 years due to lack of money for upkeep. As rescuers struggled to reach the sub, rescue vessels sat in port for lack of maintenance.

The government is under pressure to recover the remains for burial. Russian news agencies reported Friday that Russian and Norwegian experts have worked out a plan to cut eight holes into the hull of the Kursk to reach any bodies.

Igor Spassky, head of the bureau that designed the Kursk, said that most compartments, especially those toward the bow where the explosions occurred, were deformed by the blast.

"It is possible that we will not be able to find everyone," Interfax quoted Spassky as saying.

Julian Thomson, a spokesman for the Norwegian side, said that the recovery of remains might begin in October or November.

-------- ukraine

6 Allegedly Steal Radioactive Metal

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 12:39 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Ukraine-Chernobyl-Thieves.html

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) -- Ukrainian police have detained six citizens of Belarus on suspicion of trying to steal radioactive metal from the Chernobyl zone, site of the world's worst nuclear disaster, officials said Friday.

The six were detained while driving a truck loaded with 1.1 tons of nonferrous metals, the Interior Ministry said, according to the Interfax news agency.

They were apprehended near the village of Benivka, within the 19-mile-radius ``exclusion zone'' around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the report said. It did not specify when the Belarusians were detained and the ministry's press service could not immediately elaborate.

All settlements in the zone were evacuated following the April 1986 explosion and fire at Chernobyl, which contaminated large areas in Ukraine and neighboring Belarus and spread a radioactive cloud over Europe.

Enterprising thieves who sneak pass military cordons have long emptied the zone of most valuables. Some poor Ukrainians gather mushrooms and berries there, hoping to sell them to unsuspecting customers.

Aluminum, copper and nonferrous metals are targeted by scavengers across the former Soviet Union, who sometimes even attack vital installations and then sell the metal to private companies.

-------- u.s. nuc facilities

Throwing Good Money After Bad:
Nuclear Power as a Clean Air "Solution"

Friday, September 1, 2000
By Chris Sherry
http://enn.com/features/2000/09/09012000/nuclearenergy_30538.asp http://enn.com/features/2000/09/09012000/nuclearenergy_30538.asp?P=2

Chris Sherry is research director of the Safe Energy Communication Council. In the following editorial, he responds to claims lodged by the Nuclear Energy Institute's Maureen Coatz in her editorial, "Powering the Clean Air Act."

Having lost the battles of economic performance and public acceptance, the nuclear industry has high hopes of making a comeback by exploiting public concern over climate change and regional air quality.

Indeed, having exhausted all other rhetorical avenues, the industry's public relations machine has thrown itself into an aggressive marketing campaign touting nuclear power as a solution to climate change and a "vital partner" in achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act. Since this argument represents the industry's last-ditch attempt at reviving nuclear power, it warrants a thorough evaluation.

Three Mile Island on the Susquehanna River southest of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, made headlines around the world after a meltdown at Unit #2 in 1979. Pictured here is Unit #1.

Nuclear power has indeed resulted in significant foregone emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, as nuclear plants generally displaced the construction of coal plants in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, looking back at the nation's nuclear construction program - marred by construction cost overruns, delays, cancellations, premature plant closures, poor operational performance and the continued lack of a permanent nuclear waste repository - and then declaring success, based solely upon foregone air emissions, requires a well-trained and very selective memory.

Moreover, the lazy assumption that the clean air benefits of the current fleet of nuclear plants warrants further investment in nuclear power raises many questions:

Could we have achieved the same clean air benefits more efficiently and at lower cost?

Did the massive dedication of capital to the construction of nuclear plants actually prevent investment in more appropriate and economical applications that could have realized greater clean air benefits?

Should past utility planning models focused on large-scale power plant construction be relied on to guide future technology choices in a rapidly evolving electricity market where past utility planning and economic assumptions no longer apply?

Do the environmental and safety liabilities of nuclear power outweigh the clean air benefits, given other cheaper, more viable alternatives?

In the brief space allotted, we attempt to answer some of these questions.

The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that nuclear power currently displaces 155 million metric tons of C02 emissions that would be realized from fossil fuel power plants. Furthermore, NEI estimates that a 20-year life extension of the existing nuclear fleet would result in foregone emissions of 59 million metric tons of C02 in 2020.

These CO2 savings are minor compared to what could be achieved at low cost through other strategies and technologies. A recent comprehensive analysis undertaken by five of the U.S. national laboratories identified a portfolio of greenhouse gas mitigation measures that were technically feasible and could be implemented at very low cost to the U.S. economy. SEE TABLE

While the economics of continued operation of nuclear power plants as a clean air strategy are marginal at best, nuclear power is cost prohibitive when considered as a long-term option.

Myriad economic options exist to address the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing power plant emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, as well as mercury and other toxic substances. Continued wasteful spending on nuclear power will detract from these more viable options, slowing progress in achieving real clean air benefits.

Production at coal-fired power plants increased 1.6 percent in 1998.

Moreover, in a competitive market, simply increasing utilization of nuclear power will not necessarily reduce the emissions from existing coal-fired power plants, since the economics of the market, without strict emissions controls, actually encourages the utilization of old, dirty coal-fired plants. In 1998 nuclear power enjoyed one of its most productive years ever, increasing production by 7.2 percent. However, during the same year, coal-fired electricity generation still increased by 1.6 percent and utility sector CO2 emissions as a whole increased by 3.6 percent. A 26 percent increase in nuclear generation in the Northeast primarily displaced natural gas generation, rather than coal or oil, according to the DOE.

Since the economics of a deregulated electricity market encourage the continued operation of older coal plants, the first priority should be enacting stricter emission standards to all fossil fired power plants, which would mandate the installation of best available pollution control technology. This should be complemented by aggressive efforts to improve the efficiency of our aging fleet of power plants and improve end-use efficiency through the expansion of demand side management programs. Highly efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, wind power, and distributed technologies such as fuel cells and building integrated solar photovoltaic cells will also play a large role in creating the electricity systems of the future.

Unlike nuclear power, these options will not bring with them the possibility of catastrophic accident through the continued operation of aging reactors, as well as the need for multiple high-level nuclear waste storage facilities at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. Efficiency and renewable technologies will also provide ancillary benefits such as improved electric system reliability, additional income for agricultural areas, and the creation of numerous manufacturing jobs.

In the past the nuclear industry promised us cheap energy. Now, having exhausted all other avenues, they are cynically promoting nuclear power as an economically viable, environmentally benign solution to climate change and air pollution. We should not let ourselves be fooled again.

----

Nuclear needed for booming U.S. energy demand

Planet Ark
September 1, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=8025

LONDON - Part of the growth in U.S. electricity consumption will continue to be met by nuclear power, Joe Colvin, president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) said yesterday.

"As the digital economy continues to grow the U.S. and the rest of the world will need significant amounts of new baseload generating capacity," he told a Uranium Institute symposium yesterday. "Some of this generation will be nuclear."

Colvin estimated that by 2020 an additional 300-500,000 MW of generating capacity will be needed in the U.S. in addition to complement the existing 790,000 MW.

He added that in the first half of 2000 electricity demand in the U.S. had increased by 3.5 to four percent.

Of the existing nuclear power plants in the U.S., five units have received approval from the Nuclar Regulatory Commission (NRT) for another 20 years of operation, increasing their lifespan to 60 years.

Three units have formal applications under NTR review and 26 other units have informed the NRC of their intention to pursue license renewel.

He did not specify which units they were but said that almost all units were expected to renew their licenses because of their cost effectiveness.

He also said that increased nuclear output between 1990-1999 was equivalent to adding about 19,000 MW to the grid.

"U.S. capacity factor has risen to 86.8 percent in 1999 from 67.5 percent in 1990," Colvin said.

He added that he saw a future for the U.S. nuclear industry because of its low cost of production and its low emmissions.

"Increasingly stringent domestic clean air regulations and the potentially deliterious effects of global climate change make it an environmental imperative," he told delegates.

According to NEI figures in 1999 alone nuclear energy avoided emmissions of 168 million tonnes of carbon, four million tonnes of sulphur dioxide and two million tonnes of nitrogen oxide.

On costs he said that the average nuclear cost in the U.S. was between two and 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to 3-3.5 cents per kilowatt for a new combined cycle gas turbine.

"That was based on last year's prices before gas prices reached the current highs."

However he admitted that the nuclear industry still had a number of issues to deal with such as the disposal of waste by-products. "We are working with the governemnt to try and find solutions," he said.

In 1999 nuclear plants in the U.S. generated a total of 7-8 billion kilowatt hours of electricity which was comparable to the combined nuclar generation of France, Japan and Belgium.

---

Utilities Can Sue DOE, Court Rules U.S. May Be Liable for Nuclear Storage Costs

Washington Post
Friday, September 1, 2000; Page E04
By Dana Hedgpeth Washington Post Staff Writer
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-09/01/195l-090100-idx.html

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday upheld a lower court's ruling allowing nuclear-power companies to pursue legal claims against the Department of Energy for the government's failure to begin storing spent fuel waste.

The court rejected the government's argument that the utilities first had to go through an administrative remedies process with the Energy Department before seeking monetary damages in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The utilities can now return to the claims court to determine how much the government will have to pay in damages, a figure that attorneys for the utilities said could be as much as $50 billion.

"This is a major victory for the utilities," said Jerry Stouck, a lawyer at the Washington firm Spriggs & Hollingsworth, who argued the case for nuclear utility Yankee Atomic and represents two other claimants. "The government is facing a big problem now. They are facing billions of dollars of damages that can be avoided, if they move the fuel."

The case has been closely watched by the U.S. nuclear industry and its opponents because it deals with the financial and safety issues of disposing of 30,000 tons of radioactive fuel stored at hundreds of reactors nationwide.

Congress established the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, obligating the DOE to begin removing the spent fuel from the plants in 16 years. Five years later, Congress followed up with a law directing the department to focus on putting the waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

So far, the agency has spent a few billion dollars boring a tunnel into the mountain and studying the site, but environmental and political controversies have delayed its opening for years. The earliest the site could be ready is 2010.

"You can't just go to Sears and buy a shed and throw this stuff in it," Stouck said. "They've got to store it on a site." He said utilities have been incurring costs to keep the fuel at their sites.

In a statement issued from the DOE, Mary Anne Sullivan, general counsel for the department, said: "We will be discussing our litigation options with the Department of Justice in the coming weeks. We remain persuaded that the quickest and most efficient way to get relief to those utilities that are incurring costs as a result of our delay in accepting spent nuclear fuel is direct negotiation between individual utilities and the department."

The appeals court decision also ruled in a companion case involving Northern States Power Co. It reversed a claims court judge's decision ruling that the utility must first pursue administrative remedies at the DOE before seeking damages with the claims court.

---

'Mr. Dingellman'

Washington Times
September 1, 2000
Inside the Beltway
John McCaslin
Political tidbits and other shenanigans from around the nation's capital.
http://208.246.212.80/national/inbeltway.htm

The most successful, if not cleverly planned, infiltration during the recent Democratic National Convention - undocumented, we believe, until now - occurred at a reception honoring Rep. John D. Dingell, Michigan Democrat.

The event took place at the House of Blues and was hosted by America's energy industry: the American Gas Association, Edison Electric Institute, National Mining Association and Nuclear Energy Institute.

Following a welcome videotaped by Mr. Dingell (his recent ankle surgery kept him from attending in person), a well-dressed woman assumed the stage spotlight and greeted everybody on behalf of "Congressman Dingellman."

"We did not understand how she could get his name wrong," recalls one gentleman in attendance who requests anonymity.

"Then she asked us to thank the event sponsors, such as the National Mining Association: 'I wonder how many billions of dollars they bilked from the government while stripping our lands?' she asked.

"And the Nuclear Energy Institute, 'who used dangerous radiation instead of pursuing safer means of production like solar and wind power.'

"She went on, 'Perhaps this is why there are protesters both outside and inside this event.'

"Only then did it become obvious to most watching that she was a protester who had infiltrated this private event," the man says.

"Most of the people in the audience began to boo and hiss at her," he says, "and even throw ice at her from their drinks."

At this point, the lights were turned down, the sound shut off, and another woman grabbed the microphone from the protester's hand. It seemed she was going to apologize for the interruption, so the spotlight came back on, as did the microphone. But as soon as everything was up and running again, she too began to berate the crowd and sponsors.

"Another protester," explains the gentleman. But wait, there's more.

"As security escorted the two away, a group of people on the floor of the event began chanting against the congressman and sponsors. More protesters. All professionally dressed. They were also escorted away," he says.

Eventually, a genuine Dingell staff member took the stage to say she was happy that people living in America are allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights.

-------- colorado

Rocky Flats Fact Sheet

August 2000
Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From: jseem <jseem@uswest.net>

At a Rocky Flats Stakeholders meeting 8-30-00 several interesting statements were made by Kaiser Hill that are worth mentioning. Also, the promotion of the Rocky Flats Superfund Site as Wildlife Refuge should be investigated by the USEPA ombudsman immediately. Several knowledgeable women that have worked on the Arsenal clean up for years are concerned that what has happened at the Rocky Mt Arsenal will happen at Rocky Flats.

ROCKY FLATS STAKEHOLDERS MEETING 1. There is a SAFE level of plutonium to inhale! I was informed that we should read 40 CFR61 Subpart H Appendix D (E) Table 2

The DOE's safe concentration of plutonium for ANY MAN, WOMAN OR CHILD to breathe is:

2 X 10 to the minus 15 Curies per cubic meter ANNUALLY approximately 4 people in a million cancer risk

Unfortunately they say, there is no calculation for the general public for anything less than annual readings (i.e. 8 hour average?)

QUESTION: "HOW DO THEY CALCULATE THIS DURING CLEAN UP?

2. There are 14 air samplers onsite called RAMP's. They are continuous emissions monitors that detect radioactive ambient air at Rocky Flats. They were used during the vegetation burn at Rocky Flats in April (which detected nothing). The Colorado Department of Health nor USEPA have this equipment. Bob Nininger, a Kaiser Hill representative, stated that there are NO real time monitors in existence that measure immediate radioactive ambient air for the general public. He disputed the claim that RAD ALERT monitors manufactured in California (used at Three Mile Island and other locations) measure counts per minute for radioactive air; he believes this is for surface measurement. Is he right? Perhaps the manufacturer of this equipment should be brought to Denver to give a presentation to the DOE, EPA, CDPHE, Kaiser Hill, and the general public before there is further clean-up at ROCKY FLATS!

Do real time monitors exist for grab samples to test water quality? Perhaps this would be important since Kaiser Hill presented concerns that the Colorado standard for plutonium in the drinking water/surface water (the only one in the country!), .15 pci/l ( a Colorado- l in a million risk for cancer calculation) may be violated during clean up and in the future. They suggest this may need to be changed.

-------- new mexico

Nuclear spy suspect to stay in jail

BBC News
Friday, 1 September, 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_907000/907182.stm

Mr Lee's wife Sylvia arrives for court hearing The United States administration has won a last-minute delay to the release from solitary confinement of a nuclear scientist at the centre of an espionage inquiry.

Last week, a judge ruled that Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese-American nuclear physicist who was sacked from his job at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, should be allowed home from jail on bail of $1m.

Mr Lee has been in solitary confinement for eight months and is charged with copying computer data on nuclear secrets, to the possible benefit of China and other countries.

The scientist, who has pleaded not guilty, will now remain in jail until at least next Wednesday, pending another hearing.

'Danger'

The US appeals court intervened with just minutes to spare on Friday to prevent Mr Lee's release.

In response to prosecutors' claims that Mr Lee might still have top US nuclear secrets hidden away, the Denver appeals court said: "The release of the appellee [Mr Lee] is stayed pending further order of the court."

The government had argued that "the degree of danger associated with Lee's release, in combination with the extraordinary conditions imposed by the court, indicate that this case will present unique issues on appeal which will require a reasonable amount of time for the Court of Appeals to review".

Prosecutors said they believed Mr Lee still had in his possession "the crown jewels" of US nuclear designs on seven tapes that he made at the New Mexico laboratory.

Mr Lee has said he had destroyed the tapes in question, although prosecutors say they may still exist.

Defence lawyers were angry at the decision to keep Mr Lee in jail, and said they were not notified of any appeal and had therefore not had time to respond.

Last week District Judge James Parker, in Albuquerque, ordered that Mr Lee be released to his house, where he would stay under detention and 24-hour surveillance.

The judge set out a series of strict conditions for Mr Lee, including limiting his movements to his house and backyard, and monitoring his telephone calls and post.

Race claims

Mr Lee's family and supporters allege that the scientist was unfairly singled out for investigation because of his race.

The Washington Post reported on Friday that two former counterintelligence officials had signed sworn affidavits to support the family's allegations.

The affidavits, released by Mr Lee's lawyers, said Mr Lee's race was the determining factor in targeting him.

In his affidavit, Robert Vrooman, ex-director of counterintelligence at Los Alamos, said: "I did not believe then and I do not believe now that Dr Lee engaged in espionage."

The 60-year-old scientist was fired from the Los Alamos laboratory last year, when he became the key suspect in the espionage inquiry.

After a lengthy investigation he was charged with 59 counts of illegally transferring data onto an unsecured computer but he was not charged with spying.

Mr Lee's trial is scheduled for November. If convicted on all 59 counts, he could face life in prison.

---

Federal court orders scientist Wen Ho Lee to remain in jail

CNN
September 1, 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/01/wenholee.release.01/index.html

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (CNN) -- A federal appeals court has ordered that former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee remain in jail in New Mexico.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/01/wenholee.release.01/new.mexico.albuquerque.lg.jpg

Lee was supposed to be released on bail at noon. But at the last minute, prosecutors filed an appeal to block it.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has now stayed the release, pending a further order from the court.

Lee's supporters denounced the government's actions, saying the scientist is no threat.

Victor Hwang, an attorney with the civil rights group Asian Law Caucus said the government should immediately release Lee and later, if Lee is acquitted at trial, clear his name. The San Francisco group filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Lee was the victim of racial profiling.

Lee was fired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and has been held in solitary confinement since December 10, 1999, at a detention center outside Santa Fe, New Mexico.

The 60-year-old Taiwan native, a naturalized U.S. citizen, faces 59 counts of downloading volumes of nuclear weapons design and testing simulation data from secure computers to a non-secure computer and tapes. Some of those tapes are missing. He is the only Los Alamos employee to be charged.

If convicted on all counts, Lee could be sentenced to life in prison.

Government's charges and allegations of racial profiling

The government says Lee compromised national security; Lee was arrested at a time when Congress expressed fear of the Chinese spies in U.S. nuclear labs.

In court documents filed in July, the Justice Department listed eight nations to which Lee wrote, apparently seeking employment: Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan and China.

The letters were sent in 1993, when Lee had begun to download nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos computers, according to papers filed at the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.

The government also has said Lee was involved in the design and simulation of nuclear weapons at a Chinese Institute.

But Lee's supporters note that Lee has never been charged with espionage, proving that he is being prosecuted because of his race.

In affidavits unsealed Thursday, two former government counterintelligence chiefs said they believe Lee was targeted because he is an Asian American. The same day, leaders of three prestigious scientific organizations expressed their objections to the government's treatment of Lee.

About 30 FBI agents and support personnel searched for more than12 hours Thursday at Lee's home in the Los Alamos suburb of White Rock, looking for any sensitive scientific materials. The search was in advance of Lee's imminent release.

Conditions of Lee's bail release

U.S. District Judge James Parker twice denied bail before changing his mind last week, when he ordered Lee released on $1 million bail and scheduled a hearing Tuesday to discuss the conditions of the release.

The reversal came after a senior FBI agent admitted he had previously given inaccurate or misleading testimony about Lee's alleged deceptions.

Under Parker's proposal, Lee would remain under house arrest until November 6, the scheduled date for trial. He would have to wear an electronic monitor and call federal authorities twice a day. He would be able to leave his home only for trips to the federal courthouse or the Los Alamos Lab with his attorney. His phone calls and mail would be monitored.

Lee was not released Tuesday because the government requested a stay of Parker's order, seeking more time to decide whether to appeal. Parker granted the stay, or a temporary postponement of a court order, giving the government until Friday to appeal to the 10 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which has jurisdiction over New Mexico.

University of New Mexico law professor Leo Romero urged people not to read too much into the judge's decision because Parker was only making a decision on bail.

"The judge is not making any kind of determinations with respect to the merits, which are whether Mr. Lee is guilty, whether prosecution can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt," Romero said.

CNN Correspondent Tony Clark, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

---

FBI searches the home of nuclear scientist Lee

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Friday, September 1, 2000
News from around the nation
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/natn0116.shtml

NEW MEXICO -- FBI agents searched the White Rock home of Wen Ho Lee yesterday as the former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist accused of security breaches waited in jail for his release today on bail.

Agents weren't expected to finish searching Lee's home until noon today, the time set by the judge for Lee's release after more than eight months behind bars.

U.S. District Judge James Parker on Tuesday proposed what he described as "highly restrictive terms" for Lee's release, including a search of the home.

Lee has been charged with the alleged transfer of restricted data about nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the leaders of three of the nation's most prestigious scientific organizations are taking issue with Lee's treatment.

"Although we make no claim as to his innocence or guilt, he appears to be a victim of unjust treatment," said a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno signed by the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.

---

U.S. Court Stays Bail Release of Wen Ho Lee

Yahoo News
Friday September 1
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/ts/crime_scientist_dc_7.html

SANTA FE, N.M. (Reuters) - Former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, charged with mishandling U.S. nuclear arms secrets, will remain in jail for now after the government won a last-minute stay to delay his court-ordered release on $1 million bond, attorneys familiar with the case said.

``The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay until at least Wednesday,'' said one attorney, who declined to be named.

The stay came just before a Friday deadline set by U.S. District Judge James Parker in Albuquerque for Lee's release from eight months in solitary confinement.

Lee. 60, has pleased not guilty to 59 counts of illegally copying computer data on nuclear weapons design at Los Alamos National Laboratory and is scheduled to go on trial in November.

Judge Parker last week reversed his earlier orders keeping lee in the Santa Fe county jail and ordered that the 60-year-old computer scientist be moved to his house in nearby White Rock, although under home detention and strict 24-hour surveillance.

---

Wen Ho Lee Release Halted on Appeal

Yahoo News
Friday September 1
By RICHARD BENKE, Associated Press Writer
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000901/ts/scientist_secrets_7.html

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - An appeals court on Friday halted at least temporarily the release of jailed Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was expected to be home on $1 million bail.

As U.S. District Judge James Parker, holding a emergency last-minute hearing on Lee's release, told the courtroom that he'd just been handed a copy of an order from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

``Release of (Lee) is stayed pending further order of this court,'' the brief statement from Denver court said.

The government, which accuses Lee of breaching security at the nuclear lab, had been fighting Parker's proposal to free the scientist on bail under strict conditions.

It was not immediately clear what prompted the appellate court's decision because a government appeal had not been filed as of noon Friday, which had been Parker's deadline.

Lee was brought to Albuquerque from the Santa Fe jail Friday morning. Lee's White Rock neighbors, Don and Jean Marshall, whom Parker designated as Lee's custodians for his release, also left for Albuquerque Friday morning with Lee's wife, Sylvia.

The 60-year-old Taiwan-born scientist, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was fired last year after allegedly downloading restricted data about nuclear weapons to unsecure computers and tapes. He has been jailed nine months awaiting trial, which is scheduled for November. If convicted of all 59 counts, Lee could face life in prison.

On Thursday, affidavits were unsealed saying two former counterintelligence chiefs believe Lee was singled out for prosecution because of his race, as Lee's supporters claim.

The counterintelligence chiefs' statements were submitted by the defense to support its petition for disclosure of a huge volume of documents that it says shows a pattern of racial profiling in the Energy Department.

Parker has not decided whether to turn the materials over to the defense.

Charles Washington, who led the Energy Department's counterintelligence branch for several years in the 1990s, said he knows of other employees who eluded prosecution for more serious offenses. He said his agency routinely handles infractions like Lee's by merely counseling violators.

``I have concluded that if Dr. Lee had not been initially targeted because of his race ... he may very well have been treated administratively like others who had allegedly mishandled classified information,'' he said in the affidavit.

Robert Vrooman, former head of security at the lab, said Lee became the focus of an investigation to the exclusion of other potential suspects who fit a profile based on access to certain information and travel to China. Others with those characteristics were not pursued, he said.

``It is my opinion,'' he said in the statement, ``that the failure to look at the rest of the population is because Lee is ethnic Chinese.''

In an open letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, the leaders of three scientific organizations protested Lee's treatment.

``Although we make no claim as to his innocence or guilt, he appears to be a victim of unjust treatment,'' said the letter, signed by Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences; William A. Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering and Kenneth I. Shine, president of the Institute of Medicine.

The three organizations are independent research groups chartered by Congress to provide scientific advice to government.

Prosecutors deny Lee was singled out because of race.

About 30 FBI agents and support personnel searched for more than 12 hours Thursday at Lee's home in the Los Alamos suburb of White Rock, looking for any sensitive scientific materials.

Defense attorney Nancy Hollander, who kept watch on the search, said she knew of nothing seized from the house.

``It was a long day. We did complete the tasks mandated by the court order, and we feel we did a thorough and professional job,'' agent Doug Beldon said after the search ended Thursday night.

The judge ordered that Lee be freed at noon Friday on $1 million bail. A government appeal with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver could delay his release if the court issued an emergency stay of the judge's order.

Assistant U.S. Attorney George Stamboulidis and the U.S. solicitor general's office had awaited Parker's memorandum explaining his reasons for granting bail before deciding whether to appeal. They got the memorandum Thursday afternoon, Hollander said.

The final conditions of the release order were not made public, but the judge's proposal had included a search of Lee's home, limits on his communication and travel, home visits and removal of all electronic communication devices except for one phone line from the house.

----

Report: Scientist Wen Ho Lee Singled Out for Race

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 2:09 AM ET updated 10:16 PM ET Sep 1
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/ts/crime_scientist_dc_6.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was singled out in 1996 as an espionage suspect on the basis of race, two former counterintelligence officials said in sworn affidavits, The Washington Post reported Friday.

The affidavits, released late on Thursday by lawyers representing Lee, said Lee's race was the determining factor in targeting the 60-year-old nuclear physicist, in the absence of credible evidence that Chinese spies had stolen nuclear warhead secrets from the laboratory.

``I did not believe then and I do not believe now that Dr. Lee engaged in espionage,'' Robert Vrooman, the former director of counterintelligence at Los Alamos, said in his sworn declaration, according to the Post report.

Lee, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Taiwan, has pleaded not guilty to 59 counts of illegally copying computer data on nuclear weapons design at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

He was indicted last December after being fired from Los Alamos in March 1999 amid congressional allegations of Chinese spying at the nuclear weapons lab.

In a separate report, the Los Angeles Times reported on Friday that three highly prestigious U.S. academic organizations have publicly protested Lee's treatment, saying he ``appears to a victim of unjust treatment'' that ``reflects poorly on the U.S. justice system.''

The highly unusual protest, signed by the presidents of the National Academy of Scientists, National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, was contained in an open letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, the Times reported.

The Times said the complaint marked the first known case in which the three congressionally chartered organizations have intervened on behalf of an American scientist.

The presidents wrote in their letter that their concerns in Lee's case were identical to those their organizations voice regularly to foreign governments, including those of the former Soviet Union, China, Iran and other authoritarian regimes, the Times reported.

Lee is not charged with espionage. Instead, prosecutors have accused him of acting ``with the intent to injure the United States'' and named China and seven European and Pacific rim countries as nations to which Lee may have intended to deliver secrets.

In court papers made public last month, U.S. prosecutors acknowledged Lee may have been job-hunting, not spying, when he allegedly copied nuclear secrets from a classified computer. They said he began looking for another job in 1993, at about the time of the first offenses charged against him.

Lee, who has been behind bars since December, was ordered released on bail by U.S. District Judge Janes Parker last week. He could be released to home detention as soon as Friday if government prosecutors do not appeal the release.

Lee's attorneys filed Vrooman's affidavit and another sworn statement by Charles Washington, the Energy Department's former acting director of counterintelligence, in early July to support a selective prosecution motion filed by Lee in June.

In Vrooman's affidavit, released to attorneys after review by government classification specialists, he contrasted Lee's treatment with that of a ``non-Chinese'' employee in an earlier spy case.

In that case, the employee at a Department of Energy laboratory transferred classified information to a foreign country but received full immunity ``in return for agreeing to a full debriefing on the information that he passed,'' the Post reported, quoting from the affidavit.

The Post cited sources familiar with the case as saying the breach occurred in the early 1980s at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and involved the passing of secrets about fissile material to the Russians.

Damage stemming from that case cost the government billions of dollars, the Post cited one source as saying.

In his statement, Vrooman also said that Robert Messemer, the FBI's lead agent on the case, had misstated his views by writing in an investigative report that Vrooman had told the FBI that he suspected Lee of passing classified data to China.

``His allegation that I did so is false,'' the Post cited Vrooman as saying.

Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was reported to be investigating possible discrimination against Asian-Americans at Los Alamos, the largest U.S. nuclear weapons lab.

Rick Malaspina, a spokesman for the University of California, said the EEOC investigation at Los Alamos followed a similar probe begun last year at the Livermore national lab after claims by nine Asian-American scientists and engineers that they were subjected to racial bias in pay and promotions.

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson in January appointed a national ombudsman to help the department deal with allegations of racial discrimination at its facilities.

---

U.S. Court Stays Bail Release of Wen Ho Lee

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 8:35 PM ET updated 8:38 PM ET Sep 1
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/ts/crime_scientist_dc_10.html

SANTA FE, N.M. (Reuters) - With only minutes to spare, a U.S. appeals court intervened on Friday and stopped jailed former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee from being freed on $1 million bond while he awaits trial on charges that he mishandled U.S. nuclear arms secrets.

In response to prosecutors' claims that Lee might have top U.S. nuclear secrets hidden away somewhere, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver said ``the release of the appellee (Wen Ho Lee) is stayed pending further order of the court.''

The one-sentence order was made public just before a noon (2 p.m. EDT)(1800 GMT) deadline for Lee's release from a New Mexico jail where he has been held for eight months in virtual solitary confinement.

The defense complained bitterly about how quickly the appeals court in Denver acted. Lee's lawyers had wanted to file a response to the government's emergency motion, but the appellate court in Denver acted before it had a chance, according to defense attorney Nancy Hollander.

Lee, 60, has pleaded not guilty to 59 counts of illegally copying computer data on nuclear weapons design at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is scheduled to go on trial in November.

Lee was fired by Los Alamos in March 1999 amid allegations of Chinese spying at the premier U.S. nuclear weapons lab. But in December 1999 he was indicted not for espionage but for acting ``with the intent to injure the United States'' by copying classified weapons design.

The 10th Circuit acted in response to a motion by prosecutors to keep Lee in jail while they prepared to appeal a judge's order that he be released.

In its motion to stop Lee's release, the government argued that ``the degree of danger associated with Lee's release, in combination with the extraordinary conditions imposed by the court, indicate that this case will present unique issues on appeal which will require a reasonable amount of time for the court of appeals to review.''

Prosecutors said they feared Lee still had possession of ''the crown jewels'' of U.S. nuclear weapons designs on seven tapes he made at Los Alamos. Lee said he destroyed the tapes but prosecutors said they might still exist.

In filings with the appellate court, prosecutors said: ``all agree that the government has not found the missing tapes, nor is there any evidence establishing that they have already been transmitted to an unauthorized recipient.''

U.S. District Judge James Parker in Albuquerque last week ordered the computer scientist be released to his house in the Los Alamos suburb White Rock, although under home detention and strict 24-hour surveillance.

Parker set out a 12-point list of ``highly restrictive'' conditions for Lee, limiting him to his house and backyard and subjecting his wife to searches by the FBI when she goes out or comes home.

Lee's telephone calls and mail would be monitored and his adult children could only visit during daylight hours after giving advance notice to the FBI. His wife Sylvia Lee would have to give agents four-hour notice that she planned to go to the grocery store or anywhere else.

Prosecutors argued that the very strict nature of the conditions meant Judge Parker ``implicitly agreed that Lee continues to pose a serious danger.''

The government contends that even under heavy confinement Lee might be able to ``surreptitiously send a signal which could have resulted in the missing tapes being located and obtained by another,'' according to court filings.

Lee's family, who traveled to Albuquerque to sign the requisite papers for his release, had no comment on the latest setback to their efforts to get him out of jail.

Lee's family and supporters alleged the Taiwanese-born U.S. citizen was unfairly singled out for investigation and prosecution because of his race.

Two former counterintelligence officials have signed sworn affidavits supporting those claims, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

The affidavits, released late on Thursday by Lee's lawyers, said Lee's race was the determining factor in targeting him in the absence of credible evidence that Chinese spies had stolen nuclear warhead secrets from the laboratory.

``I did not believe then and I do not believe now that Dr. Lee engaged in espionage,'' Robert Vrooman, the former director of counterintelligence at Los Alamos, said in his sworn declaration.

In a separate report the Los Angeles Times said three highly prestigious U.S. academic organizations have publicly protested Lee's treatment, saying he ``appears to a victim of unjust treatment'' that ``reflects poorly on the U.S. justice system.''

The highly unusual protest, signed by the presidents of the National Academy of Scientists, National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, was contained in an open letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, the Times reported.

---

Los Alamos Affidavits Unsealed

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 3:37 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Scientist-Affidavits.html

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- A former acting chief of counterintelligence at the U.S. Energy Department and a man who held a similar job at Los Alamos National Laboratory believe jailed scientist Wen Ho Lee was singled out because of his race.

The affidavits of Charles Washington and Robert Vrooman were unsealed by a federal court Thursday, one day before Lee was to be released on bail pending his November trial.

The 60-year-old Taiwan-born scientist, a naturalized U.S. citizen, is accused of downloading restricted data about nuclear weapons to unsecure computers and tape. He could face life in prison if convicted.

Washington, who headed the Energy Department's counterintelligence branch for several years in the 1990s, said he knows of other employees who eluded prosecution for more serious offenses.

``I have concluded that if Dr. Lee had not been initially targeted because of his race ... he may very well have been treated administratively like others who had allegedly mishandled classified information,'' he said in the affidavit.

U.S. District Judge James Parker has ordered a huge volume of documents the defense contends show a pattern of racial profiling in the Energy Department. Vrooman's and Washington's statements were submitted by the defense in support of its petition for that disclosure.

Prosecutors deny Lee was singled out because of race.

Parker has not decided to turn the requested materials over to the defense. For now, he said, he merely wants to study the material himself before he rules on the disclosure motion.

Washington, who still works for the Energy Department, said his agency routinely handles infractions like Lee's by merely counseling violators.

He said he read an administrative report on the Lee investigation and concluded ``the inquiry was wholly lacking in any support to identify Dr. Lee as a suspect.''

Vrooman, former head of security at the lab, said Lee became the focus of an investigation to the exclusion of other potential suspects who fit a profile based on access to certain information and travel to China. He said others with those characteristics were not pursued.

``It is my opinion,'' he said in the statement, ``that the failure to look at the rest of the population is because Lee is ethnic Chinese.''

---

Wen Ho Lee Release Halted on Appeal

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 8:05 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Scientist-Secrets.html

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- An appeals court halted the release of jailed Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee on Friday, acting even before government prosecutors requested a delay, a justice department spokeswoman said.

U.S. District Judge James Parker, who last week ordered Lee's release on $1 million bail, was critical of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.

He said the court likely wouldn't have ordered the last-minute delay if it had seen the government's information that he's spent the past three months reviewing.

The appeals court's brief order read: ``Release of (Lee) is stayed pending further order of this court.'' Justice Department spokeswoman Carole Florman said the court acted on its own before the government had a chance to ask for a stay.

Defense attorneys were angered that the timing of the stay left them no chance to respond. They filed a petition Friday asking the 10th Circuit to reconsider.

``Dr. Lee has spent more than eight months shackled in solitary confinement because the prosecution misled Judge Parker (and this court) about the significance of the information at issue and the nature of Dr. Lee's conduct. He should not spend a single day more in prison,'' the petition said.

Defense attorney John Cline told Parker, ``This isn't the way the judicial system is supposed to work. It just isn't.''

Parker raised the possibility of bail last week when he held that the information presented by the government ``no longer has the requisite clarity and persuasive character necessary'' to keep Lee in jail. He ruled after an FBI agent whose testimony last December was a key in denying bail acknowledged that some of his testimony was incorrect.

Parker expressed concern that the 10th Circuit judges don't have easy access to all the materials he has reviewed since taking the case in June.

``I don't know how you're going to get all the classified information to the 10th Circuit quickly,'' he told prosecutors Friday.

Lee, 60, is accused of downloading restricted data about nuclear weapons to unsecure computers and tapes at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He has been jailed since December awaiting trial, which is now scheduled Nov. 6. If convicted of all 59 counts, Lee could face life in prison.

The prosecution, which filed a motion to halt Lee's bail Friday, has contended there are no acceptable terms of release as long as seven computer tapes remained unaccounted for.

FBI agents searched Lee's home Thursday for any additional evidence, including any evidence of those tapes. The defense insists the tapes were destroyed; the prosecution insists on proof.

Lee attorney Nancy Hollander, who kept watch during the search, said she knew of nothing seized from the house. The FBI agents put a video surveillance camera in the Lee's backyard and attached tracking the their cars.

On Thursday, affidavits were unsealed saying two former counterintelligence chiefs believe Lee was singled out for prosecution because of his race, as the Taiwan-born scientist's supporters claim. Prosecutors deny the allegation.

The counterintelligence chiefs' statements were submitted by the defense to support its petition for disclosure of a huge volume of documents that it says shows a pattern of racial profiling in the Energy Department.

Parker has not decided whether to turn the materials over to the defense.

Charles Washington, who led the Energy Department's counterintelligence branch for several years in the 1990s, said he knows of other employees who eluded prosecution for more serious offenses. He said his agency routinely handles infractions like Lee's by merely counseling violators.

``I have concluded that if Dr. Lee had not been initially targeted because of his race ... he may very well have been treated administratively like others who had allegedly mishandled classified information,'' he said in the affidavit.

Robert Vrooman, former head of security at the lab, said Lee became the focus of an investigation to the exclusion of other potential suspects who fit a profile based on access to certain nuclear warhead information and travel to China. Others with those characteristics were not pursued, he said.

``It is my opinion,'' he said in the statement, ``that the failure to look at the rest of the population is because Lee is ethnic Chinese.''

---

Appeals Court Orders Scientist Wen Ho Lee Held for Now

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By JAMES STERNGOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/01cnd-lee.html

ALBUQUERQUE, Sept. 1 - Two federal appeals judges today halted the imminent release on bail of Wen Ho Lee, the former Los Alamos scientist accused of mishandling nuclear weapons secrets.

The delay in Dr. Lee's release was a result of a last-minute move by prosecutors that provoked outrage and charges of deception from defense lawyers at an unusually emotional court hearing here today.

The one-line order from the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver -- "Release of appellee Wen Ho Lee is stayed pending further order of this court" -- came moments before a federal judge in Albuquerque was to hear arguments at the hearing on whether he should go forward with his decision to grant bail to Dr. Lee today, which was to take effect at noon today.

On Aug. 24, the district court judge, James A. Parker, reversed an earlier order in which he had denied bail to Dr. Lee because the government said the scientist posed a grave threat to national security. After an F.B.I. agent admitted erroneously testifying that Dr. Lee had been deception on several crucial points access to a computer and defense experts disputed the value of the secrets Dr. Lee is charged with illegally downloading, Judge Parker ordered Dr. Lee released to home detention on $1 million bail. He then gave prosecutors until noon today to appeal.

At a noon hearing today, at which it was expected that the government would announce their appeal, a law clerk strode into the nearly empty courtroom and handed Judge Parker a piece of paper. The judge then announced that the appeals court had already issued an order temporarily halting Dr. Lee's release, circumventing the hearing.

The announcement, which appeared to have taken the judge and Dr. Lee's lawyers completely by surprise, was a clear indication of the intensity of the government's desire to keep Dr. Lee imprisoned even before he has been tried.

John Cline, one of Dr. Lee's lawyers, leapt to his feet, and stated, "If they filed something without telling us I think it's an outrage."

He explained that he had, as is common, insisted that he receive advance notice of any filing to give him time to respond, and that he had understood the prosecutors would do so. The fact that the prosecutors had apparently done an end run around the defense and the district court here was, Mr. Cline insisted, an abuse of the normal process, under which the appeal would have been filed only after Judge Parker had issued his ruling and the hearing here ended.

Mr. Cline said he had already prepared a response to any government motion to halt Dr. Lee's release. The motion was now all but useless.

"That's not the way the system is supposed to work," Mr. Cline said, while Dr. Lee, sitting a few feet away, grimaced and closed his eyes.

Judge Parker responded with the unusual admission that he had had planned on denying the government's request for any further delay in Dr. Lee's release, but that with the appeals court's ruling, it was now out of his hands.

"It is not clear to me that this is any longer under this court's jurisdiction," Judge Parker said drily.

He then called a recess.

But the hearing reconvened less than an hour later, and the sparks flew again between the two sides.

The second hearing had been requested by the lead prosecutor, George Stamboulidis, to clear up, he said, the impression that he might have misled the defense or the court.

He explained that the stay, issued by Judges Deanell R. Tacha and David M. Ebel, was done on the appellate court's initiative as the noon deadline loomed He suggested that the appeals court stay had taken him by surprise, too.

"The government doesn't play dirty pool," Mr. Stamboulidis said.

Mr. Cline responded immediately. "What I think Mr. Stamboulidis has said is half-truths at best," he said. "It is part of a pattern of misleading conduct that, I think, is outrageous."

To that, Nancy Hollander, another one of Dr. Lee's lawyers, explained that she had just spoken with the clerk of the appeals court in Denver and had been given a different version of the events. She said she was informed that an official with the Department of Justice in Washington had called the court earlier in the day and informed them that a notice of appeal was being filed shortly in Albuquerque and Denver along with a request for a stay of Dr. Lee's release until the appeal was heard by a three-judge appeals panel. The request for a stay was the one that Judge Parker had already said he was prepared to deny.

Ms. Hollander said she had requested and was given an assurance that she would be informed of any filings by the government and given a chance to respond. The appeals court judges, she said, acted anyway in response to the government's request, not on their own, as Mr. Stamboulidis had suggested.

"It is the government circumventing this court and essentially not being truthful," Ms. Hollander charged.

Mr. Stamboulidis rejected that claim.

"Disappointment in a result is not justification for taking shots like that," he said. "There was no sneakiness, no inappropriateness."

Later today Mr. Cline and Ms. Hollander did fax to the appeals court a response to the government's actions, noting their anger at what they said was deceptive behavior that, they added, violated some of the court's own rules. The asked the court to lift the stay.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court is expected to consider the motions by the prosecution and defense.

After expected to return home for the first time since last December, Dr. Lee returned to prison in Sant Fe, where he has been held in harsh conditions. The prosecution has said his confinement is essential because of concerns he might find a way, to spirit nuclear secrets to a hostile country.

---

2 Affidavits Are Unsealed in Secrets Case At Los Alamos

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By JAMES STERNGOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/090100los-alamos-lee.html

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 31 -- A federal court today made public affidavits filed by lawyers for the former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee in which two former intelligence officials said they were aware of instances in which government employees had been caught in serious cases of espionage but not prosecuted.

The defense has introduced the statements in its efforts to prove that Dr. Lee, who has been indicted on charges that he illegally downloaded a wealth of nuclear weapons secrets with the intent of helping a foreign country, was unfairly singled out for prosecution because of his race. Dr. Lee, 60, a naturalized American citizen, was born in Taiwan and, although he is not accused of spying, he was initially investigated on suspicions he had passed secrets to China.

The defense has previously released statements in which government intelligence officials said that Dr. Lee had been unfairly targeted because of concerns that because he was of Chinese descent he might be inclined to commit espionage for China. The fact that Dr. Lee was born in Taiwan, a strident enemy of the People's Republic of China, had been ignored, they said.

The affidavits released today go further, though, by providing details of serious espionage cases in which admitted spies apparently escaped criminal prosecution altogether.

Robert Vrooman, the former head of counterintelligence at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where Dr. Lee worked, provided one affidavit. Mr. Vrooman, who has since retired from Los Alamos and who was reprimanded for not pursuing Dr. Lee more vigorously, disclosed for the first time an intelligence investigation code-named "Buffalo Slaughter."

In this investigation, he wrote, sometime in the late 1980's a person working at an Energy Department laboratory was caught after having passed secrets to a foreign country. "That individual was granted full immunity in return for agreeing to a full debriefing on the information that he passed," Mr. Vrooman said. That person, he added, was not of Chinese origin.

The second affidavit unsealed today was by Charles E. Washington, the former acting head of counterintelligence at the Department of Energy. Mr. Washington, who still works at the department as an international policy analyst, said that while he was head of counterintelligence he read an administrative report on the investigation of Dr. Lee and believed it "was wholly lacking in any support to identify Dr. Lee as a suspect."

Mr. Washington said that he knew of a number of department employees who were not prosecuted "for committing offenses that are much more serious than the 'security infractions' alleged to have been committed by Dr. Lee."

"I am personally aware of a D.O.E. employee who committed a most egregious case of espionage that cost our nation billions of dollars and drastically impacted our national defense," he said. "That D.O.E. employee was not prosecuted."

No further details were provided.

"The department aggressively pursues all such allegations," said Natalie Wymer, an Energy Department spokeswoman, but she would not comment on the specific cases mentioned.

These affidavits, unsealed today in Federal District Court in Albuquerque, follow by several days an order by the federal judge in Dr. Lee's case, James A. Parker, in which he gave the government two weeks to hand over thousands of pages of classified internal documents to determine if there is evidence that Dr. Lee was a victim of selective prosecution. If the judge finds that that was the case, the charges against him could be dropped.

In previous statements, Mr. Vrooman had disputed F.B.I. assertions that Dr. Lee had been singled out for investigation because he fit the description of a spy they were searching for. Mr. Vrooman said again in today's affidavit that dozens of people who also met the criteria, but who were not ethnically Chinese, were not pursued. The intelligence official said that even though he had investigated Dr. Lee for years, he considered him "naïve," but not a spy.

---

Affidavits Cite Race In Probe Of Lee Spy Case in 1980s Also Is Revealed

Washington Post
Friday, September 1, 2000; Page A16
By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-09/01/148l-090100-idx.html

Lawyers representing physicist Wen Ho Lee last night released affidavits from two former counterintelligence officials stating that Lee was singled out in 1996 as an espionage suspect on the basis of race, in the absence of credible evidence that Chinese spies had stolen nuclear warhead secrets from the laboratory.

"I did not believe then and I do not believe now that Dr. Lee engaged in espionage," Robert S. Vrooman, the former director of counterintelligence at Los Alamos, said in his sworn declaration.

In the document, released to attorneys after a lengthy review by government classification specialists, Vrooman also revealed the existence of an earlier espionage case, code-named Buffalo Slaughter, in which a "non-Chinese" employee at a Department of Energy laboratory transferred classified information to a foreign country but received full immunity "in return for agreeing to a full debriefing on the information that he passed."

Sources familiar with the case say the breach occurred in the early 1980s at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and involved the passing of secrets about fissile material to the Russians. One source said that damage stemming from the case cost the government billions of dollars.

Lee's attorneys made the statements available as they awaited word on whether government prosecutors will appeal a ruling last week by U.S. District Judge James A. Parker to release Lee on bail pending trial. Parker has given prosecutors until noon today to decide.

If the government decides not to seek either an appeal or a stay of Parker's bail order from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Lee could be released to his home in White Rock, N.M., later today under tight restrictions.

Lee, 60, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Taiwan, was arrested in December and charged with copying nuclear weapons data from the classified computer system at Los Alamos to tapes, seven of which are missing.

Lee's attorneys filed Vrooman's affidavit and a similar sworn statement by Charles E. Washington, the Energy Department's former acting director of counterintelligence, early last month to buttress a selective prosecution motion filed by Lee in June.

In his statement, Vrooman said that Robert Messemer, the FBI's lead agent on the case, had misstated his views by writing in an investigative report that Vrooman had told the FBI that he suspected Lee of passing classified information to China. "His allegation that I did so is false," Vrooman said.

---

Bail for Wen Ho Lee

Washington Post
Friday, September 1, 2000; Page A26
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-09/01/112l-090100-idx.html

The case against Wen Ho Lee, the former Los Alamos National Laboratories scientist accused of hoarding nuclear weapons information, has taken a few serious hits. Mr. Lee has been held without bail and essentially in solitary confinement since his arrest in December for downloading computer codes related to nuclear weapons design. Last week, however, U.S. Judge James Parker granted a renewed bail request from Mr. Lee. The government is contemplating an appeal, and Mr. Lee remains jailed for now. But Judge Parker's ruling followed three days of hearings in which important aspects of the government's case were challenged.

The government had to retract testimony by an FBI agent that Mr. Lee had lied to a colleague about what he was downloading. In testimony last year the agent, Robert Messemer, claimed that Mr. Lee had told a fellow scientist he wanted to use his computer to download a resume. That, Mr. Messemer admitted in court, was wrong. In fact, Mr. Lee had said he wanted to download some files. Mr. Lee also seems to have been more forthcoming than the government initially alleged about a meeting he held with Chinese nuclear officials on a trip abroad. And the sensitivity of the information Mr. Lee downloaded also was questioned. Witnesses for Mr. Lee, including prominent nuclear scientists, testified that most of the material is public already and would not be especially valuable to a foreign power. Government prosecutors dispute that contention, which goes to the heart of their case.

Given the changed picture, Judge Parker seems justified in his determination that bail under highly restrictive circumstances is appropriate. Some aspects of the government's behavior in this case deserve judicial scrutiny. That does not necessarily make Mr. Lee an innocent victim of racial profiling, as some of his defenders assert. The accused has yet to explain his alleged conduct. Why did he download nuclear weapons data, and what became of the missing computer tapes? In the absence of a full accounting, his simple assertion that they were destroyed is not satisfactory. Perhaps a trial can yet resolve some of the unanswered questions of his case--about Mr. Lee's actions and the government investigation as well.

-------- new york

Nuclear Agency and Con Ed Faulted in Leak at Indian Point

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By DAVID W. CHEN
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/regional/090100ny-nuke.html

WHITE PLAINS, Aug. 31 In the most scathing report prompted by the accident at the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in February, an independent monitor has found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducted inadequate plant inspections as far back as 1997 and relied on flawed analyses, inexperienced staff members and the company it was supposed to regulate.

The report, released today by the Office of the Inspector General, was no more sparing in its criticism of Consolidated Edison, the owner of Indian Point 2. The plant, in the Westchester County town of Buchanan, 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, was shut down in February when a steam-generator tube ruptured and caused a radioactive leak. Describing the utility as lacking a "commitment to excellence," with employees who sometimes did only "enough to get by," the report says that Con Edison may have been able to prevent the accident -- the worst in the plant's 26-year history -- had it not "missed the vast majority" of defects in the generators during a 1997 inspection.

For months, local officials, residents of the area and environmental groups have railed primarily against Con Edison with a litany of technical, communications and inspections problems related to Indian Point 2. But today's report marks the most comprehensive criticism of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with blunt comments about how senior managers may have frowned upon tougher plant inspections for the sake of expediency and how senior engineers treated the steam generators as low risk and low priority.

The report comes three weeks after Con Edison announced that it would replace the generators before reopening the plant. So while the findings by the Office of the Inspector General, which operates as an internal affairs department within the N.R.C., are supposed to spur reform, specific steps have already been taken to address technical deficiencies.

Even so, the report raises larger questions about whether the commission's laxity at Indian Point 2 was an isolated case or part of something more widespread.

"What you've got here is a very protective regulatory agency protecting the business it's supposed to be regulating," said Representative Sue W. Kelly, a Republican who represents the district and pushed for the investigation.

In response, Neil A. Sheehan, a spokesman for the commission, said that "we take very seriously the critical report of the agency's Inspector General of the handling of the Feb. 15 steam generator tube failure of Indian Point 2." He said that the N.R.C. chairman, Richard A. Meserve, had directed the commission's staff to do a comprehensive analysis of the Inspector General's criticisms and come up with recommendations for corrective actions by Nov. 1.

Michael Clendenin, a spokesman for Con Edison, said tonight that he had not yet seen the Inspector General's report. But he repeated the position that the company has held since February:

"The inspection in 1997 was done with the most up-to-date technology available at its time," he said. "We complied with all necessary procedures, and our inspection was even approved by the N.R.C. However, we've moved on and are proceeding with the replacement of the steam generators, and expect to have the plant running by the end of year."

James P. Riccio, senior policy analyst for Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy group, said the report showed, "that senior staff is more concerned with allowing these reactors to run, rather than to insure that they're running safely."

Had there been tougher oversight -- particularly since the generators at Indian Point 2 were among the oldest of their kind still in use -- inspectors would probably have detected that a tube in one of them had corroded by almost 100 percent, and would have been able to prevent a subsequent rupture, the report says.

As for Con Edison, the report says that, among other deficiencies, the company demonstrated chronic problems with emergency preparedness, even during scheduled drills.

In short, the report suggests that both the agency and the company, on many occasions, simply did not bother to take the extra step, preferring instead to do the minimum and act passively. As a result, some watchdogs of nuclear power have urged Congress to hold hearings.

"If there is not a Congressional oversight hearing," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Washington, "and there was an accident a month or year from now, where the N.R.C.'s lack of review is again a factor, I don't know how the federal government could tell the American people, we did everything to protect you.

-------- ohio

Decision sought on Piketon coolant dispute

Columbus Dispatch
Friday, September 1, 2000
Associated Press
http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea00/sep00/405162.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Ted Strickland yesterday asked Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to settle a dispute over who owns the coolant used at the Piketon uranium enrichment plant.

Strickland, an Ohio Democrat whose district includes the plant, has joined the plant's major union in declaring that the valuable refrigerant should be left behind when operations are shut down in 2002. Both say the coolant should be left behind under contract terms requiring the plant to be returned in operating condition.

USEC, which operates the government-owned plant, says it owns the coolant.

-------- tennessee

Oak Ridge awaiting new mission
With Cold War over, the one-time 'Secret City' has shrunk.
But a new scientific role may arise.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
FRIDAY • September 1, 2000
Ken Mink
Friday, September 1, 2000
http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/friday/news_93fa849fc361f00400e8.html

Oak Ridge, Tenn. --- More than 75,000 people once lived in this East Tennessee city near the end of World War II, when the nuclear age was born.

Now, with the end of the Cold War and the halt of nuclear weapons production, barely 26,000 people live here. The city is struggling with its identity and searching for the best economic and industrial path to follow.

The Knoxville suburb is adding subdivisions and industry. IPix Co., a pioneer in making 360-degree photo illustrations for real estate firms to highlight homes, will soon employ 300 people. Helping Oak Ridge get a share of the biomedical bonanza is Atlanta-based Theragenics, which employs about 250 people making "theraseeds," implants for use in treating prostate cancer.

"We are a city that was originally supposed to go away after 10 years or so," says Chamber of Commerce President Walker Hardy, "but we have hung around . . . and I feel we are on the verge of blossoming."

Still, Oak Ridge remains very much a government town, and the blossoms will require a liberal sprinkling of federal money.

The big financial plum hanging in the balance is the $1.4 billion government nuclear spallation project approved for Oak Ridge, but not yet fully funded by Congress. Congress last year approved $118 million in start-up funds, and a Senate subcommittee in July recommended $240 million to start major construction at the already graded 75-acre site.

The spallation project, the nation's largest scientific project in the new century, involves neutron scattering --- the high-speed firing of protons at a heavy atomic nucleus, knocking out neutrons in the process.

At the groundbreaking last year, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said, "The information from those collisions will open a window into the structure, motions and interactions of atoms in all sorts of materials, offering researchers new opportunities in everything from stronger plastics and better lubricants to more efficient motors and new medicines tailored to specific illnesses."

Richardson said the Department of Energy expects more than 1,000 researchers to use the spallation facilities each year. The project is expected to provide 2,349 new jobs during the seven-year construction phase and permanent employment of 1,589 thereafter, Hardy said.

The U.S. government still controls a huge chunk of Oak Ridge land --- more than 35,000 acres --- and remains the largest employer. The Department of Energy employs 13,202 people --- only 2,484 of whom live in Oak Ridge.

Department officials say the agency supported 37,753 full-time jobs in the Oak Ridge area in 1999, including workers at numerous subcontracting firms, with a payroll of $695 million.

The Y-12 Plant, which was America's chief nuclear warhead development facility until the end of the Cold War, continues to operate under private management, Lockheed Martin Energy Research. It is now used to rebuild nuclear warheads as they deterioriate, and the plant remains a major storage area for enriched uranium.

"Once a nuclear weapon becomes inoperable due to age, the Y-12 Plant then basically rebuilds that weapon," says Steven Wyatt, department spokesman in Oak Ridge.

It is here that highly enriched uranium is added, then the warhead is shipped to the Pantex facility near Amarillo, Texas, for the addition of plutonium and final assembly.

Such government facilities also present environmental worries. The Department of Engery has spent millions of dollars --- $628 million in fiscal year 2000 --- to clean areas contaminated by radiation, mercury, asbestos, PCBs and other industrial waste.

The city's visitors bureau still likes to bill Oak Ridge as "The Secret City," treading heavily on the fact the city was once literally surrounded by a fence, with entry only through military gates.

All the secrecy was deemed necessary as scientists labored to split the atom and come up with the formula that resulted in the two atomic bombs being dropped on Japan in 1945, ending World War II. The city subsequently became the nation's biggest producer of nuclear bombs, with secrecy still a major byword.

But the chamber wants to present the city in a more glamorous light, trumpeting the slogan "Oak Ridge: City of Tomorrows."

Some of the old facilities have, indeed, taken on modern missions.

The K-25 area, which was basically the gaseous diffusion operation in the nuclear weapons process and includes dozens of buildings, is being converted into a technology industrial park.

The Oak Ridge National Lab- oratory, with about 5,000 workers, is primarily involved in biomedical and biotechnical studies. The much-ballyhooed breakthrough in genetic coding sprang from studies of the genes of thousands of mice at its "Mouse House."

The Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education, with about 800 workers, primarily studies radiation medicine. "They are perhaps the world's foremost authority on treatment of radiation illnesses," says the Department of Energy's Wyatt.

Chamber President Hardy likes to point out that Oak Ridge also is home to "a fantastic school system --- rated a gold medal system by Management Expansion magazine --- our own orchestra, our own professional theater and ballet, a wonderful energy and science museum and a beautiful river and lake."

Eighty percent of the residents have a high school or college education, he says.

"We just don't think the term 'The Secret City' is best for the city's business and industrial development," says Hardy. "We have gone from being a pioneer military outpost to a futuristic city over the last 50 years."

-------- utah

State Program Closes Abandoned Mines

Salt Lake Tribune
Friday, September 1, 2000
BY LISA CHURCH SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE
http://www.sltrib.com/09012000/utah/18301.htm

MOAB -- Exploring an abandoned mine can be a thrill that may quickly turn deadly.

Mark Mesch, who oversees the Utah Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program for the state's Department of Natural Resources, says a mine opening may look like a cave opening but, unlike the natural process that gouges out a cave, mines are created by blasting rock, then removing the debris, which creates an unstable environment.

To reduce that risk, Mesch is overseeing an effort to close some of the most dangerous abandoned mines in southeastern Utah, many from the bonanza days of uranium exploration in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of the mines were abandoned when the market evaporated or ore was not found.

Since the abandoned mine program began in 1983 and officials started keeping records, five people have died and at least 25 have been injured in accidents involving abandoned mines.

Using old mining maps and global satellite positioning technology, Mesch says his agency has located and sealed or secured almost 4,500 of the most dangerous of Utah's 20,000 abandoned mines. On the Wasatch Front, the agency so far has sealed 650 of 1,000 open abandoned sites between Parleys Canyon in Salt Lake County and American Fork Canyon in Utah County.

Program managers are increasingly concerned about abandoned mine shafts, which are dug straight down. Shafts are common in areas used by all-terrain vehicle riders. Mesch says it is possible for riders to be swallowed by an opening and fall hundreds and even thousands of feet. "These are catastrophes waiting to happen," Mesch says.

Terry Snyder, a geologist with the Utah Bureau of Land Management office, agrees, saying safety is a growing problem as recreational use of public lands increases, especially among ATV riders.

"More and more people are going into remote areas. And they look for places that have some access road," Snyder says. "Most of those roads are old mining roads."

But falling down a mine shaft is only one of the dangers posed by the abandoned sites. The ceilings and walls of the tunnels are often unstable, and could collapse unexpectedly. Rotting timbers inside old mine tunnels can also produce dangerous gases such as carbon dioxide, which can rapidly deplete oxygen in the blood and cause fainting followed by death. The natural decay of radioactive waste can also create a buildup of deadly gases such as radon.

Mesch says teams of his workers have discovered dynamite charges that were packed in walls of old mines but were never detonated because the miners were probably laid off before they got a chance.

The abandoned sites are also sometimes used as dens for rattlesnakes, bears, mountain lions and bats.

The agency's latest project will focus on Grand and San Juan counties. There Mesch and his staff will install a variety of gates and heavy cable nets over mine openings to prevent people from getting inside but still allow bats and other small animals to use the tunnels for habitat.

Occasionally, Mesch says, the agency plugs a mine shaft with "puff," a combination of two chemicals that creates an expanding foam. The compound quickly hardens, making a barrier that can withstand pressure of up to 3,000 pounds per square inch.

Among the largest projects in southeastern Utah will be reclaiming about 250 abandoned uranium mines located on BLM land around Arches National Park called the Yellow Cat area.

Bruce Rodgers, who is head of resource management for the National Park Service's Southeastern Utah Group, says the reclamation will ease worries about possible contamination of park lands from the old mine sites.

"Those mines are all outside the park, but we have concerns about contamination draining from the mine sites into Arches through Salt Wash," Rodgers says. "This project will help eliminate that problem."

Mapping and engineering for the Yellow Cat project is already complete, but Mesch says his agency still must conduct studies to determine the cultural and historical value of the mine sites. The studies will go into a plan that needs federal approval on how the agency will mitigate any negative impact caused by the work.

Snyder, the BLM geologist, says whenever an abandoned site on BLM land is targeted for closure, the BLM will pay for the cultural and environmental studies of a site, leaving Mesch's agency to pay for the design and construction of the closure.

Funding for these projects comes from the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act passed by Congress in 1977. The money comes from fees paid by coal mining companies. They are charged 15 cents per ton for coal extracted from underground mines and 33 cents per ton for surface mines. The federal government keeps half of the revenue, and half is divided among the states to implement reclamation programs.

Mesch says Utah receives about $1.5 million each year in funding from the act.

The agency is also working on reclaiming 220 old mining sites in the watershed of Cottonwood Wash near Blanding in San Juan County. It is one of three experimental reclamation programs in the country that is being done in watershed areas to restore water quality in the area.

-------- washington

GENOME RESEARCH TO REMEDIATE HANFORD NUCLEAR SITE

September 1, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/sep2000/2000L-09-01-09.html

RICHLAND, Washington, Proteomics, a new area of scientific study, could lead to breakthroughs in cleanup technology for use at contaminated nuclear sites. The Department of Energy and its Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) announced Wednesday that PNNL is preparing to become a key player in the field of genome research and proteomics. Proteomics is the study of the role and function of proteins in living organisms under specific conditions. Genome research is the identification of the precise gene patterns of living organisms. Once developed, the technology could be used to aid in the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Facility in Richland, where plutonium for American nuclear weapons was manufactured from 1943 to 1988. About 60 percent of the nation's nuclear waste is located at Hanford.

Mildred Dresselhaus, director of DOE's Office of Science, said the agency is launching a multimillion dollar annual program at the lab to develop new biological instrumentation expected to accelerate the pace of proteomics research. PNNL officials have long term plans for a major biological research program, including their vision for a new research complex at PNNL in Richland. Dresselhaus said the DOE wants PNNL to join the prestigious Joint Genome Institute, which serves as the central research arm for DOE genomics research and already has provided some of the initial genome discoveries. "Our research will play an important role in Hanford cleanup," said PNNL director Lura Powell. "Microbial systems can be used to clean up the environment, and understanding how they operate can help us design more effective cleanup technologies. Also, the better we understand how environmental contaminants affect the body, the better we can protect our workers and the community."

-------- us nuc politics

Gore Statement on Missile Defense

1 Sep 2000 12:12
U.S. Newswire
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0901-115.html

Statement by Al Gore On National Missile Defense To: National Desk, Political Reporter Contact: Douglas Hattaway or Chris Lehane, 615-340-3251, both of Gore/Lieberman 2000; Web site: http://www.algore2000.com

NASHVILLE, September 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following statement by Al Gore was released today by Gore/Lieberman 2000:

I agree with the President's decision to defer the decision to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) for the next administration. Now that he has made his decision, I feel free to express myself on the subject.

The United States faces the real possibility that countries such as North Korea or Iran will succeed in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles able to deliver these weapons at intercontinental range.

Of course it is possible that North Korea or Iran might at some point change their intentions and remove this threat. We should be alert to such possibilities, but they are not in our grasp at this moment.

The NMD system which the Clinton-Gore Administration has under development is meant to be deployed in a timely way, and is explicitly designed to handle the type of threat that we could expect if our estimates are realized and we have to face a small number of deployed Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) warheads.

The President's decision allows time for additional testing of our NMD system. I welcome the opportunity to be more certain that these technologies actually work together properly. As the President said, there are 16 additional intercept tests already scheduled. One could decide to proceed with deployment at any point along that process, once fully convinced that the technologies are ready.

Passage of more time also allows for more clarity about the costs of the system.

The President's decision also allows the next President time to conduct updated discussions with other countries.

As regards the Russian Federation, I think it important to state what my approach would be if I am the next President. I respect the Russians, concerns and would want the opportunity to persuade them that the NMD system would never become a threat to them.

I would be prepared to work hard to persuade the Government of the Russian Federation to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. And, I would also look for very creative approaches for joint U.S.-Russian responses to a threat that can be aimed at either one or both of us.

But, at the end of the day, I would not be prepared to let Russian opposition to this system stand in the way of its deployment, if I should conclude that the technologies are mature enough to deploy and are both affordable and needed. I would also work to persuade the Chinese that a U.S. NMD system is not intended to threaten them, and to allay the concerns of our allies.

However, as President, I would oppose the kinds of missile defense systems that would unnecessarily upset strategic stability and threaten to open the gates for a renewed arms race with Russia and a new arms race with China including both offensive and defensive weapons.

It would be my objective as President to avoid such an outcome. Instead, I would aim for another round of deep negotiated reductions to levels agreed between the United States and Russia at the Helsinki summit. If the Russians wish to reduce unilaterally below that level for economic reasons they certainly can and should. But for the United States to go lower requires a thorough reexamination of the official nuclear doctrine which to this point guides our military in its planning. As President, I would initiate such a review and engage deeply in the process.

I have said before that the Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was an act of massive irresponsibility damaging to the security interests of the United States, and I repeat that if elected President I will immediately revive the ratification process and seek to rally the full force of American public opinion behind it.

If I am elected President, I would also plan to use the extra time created by President Clinton's decision for a serious bipartisan dialogue about defensive systems aimed at establishing a consensus that clearly does not exist at the present time. Of course, if I became convinced of a need to act I would propose moving forward whether or not it has been possible to establish this consensus, but it would clearly be in the nation,s best interest if we could do so.

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

www.whitehouse.gov
September 1, 2000 11:23 A.M. EDT

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Gaston Hall Georgetown University Washington, D.C.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/library/hot_releases/September_1_2000_2.html

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. When you gave us such a warm welcome, and then you applauded some of Dean Gallucci's early lines, I thought to myself, I'm glad he can get this sort of reception, because I gave him a lot of thankless jobs to do in our administration where no one ever applauded -- and he did them brilliantly. I'm delighted to see him here succeeding so well as the Dean. And Provost Brown, thank you for welcoming me here.

I told them when I came in I was sort of glad Father O'Donovan wasn't here today, because I come so often -- I know that at some point if I keep doing this he will tell me that he's going to send a bill to the U.S. Treasury for the Georgetown endowment. (Laughter.)

I was thinking when we came out here and Bob talked about the beginning of the school year that it was 35 years ago when, as a sophomore, I was in charge of the freshman orientation. So I thought I should come and help this year's orientation of freshmen get off to a good start.

I also was thinking, I confess, after your rousing welcome, that if I were still a candidate for public office I might get up and say hello and sit down, and quit while I'm ahead. (Laughter.)

I came today to talk about a subject that is not fraught with applause lines, but one that is very, very important to your future: the defense of our nation. At this moment of unprecedented peace and prosperity, with no immediate threat to our security or our existence, with our democratic values ascendant and our alliances strong, with the great forces of our time, globalization and the revolution in information technology so clearly beneficial to a society like ours, with our diversity and our openness, and our entrepreneurial spirit.

At a time like this it is tempting, but wrong, to believe there are no serious long-term challenges to our security. The rapid spread of technology across increasingly porous borders, raises the specter that more and more states, terrorists and criminal syndicates could gain access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons, and to the means of delivering them -- whether in small units deployed by terrorists within our midst, or ballistic missiles capable of hurtling those weapons halfway around the world.

Today I want to discuss these threats with you, because you will live with them a lot longer than I will. Especially, I want to talk about the ballistic missile threat. It is real and growing, and has given new urgency to the debate about national missile defenses, known in the popular jargon as NMD.

When I became President, I put our effort to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction at the very top of our national security agenda. Since then, we have carried out a comprehensive strategy to reduce and secure nuclear arsenals, to strengthen the international regime against biological and chemical weapons and nuclear testing, and to stop the flow of dangerous technology to nations that might wish us harm.

At the same time, we have pursued new technologies that could strengthen our defenses against a possible attack, including a terrorist attack here at home.

None of these elements of our national security strategy can be pursued in isolation. Each is important, and we have made progress in each area. For example, Russia and the United States already have destroyed about 25,000 nuclear weapons in the last decade. And we have agreed that in a START III treaty, we will go 80 percent below the level of a decade ago. In 1994, we persuaded Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, three of the former Soviet Republics, to give up their nuclear weapons entirely. We have worked with Russia and its neighbors to dispose of hundreds of tons of dangerous nuclear materials, to strengthen controls on a list of exports, and to keep weapon scientists from selling their services to the highest bidder.

We extended the nuclear non-proliferation treaty indefinitely. We were the very first nation to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty, an idea first embraced by Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower. Sixty nations now have ratified the test ban treaty. I believe the United States Senate made a serious error in failing to ratify it last year, and I hope it will do so next year. (Applause.)

We also negotiated and ratified the international convention to ban chemical weapons, and strengthened the convention against biological weapons. We've used our export controls to deny terrorists and potential adversaries access to materials and equipment needed to build these kinds of weapons.

We've imposed sanctions on those who contribute to foreign chemical and biological weapons programs, we've invested in new equipment and medical countermeasures to protect people from exposure. And we're working with state and local medical units all over our country to strengthen our preparedness in case of a chemical or biological terrorist attack, which many people believe is the most likely new security threat of the 21st century.

We have also acted to reduce the threat posed by states that have sought weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, while pursuing activities that are clearly hostile to our long-term interests. For over a decade -- for almost a decade, excuse me -- we have diverted about 90 percent of Iraq's oil revenues from the production of weapons to the purchase of food and medicine.

This is an important statistic for those who believe that our sanctions are only a negative for the people, and particularly the children, of Iraq. In 1989, Iraq earned $15 billion from oil exports, and spent $13 billion of that money on its military. This year, Iraq is projected to earn $19 billion from its legal oil-for-food exports that can spend none of those revenues on the military.

We worked to counter Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and missile technology, convincing China to provide no new assistance to Iran's nuclear program, and pressing Russia to strengthen its controls on the export of sensitive technologies.

In 1994, six years after the United States first learned that North Korea had a nuclear weapons program, we negotiated the agreement that verifiably has frozen its production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Now, in the context of the United States negotiations with the North, the diplomatic efforts by former Defense Secretary Bill Perry and, most lately, the summit between the leaders of North and South Korea, North Korea has refrained from flight testing a new missile that could pose a threat to America.

We should be clear: North Korea's capability remains a serious issue and its intentions remain unclear. But its missile testing moratorium is a good development worth pursuing.

These diplomatic efforts to meet the threat of proliferation are backed by the strong and global reach of our armed forces. Today, the United States enjoys overwhelming military superiority over any potential adversary. For example, in 1985, we spent about as much on defense as Russia, China and North Korea combined. Today, we spend nearly three times as much, nearly $300 billion a year. And our military technology clearly is well ahead of the rest of the world.

The principle of deterrence served us very well in the Cold War, and deterrence remains imperative. The threat of overwhelming retaliation deterred Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War. Our forces in South Korea have deterred North Korea in aggression for 47 years.

The question is, can deterrence protect us against all those who might wish us harm in the future? Can we make America even more secure? The effort to answer these questions is the impetus behind the search for NMD. The issue is whether we can do more, not to meet today's threat, but to meet tomorrow's threat to our security.

For example, there is the possibility that a hostile state with nuclear weapons and long range missiles may simply disintegrate, with command over missiles falling into unstable hands; or that in a moment of desperation, such a country might miscalculate, believing it could use nuclear weapons to intimidate us from defending our vital interests, or from coming to the aid of our allies, or others who are defenseless and clearly in need.

In the future, we cannot rule out that terrorist groups could gain the capability to strike us with nuclear weapons if they seized even temporary control of a state with an existing nuclear weapons establishment.

Now, no one suggests that NMD would ever substitute for diplomacy or for deterrence. But such a system, if it worked properly, could give us an extra dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has complicated the task of preserving the peace. Therefore, I believe we have an obligation to determine the feasibility, the effectiveness, and the impact of a national missile defense on the overall security of the United States.

The system now under development is designed to work as follows. In the event of an attack, American satellites would protect the launch of missiles. Our radar would track the enemy warhead and highly accurate, high-speed, ground-based interceptors would destroy them before they could reach their target in the United States.

We have made substantial progress on a system that would be based in Alaska and that, when operational, could protect all 50 states from the near-term missile threats we face, those emanating from North Korea and the Middle East. The system could be deployed sooner than any of the proposed alternatives. Since last fall, we've been conducting flight tests to see if this NMD system actually can reliably intercept a ballistic missile. We've begun to show that the different parts of this system can work together.

Our Defense Department has overcome daunting technical obstacles in a remarkably short period of time, and I'm proud of the work that Secretary Cohen, General Shelton and their teams have done.

One test proved that it is, in fact, possible to hit a bullet with a bullet. Still, though the technology for NMD is promising, the system as a whole is not yet proven. After the initial test succeeded, our two most recent tests failed, for different reasons, to achieve an intercept. Several more tests are planned. They will tell us whether NMD can work reliably under realistic conditions. Critical elements of the program, such as the booster rocket for the missile interceptor, have yet to be tested.

There are also questions to be resolved about the ability of the system to deal with countermeasures. In other words, measures by those firing the missiles to confuse the missile defense into thinking it is hitting a target when it is not.

There is a reasonable chance that all these challenges can be met in time. But I simply cannot conclude with the information I have today that we have enough confidence in the technology, and the operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system, to move forward to deployment.

Therefore, I have decided not to authorize deployment of a national missile defense at this time. Instead, I have asked Secretary Cohen to continue a robust program of development and testing. That effort still is at an early stage. Only three of the 19 planned intercept tests have been held so far. We need more tests against more challenging targets, and more simulations before we can responsibly commit our nation's resources to deployment.

We should use this time to ensure that NMD, if deployed, would actually enhance our overall national security. And I want to talk about that in a few moments.

I want you to know that I have reached this decision about not deploying the NMD after careful deliberation. My decision will not have a significant impact on the date the overall system could be deployed in the next administration, if the next President decides to go forward.

The best judgment of the experts who have examined this question is that if we were to commit today to construct the system, it most likely would be operational about 2006 or 2007. If the next President decides to move forward next year, the system still could be ready in the same time frame.

In the meantime, we will continue to work with our allies and with Russia to strengthen their understanding and support for our efforts to meet the emerging ballistic missile threat, and to explore creative ways that we can cooperate to enhance their security against this threat, as well.

An effective NMD could play an important part of our national security strategy, but it could not be the sum total of that strategy. It can never be the sum total of that strategy for dealing with nuclear and missile threats.

Moreover, ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear weapons, as I said earlier, do not represent the sum total of the threats we face. Those include chemical and biological weapons, and a range of deadly technologies for deploying them. So it would be folly to base the defense of our nation solely on a strategy of waiting until missiles are in the air, and then trying to shoot them down.

We must work with our allies, and with Russia, to prevent potential adversaries from ever threatening us with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in the first place, and to make sure they know the devastating consequences of doing so.

The elements of our strategy cannot be allowed to undermine one another. They must reinforce one another, and contribute to our national defense in all its dimensions. That includes the profoundly important dimension of arms control.

Over the past 30 years, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have negotiated an array of arms control treaties with Russia. We and our allies have relied on these treaties to ensure strategic stability and predictability with Russia, to get on with the job of dismantling the legacy of the Cold War, and to further the transition from confrontation to cooperation with our former adversary in the most important arena, nuclear weapons.

A key part of the international security structure we have built with Russia and, therefore, a key part of our national security, is the anti-ballistic missile treaty signed by President Nixon in 1972. The ABM treaty limits anti-missile defenses according to a simple principle: neither side should deploy defenses that would undermine the other side's nuclear deterrent, and thus tempt the other side to strike first in a crisis or to take countermeasures that would make both our countries less secure.

Strategic stability, based on mutual deterrence, is still important, despite the end of the Cold War. Why? Because the United States and Russia still have nuclear arsenals that can devastate each other. And this is still a period of transition in our relationship.

We have worked together in many ways. Signed an agreement of cooperation between Russia and NATO. Served with Russian troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. But while we are no longer adversaries, we are not yet real allies. Therefore, for them as well as for us, maintaining strategic stability increases trust and confidence on both sides. It reduces the risk of confrontation. It makes it possible to build an even better partnership and an even safer world.

Now, here's the issue: NMD, if deployed, would require us either to adjust the treaty or to withdraw from it -- not because NMD poses a challenge to the strategic stability I just discussed, but because by its very words, NMD prohibits any national missile defense.

What we should want is to both explore the most effective defenses possible, not only for ourselves, but for all other law-abiding states, and to maintain our strategic stability with Russia. Thus far, Russia has been reluctant to agree, fearing I think, frankly, that in some sense, this system or some future incarnation of it could threaten the reliability of its deterrence and, therefore, strategic stability.

Nevertheless, at our summit in Moscow in June, President Putin and I did agree that the world has changed since the ABM treaty was signed 28 years ago, and that the proliferation of missile technology has resulted in new threats that may require amending that treaty. And again, I say, these threats are not threats to the United States alone.

Russia agrees that there is an emerging missile threat. In fact, given its place on the map, it is particularly vulnerable to this emerging threat. In time, I hope the United States can narrow our differences with Russia on this issue. The course I have chosen today gives the United States more time to pursue that, and we will use it.

President Putin and I have agreed to intensify our work on strategic defense, while pursuing, in parallel, deeper arms reductions in START III. He and I have instructed our experts to develop further cooperative initiatives in areas such as theater missile defense, early warning and missile threat discussions for our meeting just next week in New York.

Apart from the Russians, another critical diplomatic consideration in the NMD decision is the view of our NATO allies. They have all made clear that they hope the United States will pursue strategic defense in a way that preserves, not abrogates, the ABM treaty. If we decide to proceed with NMD deployment we must have their support, because key components of NMD would be based on their territories.

The decision I have made also gives the United States time to answer our allies' questions and consult further on the path ahead.

Finally, we must consider the impact of a decision to deploy on security in Asia. As the next President makes a deployment decision, he will need to avoid stimulating an already dangerous regional nuclear capability from China to South Asia. Now, let me be clear: no nation can ever have a veto over American security, even if the United States and Russia cannot reach agreement; even if we cannot secure the support of our allies at first; even if we conclude that the Chinese will respond to NMD by increasing their arsenal of nuclear weapons substantially with a corollary, inevitable impact in India and then in Pakistan.

The next President may nevertheless decide that our interest in security in 21st century dictates that we go forward with deployment of NMD. But we can never afford to overlook the fact that the actions and reactions of others in this increasingly interdependent world do bear on our security. Clearly ,therefore, it would be far better to move forward in the context of the ABM treaty and allied support. Our efforts to make that possible have not been completed. For me, the bottom line on this decision is this: because the emerging missile threat is real, we have an obligation to pursue a missile defense system that could enhance our security.

We have made progress, but we should not move forward until we have absolute confidence that the system will work, and until we have made every reasonable diplomatic effort to minimize the cost of deployment, and maximize the benefit, as I said, not only to America's security, but to the security of law abiding nations everywhere subject to the same threat.

I am convinced that America and the world will be better off if we explore the frontiers of strategic defenses, while continuing to pursue arms control, to stand with our allies and to work with Russia and others to stop the spread of deadly weapons.

I strongly believe this is the best course for the United States, and therefore the decision I have reached today, is in the best security interest of the United States. In short, we need to move forward with realism, with steadiness, and with prudence, not dismissing the threat we face, or assuming we can meet it, while ignoring our overall strategic environment, including the interests and concerns of our allies, friends and other nations. A national missile defense, if deployed, should be part of a larger strategy to preserve and enhance the peace, strength and security we now enjoy, and to build an even safer world.

I have tried to maximize the ability of the next President to pursue that strategy. In so doing, I have tried to maximize the chance that all you young students will live in a safer, more humane, more positively interdependent world. I hope I have done so. I believe I have.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END 11:50 A.M. ED

---

www.whitehouse.com
September 1, 2000

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

http://www.whitehouse.gov/library/hot_releases/September_1_2000.html

For Immediate Release
FACT SHEET
National Missile Defense

The Clinton Administration is committed to the development of a limited National Missile Defense (NMD) system designed to protect all 50 states from the emerging ballistic missile threat from nations that threaten international peace and security. In the event of an attack, American satellites would detect the launch of missiles; radar would track the enemy warheads; and highly accurate, high-speed ground-based interceptors would destroy missiles before they reach targets in the United States.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DECISION

President Clinton announced today that the NMD program is sufficiently promising and affordable to justify continued development and testing, but that there is not sufficient information about the technical and operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward with deployment.

In making this decision, the President considered the threat, the cost, technical feasibility and the impact overall on our national security of proceeding with NMD. He considered a thorough technical review by the Department of Defense as well as the advice of his top national security advisors.

The Pentagon has made progress on developing a system that can address the emerging missile threat. But we do not have sufficient information to conclude that it can work reliably under realistic conditions. Critical elements of the program, such as the booster rocket for the missile interceptor, have not been tested; and there are questions to be resolved about the ability of the system to deal with countermeasures. The President made clear we should not move forward until we have further confidence that the system will work and until we have made every reasonable diplomatic effort to minimize the costs.

The Pentagon will continue the development and testing of the NMD system. That effort is still at an early stage: three of the nineteen planned intercept tests have been held so far. Additional ground tests and simulations will also take place.

The development of our NMD is part of the Administration?s comprehensive national security strategy to prevent potential adversaries from threatening the United States with such weapons and acquiring the weapons in the first place.

Arms control agreements with Russia are an important part of this strategy because they ensure stability and predictability between the United States and Russia, promote the dismantling of nuclear weapons, and help complete the transition from confrontation to cooperation with Russia. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 limits anti-missile defenses according to a simple principle: neither side should deploy defenses that would undermine the other?s nuclear deterrent, and thus tempt the other to strike first in a crisis or take countermeasures that would make both our countries less secure.

This announcement will provide additional time to pursue with Russia the goal of adapting the ABM treaty to permit the deployment of a limited NMD that would not undermine strategic stability. The United States will also continue to consult with Allies and continue the dialogue with China and other states.

An NMD program that meets the projected threat

Last August, the President decided that the initial NMD architecture would include: 100 ground-based interceptors deployed in Alaska, one ABM radar in Alaska, and five upgraded early warning radars.

This approach is the fastest, most affordable, and most technologically mature approach to fielding an effective NMD against the projected threat. It would protect all 50 states against emerging threats from both North Korea and the Middle East and is optimized against the most immediate and certain threat, North Korea.

On July 23, 1999, President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4, the ?National Missile Defense Act of 1999,? stating that it is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective NMD system. The legislation includes two amendments supported by the Administration: the first making clear that any NMD deployment must be subject to the authorization and appropriations process, and thus that no decision on deployment has been made; the second stating it is the policy of the United States to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces, putting Congress on record as continuing to support negotiated reductions in strategic nuclear arms, reaffirming the Administration?s position that missile defense policy must take into account important arms control and nuclear nonproliferation objectives.

NMD Budget

The Clinton Administration has spent approximately $5.7 billion on NMD, and budgeted an additional $10.4 billion in FY 2001-2005 to support possible deployment of the initial NMD architecture. Our current estimate for developing, procuring and deploying our initial system ? 100 interceptors, an ABM radar, upgrades to 5 early warning radars, and command and control ? is around $25 billion (Fiscal Years 91-09). But to put that in perspective, it represents less than 1 percent of the defense budget over the coming six years.

Joint Statement of Principles on Strategic Stability

At the June 4 Moscow summit, Presidents Clinton and Putin signed a Joint Statement of Principles on Strategic Stability. The Principles state that the international community faces a dangerous and growing threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including missiles and missile technologies, and that there is a need to address these threats, including through consideration of changes to the ABM Treaty. The Principles also record agreement to intensify discussions on both ABM issues and START III.

Joint Statement on Cooperation on Strategic Stability

The United States has made clear to Russia that we are prepared to engage in serious cooperation to address the emerging ballistic missile threat and have identified a number of specific ideas for discussion. At the June 4 Moscow Summit, Presidents Clinton and Putin signed an agreement to establish a Joint Center for exchanging early warning data on missile launches; they also agreed to explore more far-reaching cooperation to address missile threats.

On July 21 in Okinawa, Presidents Clinton and Putin issued a Joint Statement on Cooperation on Strategic Stability, which identifies specific areas and projects for cooperation to control the spread of missiles, missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.

---

www.defenselink.mil
September 1, 2000

No. 533-00
IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(703)695-0192(media) (703)697-5737(public/industry)
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILLIAM S. COHEN
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2000/b09012000_bt533-00.html

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today released the following statement:

"The President's choice to defer a deployment decision on a National Missile Defense system to his successor involved many factors. Central for me, as I have stated publicly, is the importance of sustaining a solid national consensus not only on the need for an NMD system but on the scope and structure of such a system.

"The President's statement today underscores the importance of having the next President fully involved in decisions regarding the future of the program before committing the U.S. to a deployment strategy. I support this approach.

"I have noted on many occasions that several emerging threats warrant the deployment of an effective missile defense program as soon as technologically feasible and I will work closely with my successor on providing all appropriate information. In the meantime, we will aggressively proceed with the developmental testing program and also continue our consultations with the Congress, our allies, and with Russia."

---

Group Plans Twelve-State Ad Blitz to Shut Down Star Wars

US Newswire
1 Sep 14:30
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0901-130.html

Following President's Decision, Twelve-State Ad Blitz Planned to Shut Down 'Star Wars' To: National Desk Contact: Van Gosse of Peace Action, 202-862-9740 ext 3002

WASHINGTON, September 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On Wednesday, September 6, Peace Action will initiate a nationwide television advertising campaign urging Members of Congress and congressional candidates to follow President Clinton's lead, and firmly oppose the Star Wars missile system. The ads, running in key Senate and House races, urge pro-Star Wars candidates to "come down to earth...stop wasting our money." (See list below for where ads are airing.)

The distinctive ads highlight the report from top scientists that Star Wars can't differentiate between a mylar balloon and a nuclear warhead. Each ad opens with balloons with happy faces floating through a blue sky, while a narrator says, "This is a child's mylar balloon. It is not a nuclear warhead. Trouble is, the Star Wars Missile System the Pentagon is pushing can't tell the difference."

"For the moment at least, President Clinton appears to have seen the light of day, and will not deploy Star Wars while he's in office. That puts the burden squarely on Congress, and especially its Republican majority, to show common-sense leadership. The American people have had it with this boondoggle," said Van Gosse, director of the Peace Voter Fund. "We've picked the tightest races in the country, including the Senate contests in New York, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Washington State, to drive the point home. We're focusing attention on those incumbents and challengers who strongly support Star Wars, to alert the public to their stands."

Peace Action plans to build on a current of local opposition by reminding voters that National Missile Defense can't tell a mylar balloon from a nuclear warhead, that 50 Nobel Laureates wrote the President opposing it, and that it has already cost over $60 billion. "We want candidates from all parties to start responding to public opinion nobody wants a new arms race. So Peace Action must be the independent voice of reason, reaching voters directly," continued Gosse.

Peace Action's ads will air during primetime CNN shows like Crossfire, Larry King, and Inside Politics. "Recent polls by ABC News and The New York Times show that the more voters know about Star Wars, the less they like it," Gosse said, "and we intend to drive up its negatives sharply."

Along with the ads, Peace Action is coordinating Rallies for New Priorities September 6 through 9 with allied organizations, including labor unions, NAACP chapters and senior groups. These nonpartisan rallies will urge congressional candidates to sign Peace Action's Pledge for New Priorities, committing the candidate to oppose further funding for nuclear weapons or Star Wars and instead reinvest those revenues in education and healthcare.

"Nonpartisan issue advertising can make the difference in close races," said Gosse. "We are giving the voters unique information that they are not receiving elsewhere. There's real concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attacks on arms control. We will surface voters' concern so candidates and Congress will be forced to pay attention. We did it before when we initiated the Nuclear Freeze Campaign in Ronald Reagan's first term, and we can do it again with Star Wars."

------

Peace Action, formerly Sane/Freeze, is the nation's largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization with 70,000 members nationwide. For more information about Peace Action, check out http://www.peace-action.org

Media Markets for Peace Action "Mylar" Television Ads (with candidates named in specific ads)
Long Island, New York (Rick Lazio, running for open Senate seat)
Albany, New York (Rick Lazio)
Syracuse, New York (Rick Lazio)
Brooklyn/Manhattan, New York (Rick Lazio)
Lansing/East Lansing/Ann Arbor, Michigan (Sen. Spencer Abraham, running for re-election)
Kansas City, Missouri (Sen. John Ashcroft, running for re-election)
Bucks County, Pennsylvania (Sen. Rick Santorum, running for re-election)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Rick Santorum)
CD 7 (Plainfield/Union/Westfield), New Jersey (Bob Franks, running for open Senate seat)
Seattle, Washington (Sen. Slade Gorton, running for re-election)
Portland, Maine (Senator Olympia Snowe, running for re-election)
CD 27 (Glendale, Pasadena), California (Rep. Jim Rogan, running for re-election)
CD 12 (Princeton, Freehold), New Jersey (Dick Zimmer, challenging Rep. Rush Holt)
CD 10 (North Shore), Illinois (Republican challenger Mark Kirk running for open seat)
CD 2 (Concord, Durham), New Hampshire (Rep. Charlie Bass, running for re-election)
CD 8 (Montgomery County), Maryland (Rep. Connie Morella, running for re-election)
D 2 (Raleigh), North Carolina (Rep. Bob Etheridge and challenger Doug Haynes)

---

Scientists Praise Clinton Decision to Delay Deployment

US Newswire
1 Sep 14:39
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0901-132.html

Scientists Praise Clinton Decision to Delay Deployment To: National Desk Contact: Henry Kelly of the Federation of American Scientists, 202-546-3300

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Federation of American Scientists today praised the President's courageous decision to delay deployment of the troubled Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system but warned that a dangerous decision to abrogate the anti-ballistic missile treaty and deploy the system was still possible next year.

Before the most recent test of the BMD system failed in July, more than 50 American Nobel laureates signed an FAS letter warning that: "Even if the next planned test of the proposed anti-ballistic missile system works as planned, any movement toward deployment would be premature, wasteful and dangerous."

Aggressive pursuit of a BMD endangers a generation of effort to control the nuclear arms race, and faces active opposition from Europeans as well as the Russians, Chinese and many U.S. experts in military technology and international diplomacy. Numerous technical reviews have shown that the proposed system could not find and destroy dozens of fast-moving nuclear warheads in the face of decoys and other likely enemy deceptions. The system failed completely in two recent tests against very simple targets.

"There is much to be lost and nothing to be gained by rushing to deploy any ballistic missile defense system," said Henry Kelly, FAS president. "U.S. security would surely be weakened by deploying a defensive system that would be easy to defeat, and that would encourage new nuclear investments in China and other nations. We hope that freed of election-year politics, a new administration and a new Congress will make the correct decision: invest in research, but avoid any movement toward deployment."

For more information, contact Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, at 202-546-3300.

---

National Missle Defense Not Ready For Prime Time

US Newswire
1 Sep 13:25
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0901-124.html

National Missile Defense Not Ready for Prime Time: Nuclear Experts Support President's Decision Not to Deploy To: National Desk Contact: Daryl Kimball, 202-546-0795 ext. 136 or Stephen Young, 202-546-0795 ext. 102 both of Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The largest coalition of non-governmental nuclear arms control organizations praised President Clinton's decision not to deploy or initiate action to begin construction on a limited national missile defense system.

"President Clinton has come to the common sense conclusion that national missile defense is not ready for prime time. With his decision not to deploy or begin construction of the Pentagon's costly and ineffective anti-missile scheme, the President has made the prudent and wise choice for American and global security," said Daryl Kimball, director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers.

"This program is a lemon. The NMD program's incessant technical failures and schedule delays have made it clear to the President that it is foolhardy to commit to a costly and controversial weapons project that does not work," said Stephen Young, deputy director of the coalition. Recent system test failures have shown that the $60 billion anti-missile scheme cannot reliably intercept even a few warheads or discriminate against decoys. This week, Pentagon officials have also said that the missile test failures and increasing program delays have made it unlikely that the system can be put in place by the arbitrary 2005 target date.

"The president has realized that a decision to deploy or even initiate construction of a key anti-missile radar in Alaska would be seen as a unilateral decision to pursue deployment and would needlessly provoke immediate adverse consequences in our relations with Russia, China and our NATO allies -- who oppose deployment -- and undermine prospects for further nuclear arms reductions," said Young.

"Some politicians erroneously believe there are better, cheaper and faster national missile defense technologies. No matter who is elected or which national missile defense scheme might be proposed, the American people deserve to know whether any such system will work and whether it increases -- or decreases -- overall security before committing us to such a risky course of action," cautioned Kimball.

The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers is a non-partisan alliance of 17 of the nation's leading non-proliferation organizations working for a practical, step-by-step program to reduce the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. For more information, see the coalition's on-line briefing book: Pushing the Limits: the Decision on National Missile Defense.

----

Leading Experts on Missile Defense Available for Interview

US Newswire
1 Sep 11:19
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0901-113.html

Leading Experts on NMD and ABM Treaty Available for Interview To: National Desk Contact: Daryl Kimball, 202-546-0795 ext 136 Adam Segal, 202-547-3577 both of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers:

President Clinton is likely to announce today that he will not take any steps to initiate deployment of the proposed national missile defense system. In recognition of the unresolved technical, strategic, and diplomatic problems of the program, this outcome is the most prudent decision the President could make at this time. Any action that might begin construction at Shemya Island would involve a unilateral U.S. interpretation of the ABM Treaty and could lead to severe adverse diplomatic consequences.

Several leading experts on NMD and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty are available for interview.

The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, a consortium of 17 non-governmental organizations, has warned that the NMD system will not work, is very costly, and will increase -- not decrease -- nuclear dangers facing the nation. Coalition members argue that the latest technical delays explain why that President Clinton cannot, on the basis of his own decision criteria, responsibly decide to deploy. Authorization of initial construction is not justifiable due to the slippage of the arbitrary 2005 target date. The international community would have viewed a decision by the President to authorize construction of the anti-missile radar as a clear signal that the next administration will continue deployment. This would have needlessly provoked immediate adverse consequences in our relations not only with Russia and China, but with our NATO allies, who oppose deployment outside the framework of the ABM Treaty.

As President Clinton sets to make a decision on deployment, the following list of policy experts, former government officials, scientists and opponents of a national missile defense are available for interview. You may reach them directly at the numbers listed below or set up an interview by contacting Daryl Kimball at 202-546-0795 ext 136 or Adam Segal at 202-547-3577.

Thomas Graham, Jr. is President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security. An expert on the legal status of the ABM Treaty, U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons policy, and effect national missile defense deployment on the NPT regime, Ambassador Graham served as the Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation, and Disarmament from 1994-1997. Phone: 202-745-2450. Available during working hours.

Stephen W. Young is Deputy Director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, an alliance of the 17 largest nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation organizations. He is the author of the report, Pushing the Limits: the Decision on National Missile Defense (July 2000) and is knowledgeable on the key factors relating to the national missile defense decision: program costs; technical feasibility; the missile threat; impact on international relations. Phone: 202-546-0795 ext 102. Home: 202-546-6877. Available at all times.

John B. Rhinelander is Senior Counsel for Shaw Pittman, Washington, D.C. A lawyer, former government official, teacher and businessman, Rhinelander was the U.S. legal advisor for the original SALT I/ABM Treaty negotiations. He is also a Vice Chairman of Lawyers for World Security (LAWS) and former Vice Chairman of the Arms Control Association (ACA). Phone: 202-663-8048. Available during working hours.

Tom Zamora Collina is Director of the Arms Control and International Security Program Union of Concerned Scientists. His organization recently published a groundbreaking Countermeasures study of the technical challenges facing the proposed ground-based national missile defense program. He is an expert on technology related to national missile defense, nuclear testing, and arms control. Phone: 202-332-0900. Available during working hours, early evening hours, and weekends.

John D. Isaacs is the President of the Council for a Livable World. He is one of the most respected and senior leaders of the nation's arms control community, and one of Washington, D.C.'s foremost experts on Congress and national security issues. He is an expert on congressional and public opinions on NMD, and the politics of NMD. Phone: 202-543-4100 ext 131. Home: 202-387-6474. Available from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Spurgeon Keeny, Jr. is President of the Arms Control Association. Keeny is a former Deputy Director of the Arms Control Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and who has been engaged in national security and arms control issues since 1948. He represented ACDA in interagency planning for the ABM Treaty negotiations during the Nixon Administration. He is a member of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the National Academy of Sciences and is available to comment on all aspects of NMD and nuclear arms control. Phone: 202-463-8270. Home: 202-966-1692. Available during working hours and in the early evening.

Dan Plesch is Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC). He is an expert on the views of European allies toward national missile defense and the potential effect of national missile defense deployment on international relations and the global nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Phone: 202-785-1266; Home: 202-625-1735. Available during working hours and in the evening.

Gordon S. Clark is Executive Director of Peace Action, the largest grassroots-based peace and justice organization in the U.S. (formerly SANE/FREEZE). Clark speaks and writes frequently on NMD, and public reactions to missile defense and spending on nuclear weapons. His organization is running a series of television issue advertisements on missile defense. Phone: 202-862-9740 ext 3007. Available during working hours.

For on-line resources on national missile defense, see the Coalition's Web Site, http://www.crnd.org

---

Gore Statement on Missile Defense

US Newswire
1 Sep 12:12
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0901-115.html

Statement by Al Gore On National Missile Defense To: National Desk, Political Reporter Contact: Douglas Hattaway or Chris Lehane, 615-340-3251, both of Gore/Lieberman 2000; Web site: http://www.algore2000.com

NASHVILLE, September 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following statement by Al Gore was released today by Gore/Lieberman 2000:

I agree with the President's decision to defer the decision to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) for the next administration. Now that he has made his decision, I feel free to express myself on the subject.

The United States faces the real possibility that countries such as North Korea or Iran will succeed in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles able to deliver these weapons at intercontinental range.

Of course it is possible that North Korea or Iran might at some point change their intentions and remove this threat. We should be alert to such possibilities, but they are not in our grasp at this moment.

The NMD system which the Clinton-Gore Administration has under development is meant to be deployed in a timely way, and is explicitly designed to handle the type of threat that we could expect if our estimates are realized and we have to face a small number of deployed Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) warheads.

The President's decision allows time for additional testing of our NMD system. I welcome the opportunity to be more certain that these technologies actually work together properly. As the President said, there are 16 additional intercept tests already scheduled. One could decide to proceed with deployment at any point along that process, once fully convinced that the technologies are ready.

Passage of more time also allows for more clarity about the costs of the system.

The President's decision also allows the next President time to conduct updated discussions with other countries.

As regards the Russian Federation, I think it important to state what my approach would be if I am the next President. I respect the Russians, concerns and would want the opportunity to persuade them that the NMD system would never become a threat to them.

I would be prepared to work hard to persuade the Government of the Russian Federation to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. And, I would also look for very creative approaches for joint U.S.-Russian responses to a threat that can be aimed at either one or both of us.

But, at the end of the day, I would not be prepared to let Russian opposition to this system stand in the way of its deployment, if I should conclude that the technologies are mature enough to deploy and are both affordable and needed. I would also work to persuade the Chinese that a U.S. NMD system is not intended to threaten them, and to allay the concerns of our allies.

However, as President, I would oppose the kinds of missile defense systems that would unnecessarily upset strategic stability and threaten to open the gates for a renewed arms race with Russia and a new arms race with China including both offensive and defensive weapons.

It would be my objective as President to avoid such an outcome. Instead, I would aim for another round of deep negotiated reductions to levels agreed between the United States and Russia at the Helsinki summit. If the Russians wish to reduce unilaterally below that level for economic reasons they certainly can and should. But for the United States to go lower requires a thorough reexamination of the official nuclear doctrine which to this point guides our military in its planning. As President, I would initiate such a review and engage deeply in the process.

I have said before that the Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was an act of massive irresponsibility damaging to the security interests of the United States, and I repeat that if elected President I will immediately revive the ratification process and seek to rally the full force of American public opinion behind it.

If I am elected President, I would also plan to use the extra time created by President Clinton's decision for a serious bipartisan dialogue about defensive systems aimed at establishing a consensus that clearly does not exist at the present time. Of course, if I became convinced of a need to act I would propose moving forward whether or not it has been possible to establish this consensus, but it would clearly be in the nation,s best interest if we could do so.

---

Text of Clinton's Missile Defense Speech

Australian News Network
Friday, September 1, 2000
Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/national/090100/missiledefense_text.sml

WASHINGTON The transcript of President Clinton's address Friday at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service on the future of a missile defense system for the United States. Transcription by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

Thank you very much. When you gave us such a warm welcome, and then you applauded some of Dean Galucci's early lines, I thought to myself, "I'm glad he can get this sort of reception, because I gave him a lot of thankless jobs to do in our administration where no one ever applauded."

And he did them brilliantly. And I'm delighted to see him here succeeding so well as the dean.

Provost Brown, thank you for welcoming me here.

And I told them when I came in I was sort of glad Father O'Donovan wasn't here today, because I've come so often I know that at some point, if I keep doing this, he will tell me that he's going to send a bill to the U.S. Treasury for the Georgetown endowment.

I was thinking, when we came out here and Bob talked about the beginning of the school year, that it was 35 years ago when, as a sophomore, I was in charge of the freshmen orientation. So I thought I should come and help this year's orientation of freshmen get off to a good start.

I also was thinking, I confess, after your rousing welcome, that if I were still a candidate for public office I might get up and say hello and sit down and quit while I'm ahead. For I came today to talk about a subject that is not fraught with applause lines, but one that is very, very important to your future: the defense of our nation.

At this moment of unprecedented peace and prosperity with no immediate threat to our security or our existence, with our democratic values ascendant and our alliances strong, with the great forces of our time - globalization and the revolution in information technology - so clearly beneficial to a society like ours with our diversity and our openness and our entrepreneurial spirit; at a time like this, it is tempting, but wrong, to believe there are no serious long-term challenges to our security.

The rapid spread of technology across increasingly porous borders raises the specter that more and more states, terrorists and criminal syndicates could gain access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons and to the means of delivering them, whether in small units deployed by terrorists within our midst or ballistic missiles capable of hurling those weapons halfway around the world.

Today, I want to discuss these threats with you, because you will live with them a lot longer than I will. Especially, I want to talk about the ballistic missile threat. It is real and growing and has given new urgency to the debate about national missile defenses, known in the popular jargon as NMD.

When I became president, I put our effort to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction at the very top of our national security agenda. Since then, we have carried out a comprehensive strategy to reduce and secure nuclear arsenals, to strengthen the international regime against biological and chemical weapons and nuclear testing and to stop the flow of dangerous technology to nations that might wish us harm.

At the same time, we have pursued new technologies that could strengthen our defenses against a possible attack, including a terrorist attack, here at home.

None of these elements of our national security strategy can be pursued in isolation. Each is important, and we have made progress in each area. For example, Russia and the United States already have destroyed about 25,000 nuclear weapons in the last decade. And we have agreed that in the START III Treaty we will go 80 percent below the levels of a decade ago.

In 1994, we persuaded Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, three of the former Soviet Republics, to give up their nuclear weapons entirely. We have worked with Russia and its neighbors to dispose of hundreds of tons of dangerous nuclear materials, to strengthen controls on illicit exports and to keep weapons scientists from selling their services to the highest bidder.

We extended the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty indefinitely. We were the very first nation to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an idea first embraced by Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower. Sixty nations now have ratified the test ban treaty. I believe the United States Senate made a serious error in failing to ratify it last year, and I hope it will do so next year.

We also negotiated and ratified the international convention to ban chemical weapons and strengthened the convention against biological weapons. We've used our export controls to deny terrorists and potential adversaries access to the materials and equipment needed to build these kinds of weapons. We've imposed sanctions on those who contribute to foreign chemical and biological weapons programs.

We've invested new equipment - invested in new equipment and medical countermeasures to protect people from exposure. And we're working with state and local medical units all over our country to strengthen our preparedness in case of a chemical or biological terrorist attack, which many people believe is the most likely new security threat of the 21st century.

We have also acted to reduce the threat posed by states that have sought weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles while pursuing activities that are clearly hostile to our long-term interests.

For over a decade - for almost a decade, excuse me - we have diverted about 90 percent of Iraq's oil revenues from the production of weapons to the purchase of food and medicine. This is an important statistic for those who believe that our sanctions are only a negative for the people, and particularly the children, of Iraq.

In 1989, Iraq earned $15 billion from oil exports and spent $13 billion of that money on its military. This year, Iraq is projected to earn $19 billion from its legal oil-for-food exports, but can spend none of those revenues on the military.

We worked to counter Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and missile technology, convincing China to provide no new assistance to Iran's nuclear program and pressing Russia to strengthen its controls on the export of sensitive technologies.

In 1994, six years after the United States first learned that North Korea had a nuclear weapons program, we negotiated the agreement that, verifiably, has frozen its production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Now, in the context of the United States' negotiations with the North, the diplomatic efforts by former Defense Secretary Bill Perry and most lately the summit between the leaders between North and South Korea, North Korea has refrained from flight-testing a new missile that could pose a threat to America.

And we should be clear: North Korea's capability remains a serious issue, and its intentions remain unclear, but its missile testing moratorium is a good development worth pursuing.

These diplomatic efforts to meet the threat of proliferation are backed by the strong and global reach of our armed forces. Today, the United States enjoys overwhelming military superiority over any potential adversary. For example, in 1985, we spent about as much on defense as Russia, China and North Korea combined. Today we spend nearly three times as much, nearly $300 billion a year. And our military technology, clearly, is well ahead of the rest of the world.

The principle of deterrence served us very well in the Cold War, and deterrence remains imperative. The threat of overwhelming retaliation deterred Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War. Our forces in South Korea have deterred North Korean aggression for 47 years.

The question is: Can deterrence protect us against all those who might wish us harm in the future? Can we make America even more secure? The effort to answer these questions is the impetus behind the search for NMD.

The issue is whether we can do more not to meet today's threat, but to meet tomorrow's threats to our security. For example, there is the possibility that a hostile state with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles may simply disintegrate, with command over missiles falling into unstable hands; or that in a moment of desperation, such a country might miscalculate, believing it could use nuclear weapons to intimidate us from defending our vital interests or from coming to the aid of our allies or others who were defenseless and clearly in need.

In the future, we cannot rule out that terrorist groups could gain the capability to strike us with nuclear weapons if they seized even temporary control of the state with an existing nuclear weapons establishment.

Now no one suggests that NMD would ever substitute for diplomacy or for deterrence, but such a system, if it worked properly, could give us an extra dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has complicated the task of preserving the peace. Therefore, I believe we have an obligation to determine the feasibility, the effectiveness and the impact of a national missile defense on the overall security of the United States.

The system now under development is designed to work as follows: In the event of an attack, American satellites would detect the launch of missiles. Our radar would track the enemy warheads, and highly accurate, high-speed, ground-based interceptors would destroy them before they could reach their targets in the United States.

We have made substantial progress on a system that would be based in Alaska and that, when operational, could protect all 50 states from the near-term missile threats we face, those emanating from North Korea and the Middle East. The system could be deployed sooner than any of the proposed alternatives.

Since last fall, we've been conducting flight tests to see if this NMD system actually can reliably intercept a ballistic missile.

We've begun to show that the different parts of this system can work together. Our Defense Department has overcome daunting technical obstacles in a remarkably short period of time, and I'm proud of the work that Secretary Cohen, General Shelton and their teams have done. One test proved that it is, in fact, possible to hit a bullet with a bullet.

Still, though the technology for NMD is promising, the system as a whole is not yet proven. After the initial tests succeeded, our two most recent tests failed, for different reasons, to achieve an intercept. Several more tests are planned. They will tell us whether NMD can work reliably under realistic conditions.

The critical elements of the program, such as the booster rocket for the missile interceptor, have yet to be tested. There are also questions to be resolved about the ability of the system to deal with countermeasures; in other words, measures by those firing the missiles to confuse the missile defense into thinking it is hitting a target when it is not.

There is a reasonable chance that all these challenges can be met in time, but I simply cannot conclude, with the information I have today, that we have enough confidence in the technology and the operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward to deployment.

Therefore, I have decided not to authorize deployment of a national missile defense at this time.

Instead, I have asked Secretary Cohen to continue a robust program of development and testing. That effort still is at an early stage. Only three of the 19 planned intercept tests have been held so far. We need more tests against more challenging targets and more simulations before we can responsibly commit our nation's resources to deployment. We should use this time to ensure that NMD, if deployed, would actually enhance our overall national security. And I want to talk about that in a few moments.

I want you to know that I have reached this decision about not deploying the NMD after careful deliberation. My decision will not have a significant impact on the date the overall system could be deployed in the next administration if the next president decides to go forward.

The best judgment of the experts who have examined this question is that if we were to commit today to construct the system it most likely would be operational about 2006 or 2007. If the next president decides to move forward next year, the system still could be ready in the same time frame.

In the meantime, we will continue to work with our allies and with Russia to strengthen their understanding and support for our efforts to meet the emerging ballistic missile threat, and to explore creative ways that we can cooperate to enhance their security against this threat as well.

An effective NMD could play an important part of our national security strategy, but it could not be the sum total of that strategy. It can never be the sum total of that strategy for dealing with nuclear and missile threats.

Moreover, ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear weapons, as I said earlier, do not represent the sum total of the threats we face. Those include chemical and biological weapons and a range of deadly technologies for deploying them. So it would be folly to base the defense of our nation solely on a strategy of waiting until missiles are in the air and then trying to shoot them down.

We must work with our allies and with Russia to prevent potential adversaries from ever threatening us with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in the first place and to make sure they know the devastating consequences of doing so.

---

Clinton unsure anti-missile system will fly

CBC News
WebPosted Fri Sep 1 23:30:09 2000
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/09/01/usmissiles000901

WASHINGTON - Saying the technology needs more testing, U.S. President Bill Clinton has decided to leave the fate of a controversial anti-missile defence system to his successor.

"We should not move forward until we have absolute confidence that the system will work," Clinton said Friday in a speech at Georgetown University.

The Pentagon believes the proposed national missile defence shield (NMD) will protect the U.S. from being attacked by "rogue states" such as Iran and Korea.

But Clinton pointed out that recent test flights have failed to hit their targets, raising questions about whether the program should be backed by the White House.

"I simply cannot conclude, with the information I have today, that we have enough confidence in the technology and the operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward to deployment," Clinton said.

RECENT STORY: Another failure for U.S. interceptor missile

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/07/08/missile000708

He called on U.S. defence staff to pursue a "robust program" of testing to prove that the technology works.

Friday's decision means the Pentagon won't be able to have an anti-missile shield covering all 50 states by its target date of 2005.

To meet that deadline, it needed presidential authorization to start awarding construction contracts for powerful new radar facilities by the end of the year.

Many countries welcomed Clinton's decision, including Russia and China. They have both argued that NMD could upset the delicate balance of nuclear weapons worldwide by giving the U.S. the upper hand.

Several NATO countries, including Canada, also praised the president for listening to his allies, who have expressed concern about the "strategic instability" an anti-missile shield could create.

Vice-president Al Gore, the Democrats' candidate in this November's election, also commended Clinton, saying that more testing is needed before a final decision is made.

But Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush attacked Clinton for what he called another example of failed leadership on issues of national security. Bush said he would deploy a system like NMD "at the earliest possible date."

---

Clinton leaves missile defense shield decision to successor
Bush: More proof Clinton 'failed to lead'

CNN
September 1, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bill Clinton said today the next U.S. president will decide whether to build a base for a proposed national defense shield designed to knock out incoming enemy missiles.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/01/missile.shield.04/map.washington.d.c.jpg

The announcement, during a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, delays the projected completion date by at least a year, to 2006.

Clinton said more research was needed before construction could begin on a planned base for the anti-missile system on a remote Alaskan island.

"We need more tests against more challenging targets," Clinton said, referring to the project's questionable success record. "We need this time to determine" whether the system -- if deployed -- would enhance national security.

Clinton will leave office in January after serving two terms as president.

Russia reacts

Russia has said the proposed U.S. missile shield would violate its 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with the United States, which prohibits a national defense against ballistic missiles.

"In time I hope the United States can narrow our differences with Russia on this issue," Clinton said. "The course I have chosen today gives the United States more time to pursue that, and we will use it."

"The decision I have made also gives the United States time to answer our allies' questions and consult further on the path ahead."

The U.S. president's decision was warmly received by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"U.S. President Bill Clinton's decision not to take upon himself the responsibility for deploying the national anti-missile defense system is seen in Russia as a well thought-out and responsible step," Putin said in a statement from Moscow. Clinton's decision, he said, "doubtless will lead to strengthening strategic stability and security in the whole world, and will raise the United States' authority in the eyes of the international community."

NATO applauds

NATO Secretary-General George Robertson described Clinton's decision as "prudent," according to a written statement.

"The decision of the United States to continue testing and development of a limited National Missile Defense system, while reserving judgment on eventual deployment, appears to be a prudent course of action that balances the many factors involved in this issue," said a statement released by Robertson's office.

Mentioning the possibility that the system's eventual deployment might lead to nuclear arms proliferation in China, Pakistan and India, Clinton said, "The next president may nevertheless decide that our interests in security in the 21st century dictate that we go forward with deployment" of the national missile defense system.

To prevent such a scenario, Clinton said the United States should call for moving forward with the missile defense system "in the context of the ABM treaty and allied support."

Political reaction

The two major party U.S. presidential candidates competing to be Clinton's successor, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, both have said they favor the missile shield.

But on Friday, Bush used Clinton's speech to bolster accusations that the president has neglected the U.S. military.

"As president, I intend to develop and deploy an effective missile defense system at the earliest possible date to protect American citizens from accidental launches or blackmail by rogue nations," Bush said in a written statement.

"Today's announcement that President Clinton will leave this unfinished business for the next president underscores the fact that for seven years, the Clinton-Gore administration has failed to strengthen America's defenses.

"Now they are leaving this important unfinished business for the next president," Bush said. "And I welcome the opportunity to act where they have failed to lead ..."

For his part, Gore responded in a written statement, "Passage of more time also allows for more clarity about the costs of the system. The president's decision allows the next president time to conduct updated discussions with other countries."

If Clinton had decided against the delay, construction was to begin next spring on the first stage of the missile project base, a radar station on Shemya Island off Alaska.

Target date pushed back a year

Clinton had said he would consider four main factors in deciding whether to proceed with the deployment process now: technical feasibility, cost, the urgency of a missile threat against the United States and the impact on arms control of proceeding with missile defense.

The missile's so-called "kill vehicle" has failed at least two out of three test firings, prompting questions about the system's feasibility.

By putting off the initial step, Clinton in effect has pushed back the target date to fully deploy a working system from 2005 to at least 2006.

CNN National Security Correspondent David Ensor, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

---

Clinton says U.S. not ready to build a missile defense system

Kansas City Star
Date: 09/01/00 22:15
By STEVEN THOMMA - Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3774ba30.901,.html

WASHINGTON -- Calling the technology promising but still unproven, President Clinton on Friday left it to his successor to decide whether to build a complex system to defend the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks.

"We need more tests, against more challenging targets and more simulations before we can responsibly commit our nation's resources to deployment," Clinton said.

At the Russian Defense Ministry in Moscow, Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov called the president's decision constructive.

"There is hope that a balanced approach to the solution of salient international problems -- above all, those concerning global security -- will prevail," said Ivashov, according to the Interfax News Agency.

The postponement, however, got mixed reviews on the American political stage, where it pushed the issue squarely into the presidential campaign between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, two candidates already debating the state of America's defenses.

Gore endorsed the postponement, saying he would pursue the development of the same type of missile defense as Clinton and decide later whether to build the missile shield.

Bush said it underscored the Clinton-Gore administration's inability to defend the United States adequately; he promised to develop and deploy a larger missile defense that would protect not only the 50 states, but also American soldiers abroad and the nation's allies.

Clinton had said for months that he would decide this fall whether to deploy the limited ballistic missile defense system -- in time to start planning the construction next spring of an advanced radar installation in Alaska and in time to take the issue off the campaign agenda.

"We have made substantial progress on a system that would be based in Alaska and that when operational, could protect all 50 states from the near-term missile threats we face, those emanating from North Korea and the Middle East," Clinton said in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington.

He said tests already had proved that it is possible to hit an incoming missile with another missile, in effect hitting a bullet with a bullet.

But after two recent tests failed to intercept even easy-to-identify targets, it became clear that the system still isn't able to identify and shoot down multiple incoming warheads in a sky that also could be filled with decoy warheads.

Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said: "This system has no hope of being able to tell the difference between warheads and decoys and no hope of reliably hitting warheads in a combat environment."

Since signing the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 1972, the United States and Russia have refused to build national missile defense systems in the belief that neither would dare start a war as long as each remained vulnerable to a counterattack.

At a summit in June, Clinton got Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree that the world faces new threats from rogue nations or terrorist groups that could develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Although he agreed to share the defense technology with Russia, Clinton was unable to persuade Putin to accept even a limited U.S. missile shield.

Maintaining good relations with Russia, Clinton said Friday, remains as important to American security as a missile defense system. Analysts warned that Russia, as well as nations such as China, might feel compelled to build up their nuclear arsenals in order to overwhelm any American defense.

"While we are no longer adversaries," Clinton said of the Russians, "we are not yet real allies."

In a statement, Gore said he also would try to convince the Russians to agree to amend the ABM Treaty to allow a limited American missile shield. But he added that he would not let Russian opposition block the system if he decided it was feasible and necessary.

Even America's longtime allies, however, fear that the proposed U.S. missile defense system could provoke a new arms race while leaving them unprotected.

At the headquarters of the NATO military alliance in Brussels, Secretary-General George Robertson said: "The decision...to continue testing and development of a limited national missile defense system, while reserving judgment on eventual deployment, appears to be a prudent course of action."

---

Clinton Passes Buck on 'Star Wars' Decision

Fox News
Friday, September 1, 2000
http://www.foxnews.com/national/090100/missiledefense.sml

President Clinton announced Friday he is leaving the decision to deploy or not to deploy a ballistic-missile defense system to the next president.

Clinton told an audience at Georgetown University that there's not yet enough confidence in the technology, and in the effectiveness of the system, to move forward to deployment.

"We should use this time to ensure that NMD (national missile defense), if deployed, would actually enhance our overall national security," Clinton said.

Clinton said the delay won't make a big difference in the date on which the system could actually be deployed. Whether the decision is made this year or next, experts told Clinton a system could be operational in 2006 or 2007.

For now, Clinton said, the technology needs to be tested against challenging targets, pointing out that two recent tests of the NMD have failed.

Vice President Al Gore, who has been noncommittal on the issue, said he supported continued development work. Texas Gov. George W. Bush has said he would push hard for a missile defense even more robust than the one currently on the drawing board.

In the face of strong objections from Russia and reservations among many Democrats in Congress, Clinton chose not to authorize the Pentagon to award contracts to begin building a new high-powered radar in the Aleutian Islands.

Putting off the start of construction of the X-band radar in the Aleutians gives the Clinton administration and its successor more time to negotiate a deal on the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. The 1972 treaty prohibits a national defense against ballistic missiles, and the administration has tried unsuccessfully to persuade Moscow to amend the treaty to allow a limited defensive system.

In his speech, Clinton said he was not assured that the United States has "enough confidence in the technology" to move forward with the project now. He asked Defense Secretary William Cohen to "continue a robust program of testing" to make sure the system will work properly.

"A national missile defense, if deployed, should be part of a larger strategy to preserve and enhance the peace, strength and security we now enjoy, and to build an even safer world," Clinton said. "I have tried to maximize the ability of the next president to pursue that strategy."

Clinton said his decision gives the United States time to work with the Russians to overcome their opposition to the system, and to court the support of U.S. allies.

"The United States and Russia still have nuclear arsenals that can devastate each other, and this is still a period of transition in our relationship," Clinton said. "Therefore, for them, as well as for us, maintaining strategic stability increases trust and confidence on both sides; it reduces the risk of confrontation; it makes it possible to build an even better partnership, and an even safer world."

In previous public comments on missile defense, Clinton never gave a clear signal of what course he would take. In a May 31 news conference, he seemed to indicate that missile defense was justified by a growing threat not from Russia or China but from so-called "rogue states" like North Korea.

"Is there a threat which is new and different? The answer to that, it seems to me, is plainly, yes, there is, and there will be one."

The proposed national missile defense, projected to cost about $60 billion, is designed to protect all 50 states against attack by a limited number of long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea or the Middle East. It is a scaled-down version of the global missile defense pursued during the Reagan administration that came to be known as Star Wars for its space-based lasers and other exotic weaponry.

In weighing his decision, Clinton faced conflicting pressures. Republicans in Congress have pushed hard for years for a national missile defense, and last year they gained passage of a law requiring the Pentagon to deploy such a system as soon as "technologically feasible."

The president was also fielding recommendations from Cohen, who is perhaps the administration's strongest proponent of national missile defense, as well as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the president's national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

Cohen had not publicly discussed his recommendation, but did indicate recently that he saw reason to consider whether going forward now might put undue pressure on Clinton's successor to affirm or reverse the decision.

-The Associated Press contributed to this report

---

Clinton defers decision on missile shield The President said the system needed more testing. An answer on deployment will be left to his successor.

Philadelphia Inquirer
Friday, September 1, 2000
By Steven Thomma INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU
http://web.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/09/01/national/01MISSILE.htm

WASHINGTON - Calling the technology promising but still unproven, President Clinton Friday left it to his successor to decide whether to build an antimissile defense system.

"We need more tests, against more challenging targets, and more simulations before we can responsibly commit our nation's resources to deployment," Clinton said in a speech at Georgetown University.

Clinton's decision not to decide played well with allies and adversaries, who welcomed the news that the United States was not yet seeking a new strategic advantage that could disrupt nuclear arms-control treaties and perhaps spark a new arms race.

In Moscow, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin issued a statement saying Clinton's "decision not to take upon himself the responsibility for deploying the national antimissile defense system is seen in Russia as a well-thought-out and responsible step."

Clinton's decision, he added, "doubtless will lead to strengthening strategic stability and security in the whole world, and will raise the United States' authority in the eyes of the international community."

The postponement got mixed reviews on the American political stage, where it pushed the issue squarely into the presidential campaign between Vice President Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who already had been debating the state of America's defenses.

Gore, the Democratic nominee, endorsed the postponement, saying he would pursue the development of the same type of missile defense as Clinton and decide later whether to build the missile shield.

Bush, the Republican nominee, said Clinton's announcement underscored the administration's inability to adequately defend the United States. He promised to develop and deploy a larger missile defense that would protect not only the 50 states, but also American soldiers abroad and the nation's allies.

Clinton had said for months that he would decide this fall whether to deploy a limited ballistic-missile-defense system.

His postponement means that the Pentagon's 2005 target date for having an initial, limited missile defense has been scrapped.

To maintain that schedule, Clinton would have had to authorize the Pentagon - before the end of this year - to award contracts for initial construction on Alaska's Shemya Island of a powerful new missile-tracking radar.

Clinton's decision likely means that work on the Shemya radar cannot begin before 2002, which means that a national missile defense could not be completed before 2006 at the earliest.

"We have made substantial progress on a system that would be based in Alaska and that when operational, could protect all 50 states from the near-term missile threats we face, those emanating from North Korea and the Middle East," Clinton said.

He said tests had proved it was possible to hit an incoming missile with another missile, in effect hitting a bullet with a bullet.

But after two recent tests failed to intercept even easy-to-identify targets, it became clear that the system still was not able to identify, target and shoot down multiple incoming warheads in a sky that also could be filled with decoy warheads.

"This system has no hope of being able to tell the difference between warheads and decoys and no hope of reliably hitting warheads in a combat environment," said Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Deciding to build the missile-defense system might cost far more than its estimated $60 billion price tag. It also might exact a price in global stability.

Since signing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1972, the United States and Russia have refrained from building national missile-defense systems in the belief that neither would dare start a war as long as each remained vulnerable to a counterattack.

At a summit in June, Clinton got Putin to agree that the world faced new threats from rogue nations or terrorist groups that could develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Although he agreed to share the defense technology with Russia, Clinton was unable to persuade Putin to accept even a limited U.S. missile shield.

Maintaining good relations with Russia, Clinton said Friday, remains as important to U.S. security as a missile-defense system. Analysts warned that Russia and perhaps China might feel compelled to build up their nuclear arsenals to be able to overwhelm any American defense.

"While we are no longer adversaries," Clinton said of the Russians, "we are not yet real allies."

Gore issued a statement saying he also would try to persuade the Russians to agree to amend the ABM Treaty to allow a limited American missile shield. But he added that he would not let Russian opposition block the system if he decided it was feasible and necessary.

Even America's longtime allies, however, fear that the proposed U.S. missile-defense system could provoke a new arms race while leaving them unprotected.

At NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Secretary-General George Robertson of Britain said: "The decision ... to continue testing and development of a limited national missile-defense system, while reserving judgment on eventual deployment, appears to be a prudent course of action."

Steven Thomma's e-mail address is sthomma@krwashington.com

Seth Borenstein of the Inquirer Washington Bureau contributed to this article, which also includes information from the Associated Press.

---

Missile system unlikely to work by 2005 target date, expert says

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Friday, September 1, 2000
By ERIC ROSENBERG
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/miss01.shtml

WASHINGTON -- A top Pentagon official says a controversial missile-killing weapon faces so many technological hurdles it won't be ready by the target date of 2005.

The Clinton administration, meanwhile, is divided over whether to deploy the complicated system of rockets, satellites and sensors.

The Pentagon's chief of testing, Philip Coyle, said the project, known as National Missile Defense, "has demonstrated considerable progress" in three flight tests to date, two of which failed and one of which scored a direct hit. But he stressed that "test results so far do not support a recommendation at this time to deploy in 2005."

In an internal Pentagon memorandum dated Aug. 11, Coyle took the Pentagon to task for not including more "realistic" flight tests that would better replicate actual enemy missile launches against the United States.

Critics of the $36 billion program have complained that the Pentagon was not testing NMD against the types of intercontinental ballistic missiles an enemy such as North Korea or Iran might employ.

"Deployment means the fielding of an operational system with some military utility which is effective under realistic combat conditions, against realistic threats and countermeasures when operated by military personnel at all times of day or night and in all weather," said Coyle. "Such a capability is yet to be shown to be practicable for NMD."

Because much more work needs to be done, it is time, said Coyle, that Pentagon officials consider shifting the program "toward a realistic" deployment date.

The memo, stamped "For Official Use Only," is an acknowledgment that NMD won't be ready when the military asserts that North Korea will have ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States. Additionally, the comments could undermine the rationale for President Clinton to move ahead with the program.

The memo was first reported by Bloomberg News.

Defense Secretary William Cohen is scheduled to make a recommendation to Clinton in the next few weeks about whether to build a specialized radar station on Alaska's Aleutian Islands. That radar, which would be used to scour the horizon for signs of enemy missiles bearing down on the United States, would be the first step in deploying NMD.

The memo comes as the administration is sharply divided over how to proceed -- if at all -- with NMD. Some in the State Department assert that even just letting contracts for construction of such a radar would violate a 1972 arms control treaty with Russia. Cohen, however, has said that construction could begin without violating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

As part of the decision-making process, Cohen and his staff are assessing the missile defense program's technical progress to date, including cost, arms control implications and the potential enemy threat. Coyle's comments are part of the input Cohen will weigh.

The arms control implications of NMD have emerged as a major concern for NATO allies, Russia and China, which have argued that the nuclear balance of power could be thrown off kilter.

Although Washington says NMD would be used only against so-called rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea, Moscow and Beijing fear that NMD might render their nuclear arsenals obsolete. They have warned that NMD could force them to build new classes of nuclear weapons, thereby triggering an arms race.

NMD also is being designed to provide protection against an accidental nuclear missile launch in Russia, sparked by decaying Soviet-era equipment or a weapon that falls into the hands of a terrorist.

According to current Pentagon plans, the program will be constructed in several phases. At first the anti-missile system will use 20 interceptors based in Alaska. But by 2007, the Pentagon plans to add another 80 interceptor missiles, which would increase the cost to about $60 billion.

Boeing was selected by the Pentagon in 1998 to be the prime contractor for the missile defense program.

---

Clinton Set to Discuss Missile Defense Policy

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 8:33 AM ET updated 10:16 PM ET Sep 1
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/ts/arms_clinton_dc_1.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton will discuss on Friday his long-awaited decision on whether to deploy a national missile defense, which is opposed by Russia, China and many U.S. allies, the White House said.

``The president will talk about national security and his decision on national missile defense,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told reporters. Clinton was to speak at Georgetown University shortly after 11 a.m.

At issue is the proposed construction of a high-technology shield against ballistic missiles, which is designed to be operational by 2005.

It was not immediately clear if Clinton would announce a decision to start the process of contracting out the construction of a powerful battle management radar in Alaska, the first step in building the system.

---

U.S. Missile Shield Saga Far From Over Analysts

Yahoo News
Friday September 1
By Elaine Monaghan
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/pl/arms_impact_dc_1.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Anyone who thinks the world has heard the end of U.S. arguments for a National Missile Defense (NMD) because President Clinton said on Friday he would leave the issue to his successor should think again.

His announcement reflected a realization that months of trying to persuade Russia to amend a Soviet-era pact not to build a system to shoot down each other's missiles had failed -- but only for this administration, analysts said.

``In essence, what he has done is bought time to discuss with the allies and with the Russians and the Chinese how one ought to proceed, and that's significant,'' said Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

``On the other hand, it would be a mistake to believe that this is the end of the NMD saga. The proverbial can has been kicked down the road,'' he said.

He said he expected whoever took over from Clinton in January to ``proceed with a vigorous development and possible deployment'' of NMD, a system to shoot down missiles. Its creation was prompted by concerns about programs in North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Democratic candidate Vice-President Al Gore (news - web sites) said he would try to build a consensus abroad on a limited system to shield U.S. territory -- though like Clinton, he said failure to do so would not stop him if the threat required it.

This would mean getting Russian agreement to update the U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty of 1972, which is seen as the cornerstone of arms accords.

It was designed to stop precisely this kind of system being built for fear it would encourage the other side to build more missiles to overcome the shield.

Clinton and Gore argue their NMD is not aimed against Russia and that it is necessary because of the new threats emerging in other countries in the post-Soviet era.

Republican contender George W. Bush (news - web sites), who favors a much broader land- and sea-based system, said he welcomed the opportunity to act where Clinton and Gore had failed to lead by ''developing and deploying effective missile defenses to protect all 50 states and our friends and allies.''

Europeans Relieved, Russia And China Cautious

European allies were clearly relieved at Clinton's decision after months of worrying about what might happen if Clinton decided to go ahead with the shield without Moscow's consent.

NATO called it ``prudent.'' Germany said it was ``wise.''

Analysts said Clinton opened the door to months of talks with Moscow and Beijing, which have always been vociferously against NMD for fear it would neutralize their defenses.

Russia's Interfax news agency quoted a senior Russian defense ministry official as saying his announcement showed ''elements of a constructive approach.'' Press Counselor Zhang Yuanyuan at the Chinese embassy welcomed the chance for Washington to ``listen to the views from other countries, including from U.S. allies in Europe, to arrive at a wise decision and not deploy NMD.''

Russia and China tapped into European fears that it could destabilize the delicate balance of arms control agreements to push their argument against NMD.

``But they would be mistaken to believe that they have won'' in their campaign to stop NMD altogether, Daalder said.

In the short-term, the Clinton announcement should take the heat out of bilateral meetings at the United Nations Millennium Summit in New York next week, where he is due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday and is likely to see Chinese President Jiang Zemin.

The issue will also be the theme of discussions between Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov in New York on Monday.

It will also feature in Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, also at the U.N., on Tuesday.

---

Clinton Leaves Missile Defense to Successor

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 3:45 PM ET updated 8:38 PM ET Sep 1
By Steve Holland
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/ts/arms_clinton_dc_8.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-arms-cl.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton on Friday left to his successor to decide whether to deploy a national missile defense system, saying he would not do so himself because of test failures and diplomatic disputes.

``I have decided not to authorize deployment of a national missile defense at this time,'' Clinton said in a speech at Georgetown University.

He made the decision in the face of two spectacular $100 million test failures this year of the system to intercept incoming missiles, and after hearing sharp differences within his administration on whether to go forward.

He directed Defense Secretary William Cohen to continue testing to try to work out the bugs.

``We have made progress but we should not move forward until we have absolute confidence the system will work,'' he said.

Clinton said more time is needed as well to try to find a diplomatic solution to what has been a brewing confrontation between the United States and the staunch opponents to a U.S. missile defense, Russia and China. European allies have questioned it as well.

In Moscow, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, a senior Russian Defense Ministry official, hailed the decision, saying it showed ``elements of a constructive approach.'' In Brussels, NATO welcomed the decision as a prudent one.

Clinton's action effectively will leave a decision on whether to deploy a national missile defense to his successor.

At issue is the proposed construction of a high-technology shield against ballistic missiles, which is designed to be operational by 2005 to protect against the possibility of missile attacks from states like North Korea, Iran and Iraq. It is projected to cost anywhere from $25 billion to $60 billion.

Election Campaign

Clinton leaves office in January. His action meant a missile defense can be a part of this fall's election campaign.

Republican George W. Bush (news - web sites) said in a statement he will deploy a missile defense ``at the earliest possible date''

He said Clinton and his Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites), ``first denied the need for missile defenses, then delayed. Now they are leaving this important unfinished business for the next president,'' and he welcomed the opportunity ``to act where they have failed.''

``We've been working on this program for years,'' responded Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. ``We've spent $5 billion on this program. It has moved, I think, quite vigorously.''

Gore said he agreed with Clinton's decision because it allows for additional testing.

``I welcome the opportunity to be more certain that these technologies actually work together properly,'' he said.

Fraser Cameron, political counselor at the European Union delegation in Washington, called it a ``sensible move.''

``I'm not surprised given the results of the last test and the concerns of allies in Europe and Asia,'' he said.

Stephen Young, a driving force in the lobby against building a missile system, said: ``President Clinton had to face the facts. This program is a lemon. Almost everything that could have gone wrong has gone wrong, from test failures to scheduling delays to international reaction.''

Clinton's decision meant he will not take steps to begin building an anti-missile radar in Alaska, which would be the first step in deploying a missile shield.

That effectively delays the 2005 deployment date because, to meet the schedule laid out by the Pentagon, the first contracts for the radar would have to be awarded by December to allow building to begin next spring. Clinton said most experts now believe a system cannot be operational until 2006 or 2007 and that this time frame could probably be met even with the delay he has imposed.

``If the next president decides to move forward next year, the system still could be ready in the same time frame,'' he said.

Berger told reporters the threat of attack remained real because said it is believed North Korea, Iran and Iraq may develop a ballistic missile capability over the next decade.

``We believe that the problems encountered in the two most recent tests, where we failed to achieve an intercept, presumably can be corrected, but more time and information is needed to confirm that this is possible,'' he said.

A $100 million test in July failed when a warhead did not separate from its booster rocket and intercept a dummy warhead over the Pacific Ocean. An October 1999 test was successful but one in January failed.

Vehement Opposition

Russia and China vehemently oppose a U.S. missile defense. Moscow has refused to agree to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and has said it would stop nuclear arms cuts under other treaties if Washington broke the ABM accord.

Berger indicated he did not want to move ahead with the system absent an agreement with Russia on amending the treaty.

While ``no one has a veto over America's security decisions,'' he said, ``I believe it would be far preferable to move forward in the context of arms control and not in the context of undercutting arms control.''

A U.S. official said Clinton made his decision after thoroughly reviewing recommendations from his senior advisers, including Defense Secretary William Cohen, and took into account threat, cost, technical feasibility and overall impact on national security, including arms control.

The Pentagon said Cohen did not present a single formal recommendation to Clinton on the issue, as had been expected, but made his view known to Clinton over a period of time. He met Clinton on Tuesday night.

Arms control expert Kim Holmes said that since Clinton himself signed Republican-initiated legislation making it U.S. policy to deploy a missile defense when technically feasible, it was the law of the land and ``not a question of whether, but how.''

``There is a large majority of people who think we should have missile defense in this country so I'm not so sure he'll have helped Al Gore,'' Holmes said.

---

Missile Defense Reaction

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 12:42 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Missile-Defense-Candidates.html

Reaction from the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to President Clinton's decision to leave the question of deployment of a national missile defense to his successor:

Texas Gov. George W. Bush: ``As president, I intend to develop and deploy an effective missile defense system at the earliest possible date to protect American citizens from accidental launches or blackmail by rogue nations. Today's announcement that President Clinton will leave this unfinished business for the next president underscores the fact that for seven years, the Clinton-Gore administration has failed to strengthen America's defenses.''

Vice President Al Gore: ``The United States faces the real possibility that countries such as North Korea or Iran will succeed in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. ... The president's decision allows time for additional testing of our NMD system. I welcome the opportunity to be more certain that these technologies actually work together properly.''

---

Clinton Punts Defense Decision

Associated Press
September 01. 2000 Filed at 6:03 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Clinton-Missile-Defense.html
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/000901/18/clinton-missile-defense

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton said Friday he is not convinced the technology is at hand to build an effective anti-missile shield and will leave it to the next president -- Al Gore or George W. Bush -- to decide when, or if, to deploy a national missile defense that is prohibited by a 1972 arms control treaty.

``We should not move forward until we have absolute confidence that the system will work,'' Clinton said in a speech at Georgetown University explaining why he believes it is too early to commit the United States to missile defense. He ordered the Pentagon to pursue a ``robust program'' to prove the effectiveness of the technology.

In response, Bush reiterated that if elected he would deploy a missile defense ``at the earliest possible date.'' He characterized Clinton's decision as evidence of failed leadership on national security issues.

Bush did not say what kind of missile defense he would advocate, but in the past he has said he favored a system that could defend not only the United States but also its allies -- an approach that the Clinton administration and many private defense experts say would take longer to bear fruit than Clinton's approach.

Gore welcomed Clinton's decision as providing needed time to more thoroughly test the technologies.

``I welcome the opportunity to be more certain that these technologies actually work together properly,'' Gore said.

The upshot of Clinton's decision is that the Pentagon's 2005 target date for having an initial, limited means of defending all 50 states against attack by a small number of ballistic missiles has been scrapped.

To maintain that schedule, Clinton would have had to authorize the Pentagon -- before the end of this year -- to award contracts for initial construction on Alaska's Shemya Island of a powerful new radar that would provide the missile-tracking capability needed for an effective missile defense.

Clinton's decision likely means that work on the Shemya radar cannot begin before 2002, which means that a national missile defense could not be completed before 2006 at the earliest. The decision gives the next president leeway to restructure the program or reorder its priorities.

The decision also pleased the Russian government, which, along with China, has led the international opposition to a U.S. missile defense. They argue that it would upset the international strategic balance by placing in jeopardy the deterrent effect of their own arsenals of offensive nuclear missiles.

``U.S. President Bill Clinton's decision not to take upon himself the responsibility for deploying the national anti-missile defense system is seen in Russia as a well thought-out and responsible step,'' President Vladimir Putin said in a statement in Moscow. Clinton's decision, he said, ``doubtless will lead to strengthening strategic stability and security in the whole world, and will raise the United States' authority in the eyes of the international community.''

The Clinton administration has tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade the Russians to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which explicitly forbids a nationwide defense against long-range ballistic missiles. The treaty allows either party to withdraw from its provisions after providing six-months notice.

The leaders of Britain, France and Germany welcomed Clinton's decision as a prudent step, and Canada applauded as well.

On Capitol Hill, reaction was predictably mixed and mostly partisan.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., called the decision ``yet another example of the Clinton-Gore administration's legacy of missed opportunities.'' The House's most vocal supporter of national missile defense, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said Clinton chose to ``beg our allies and our enemies for permission to move ahead with missile defense.''

Another Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said Clinton made the right decision.

``There will be dangerous consequences for America and the world if we rush to meet arbitrary decision deadlines,'' Hagel said.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said, ``I support the president's decision and commend him for it.''

Congress last year passed a law requiring deployment of a national missile defense as soon as ``technologically feasible'' -- leaving open to debate when the technology is mature enough to build a reliable defense. Clinton also took into consideration the cost, the level of threat of missile attack and the international implications, including the impact on relations with Russian and European allies.

Defense Secretary William Cohen, a Republican and perhaps the administration's strongest advocate of national missile defense, issued a statement supporting Clinton's decision.

``The president's statement today underscores the importance of having the next president fully involved in decisions regarding the future of the program before committing the United States to a deployment strategy,'' Cohen said.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in July that it would be irresponsible for the administration to put off a decision. Such a delay, she said, would give North Korea, Iran and other countries more time to develop missiles that could threaten the United States.

Asked Friday how the statement squared with Clinton's decision, the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said ``the president has decided the technology is not at the point where we can go ahead confidently.''

In his speech, Clinton credited the Pentagon with overcoming ``daunting technical obstacles'' in the developing of missile defenses. But he made clear he believes more testing is needed to validate the technology.

Clinton noted that the last two flight tests of the proposed missile interceptor have failed to hit their targets, and that questions remain about ``countermeasures,'' or methods of defeating a national missile defense, or NMD.

``I simply cannot conclude, with the information I have today, that we have enough confidence in the technology and the operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward to deployment,'' he said.

---

Where Bush, Gore Stand on Missiles

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 3:39 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/p/AP-Where-They-Stand.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bill Clinton is letting the next president decide whether to build a national missile defense system and how. Here is where the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and their running mates stand on the issue:

Democrats:

Al Gore: Favors continued work on technology for a ``limited'' system and places high priority on getting Russia to agree to amending Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits national missile defenses. Has not decided whether a system should be deployed. Has not ruled out deploying a system without Russia's agreement to change ABM Treaty.

Joe Lieberman: In Senate, has shifted from supporting cuts in money for a national missile defense to siding with Republicans in support of early deployment. Has voted consistently against reducing Pentagon's budget.

Republicans:

George W. Bush: Favors a more ambitious missile system than has been considered by Clinton administration and wants it in place as soon as possible. Would withdraw U.S. from ABM Treaty if Russia did not agree to amendments providing for a missile defense. Wants system to be able to protect allies as well as United States. Also favors significant cuts in U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Dick Cheney: As defense secretary in 1992, declared a national missile defense a ``top national priority'' and set goal of having at least a rudimentary system available by the end of the decade. In the 1980s in Congress, backed President Reagan on ``Star Wars'' space-based missile defense. Also oversaw Pentagon budget cuts as defense secretary.

---

Clinton to Leave Missile Decision to Successor

Washington Post
Friday, September 1, 2000
By Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Staff Writer
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62017-2000Sep1.html

President Clinton announced today that he will defer a decision on whether to build a national missile defense, leaving the fate of the system to his successor.

The $60 billion missile system has suffered two test failures and has been bitterly opposed by the governments in Russia and China, which have argued that the system could trigger a new arms race.

"For me, the bottom line on this decision is this: Because the emerging missile threat is real, we have an obligation to pursue a missile defense system that could enhance our security," said Clinton, speaking to Georgetown University students and faculty this morning. "We should not move forward until we have absolute confidence that the system will work."

Deferring this decision will not affect his successor's options, he said. The next president could decide to begin deploying the missile defense shield and still have it operational by 2006 or 2007.

Work on NMD will not halt until the new president is sworn in next January, Clinton added. Instead, the program will continue to be tested and developed, the president said, pointing out that only three of 19 tests have been conducted so far. "We need more tests, against more challenging targets, and more simulations, before we can responsibly commit our nation's resources to deployment," he said.

The delay also gives the United States time to work with the Russians as well as NATO allies, to overcome their opposition to the system, Clinton said. "In time, I hope the United States can narrow our differences with Russia on this issue. The course I have chosen today gives the United States more time to pursue that, and we will use it. President Putin and I have agreed to intensify our work on strategic defense . . .

"Apart from the Russians, another critical diplomatic consideration in the NMD decision is the view of our NATO allies. . . . If we decide to proceed with NMD deployment, we must have their support because key components of NMD would be based on their territories."

Clinton's decision comes less than a week before the president is set to attend the United National Millennium Summit in New York where the subject of the missile defense system certainly would have come up.

The president, who had promised to announce a decision on NMD before the summer's end, had a series of meetings with his national security team after returning from Africa and before leaving for Colombia earlier this week. He spoke with Defense Secretary William S. Cohen on Tuesday. The decision was made after those meetings and work began on the speech Wednesday, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said.

But the White House officials deliberately kept today's speech off his public schedule in order to prevent the news media from speculating on what he might say. Officials at Georgetown University were notified only yesterday that the president would be making a speech, with final word not coming until after 6 p.m. Word spread through the campus, where Clinton was a student 35 years ago, about 7 last night as hastily printed posters went up advertising Clinton's speech on national security at Gaston Hall.

----

Clinton Delays Missile System, Passing Decision to Successor

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By ERIC SCHMITT with JULIAN E. BARNES
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/01cnd-missile.html

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 -- President Clinton said today he would not take the initial steps to deploy a national missile defense shield, leaving to his successor the final decision.

At a speech at Georgetown University, Mr. Clinton said he would not approve constructing a radar station on an Alaskan island, the first step in creating the missile defense system. Mr. Clinton said though the technology is promising the system is not yet proven. He cited the failure of the most recent tests, and questions about the ability of the missile interceptors to deal with decoys and countermeasures.

"Therefore I have decided not to authorize deployment of a national missile defense system at this time," Mr. Clinton said. "We need more tests against more challenging targets and more simulations before we can responsibly commit our nation's resources to deployment."

Mr. Clinton said his decision not to deploy a missile defense would not significantly delay the deployment if the next president decides to proceed with building the radar station and beginning to install the national defense.

Samuel R. Berger, the President's national security adviser, telephoned Congressional leaders Thursday evening to brief them on the decision.

Mr. Berger told Congressional leaders Mr. Clinton was delaying the decision because of technical concerns including the failure of recent tests and the objections of Russia and NATO allies, who argue deploying a missile defense would violate the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.

Mr. Clinton said in his speech that the United States had relied on its treaties with the Soviet Union, and now Russia. Mr. Clinton said the Antiballistic Missile Treaty was important element of national security and stability. Building a national missile defense would, however, require abandoning or altering the treaty with Russia, something the Russian government opposes.

He said despite the end of the cold war deterrence was still important in reducing the risk of conflict with Russia and preserving the treaty was important.

"While we are no longer adversaries we are not yet real allies," Mr. Clinton said.

The initial Russian reaction to Mr. Clinton's decision was positive. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, head of the international military cooperation department of the Defense Ministry, told the Interfax news agency that he was hopeful that the decision to delay deployment meant that the United States would take a "considered approach" before deploying a missile defense system.

In his speech, Mr. Clinton said that ballistic nuclear missiles were still a threat to national security and that although North Korea has reduced its missile testing program, there was still a threat a terrorist group could acquire ballistic missile technology in the future.

"We have an obligation to determine the feasibility and impact of a national missile defense," Mr. Clinton said.

Mr. Clinton's decision follows a string of events that include opposition not only from Russia but from European allies and a legal dispute over how far the system could proceed before violating an important arms control treaty.

Mr. Clinton said today that the nation should not move forward until other nations can be convinced a missile defense is in the world's security interest.

"No nation can have a veto over American national security," Mr. Clinton said "But we can never afford to overlook the fact that the actions and reactions of others in an interdependent world do bear on our security."

The Pentagon has been under heavy pressure for two years to conduct enough tests to show Mr. Clinton and his advisers whether deploying a $60 billion antimissile system by 2005 was technologically feasible.

William S. Cohen, the defense secretary, a Republican and the Clinton Administration's strongest supporter of the missile defense, had recommended Mr. Clinton begin construction of the radar site in Alaska. But Mr. Berger and other diplomatic advisers argued that in light of the technical questions, taking the first step toward deployment was not worth the consternation it would cause among the Russians and Western allies.

Mr. Cohen issued a statement today supporting Mr. Clinton's decision to continue research on the missile defense system and leave to his successor a decision on deploying it.

The Pentagon will probably delay the next test until next January, administration officials said on Thursday. Mr. Clinton said it was important to continue research to answer questions about the technology, work with American allies and preserve the options for his successor.

"A national missile defense should be part of a larger strategy to preserve and enhance the peace, strength and security we now enjoy and to build an even safer world," Mr. Clinton said. "I have tried to maximize the ability of the next president to pursue that strategy."

The Pentagon had requested bids for initial construction of the radar site in Alaska, setting Sept. 7 as the deadline for technical and cost proposals from contractors. The first contracts would have had to awarded by December to permit building to begin next spring and to have a working system in place by 2005.

Mr. Clinton said that had he authorized the system to begin it would have been ready by 2007 and he added that if the next president decided to proceed with the program, it would not be significantly delayed.

Gov. George W. Bush has vigorously endorsed proceeding with the missile shield, which was first supported by President Ronald Reagan to protect from the threat of the Soviet Union.

Vice President Al Gore has been noncommittal about whether he would proceed with a defense, but said he supported continued research and development.

Today, Governor Bush reiterated his support for the missile defense, and criticized Mr. Clinton for failing to deploy the system. Mr. Bush said that a system should be tested thoroughly to make sure it works, but if he was elected president he would renegotiate the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

"The administration missed an opportunity to develop a missile defense system that will protect all 50 states, protect ourselves, our allies, from accidental launch or political blackmail," Mr. Bush said. "Should I become president I will seize the moment and develop an effective antiballistic missile system."

---

Pentagon Likely to Delay New Test for Missile Shield

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/090100missile-defense.html
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/seven-days/1/news/docs/036448.htm

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 -- The Pentagon will probably postpone the next test of a national missile defense system until January, administration officials said today. Any decision to deploy the antimissile shield now seems certain to pass out of President Clinton's hands to his successor's.

Administration officials had previously said Mr. Clinton would decide this summer on deploying a $60 billion antimissile system that would be ready by 2005. To meet that schedule, the Pentagon has been under heavy pressure for two years to conduct enough flights to show Mr. Clinton and his advisers whether the system was technologically feasible.

But now officials are signaling that Mr. Clinton merely plans to decide whether to go ahead with the program's initial development. The change follows events that include test failures, opposition from Russia as well as European allies and a legal dispute over how far the system could proceed before violating an important arms control treaty.

To keep that option of initial development open for Mr. Clinton, the Pentagon has requested bids for initial construction of a radar site in Alaska, setting Sept. 7 as the deadline for technical and cost proposals from contractors. The first contracts would have to be awarded by December to permit building to begin next spring and to have a working system in place by 2005. Under the schedule the Pentagon has set in light of conditions in Alaska, it has to start the process soon, subject to later presidential approval.

The more politically volatile decision of whether to field the system -- and break the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 -- would be left to the next administration, whether that of Al Gore or George W. Bush.

In a sign of this political evolution, senior military officers, including the program's executive officer, Maj. Gen. Willie Nance of the Army, have argued that there is now no reason to rush more tests. Critics of the program have consistently complained that the military was operating on an artificially fast schedule.

"General Nance is not going to conduct a test unless he's fully confident that everything is fully ready for the test," said Lt.

Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

Mr. Clinton is awaiting a recommendation from Defense Secretary William S. Cohen on the project, and the issue could come to a head as early as next week. Among the issues that Mr. Cohen is weighing are the costs of building the system, the building schedule and the need for more tests. This month, Mr. Cohen delayed his recommendation, primarily because of a dispute between the Pentagon and the State Department over how far work on the limited missile shield could proceed before the United States would be required to give notice that it was withdrawing from the A.B.M. Treaty.

Russia has vigorously opposed changing the treaty to allow the United States to field even a limited defense, fearing that it would be prelude to a larger system that would undermine Moscow's long-range nuclear force. Mr. Cohen told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that administration lawyers had reached a consensus that building the radar station on Shemya Island in the western Aleutians could continue until 2002 before the United States would be in violation.

Policymakers at the State Department and the National Security Council oppose that interpretation, arguing that it is unilateral and sure to anger the Russians.

Some diplomats doubt that the decision from Mr. Cohen or the White House would be issued next week, saying the administration would want to avoid a confrontation over missile defense during a United Nations gathering of world leaders.

Mr. Cohen suggested this month that the next system test could slip, from October or November to December. But military officials said today that the date would probably fall into January.

Pentagon experts are still analyzing why a high-speed interceptor that was supposed to have destroyed a dummy warhead on July 7 failed to separate from its booster rocket. Officials have attributed the cause to an error in the rocket's "databus," equipment that transmits electrical signals to the warhead.

In addition, the Kwajalein Atoll test range in the Marshall Islands is closed for much of December. Associates said General Nance was inclined to give his staff a breather after two years at a breakneck pace.

Pentagon officials insist that the test program has enough built-in flexibility to absorb the delays.

But the Defense Department's top test official, Phil Coyle, warned top Pentagon officials in a report on Aug. 11 that the system could not reach its goal of 2005 because testing was behind schedule and would not include realistic decoy targets for years.

"A more aggressive testing program will be necessary to achieve an effective capability by 2005 or for even several years thereafter," Mr. Coyle said in an analysis first reported this week by Bloomberg News.

A spokesman for the Pentagon, Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, said Mr. Coyle was "supposed to be an independent voice, but that does not change our goal."

"If directed to do so," the admiral said, "we're shooting for 2005."

Intelligence officials have warned that the United States could face a threat from some countries, including North Korea, by that date.

Privately, though, some Pentagon officials are questioning the schedule in the light of test failures and delays in building a new booster rocket for the missile interceptors.

"We have always admitted that this was a high-risk program, and part of being high risk is the deployment date," the chief Pentagon spokesman, Kenneth H. Bacon, said this month.

"We will try our best, we have been trying our best, and we may meet the deployment date."

---

Readiness Debate Called Off-Target

Washington Post
Friday , September 1, 2000 ; A06
By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59197-2000Aug31.html

The Bush-Cheney campaign's critique of the readiness of the U.S. military is more or less accurate, defense experts say. But many of the experts also say it misses the point: What should the armed forces be ready for?

This week, Richard B. Cheney, the GOP vice presidential nominee, called America's armed forces "overused and under-resourced," citing reports that only 65 percent of Air Force combat units are rated as fully ready, that 40 percent of the Army's helicopter fleet is not up to performing its mission, and that after the Kosovo conflict the Navy had only half the cruise missiles it would need to fight two "major theater wars" simultaneously.

Yesterday, the Clinton administration fired back, with White House spokesman Joe Lockhart asserting that three of the four services--the Army, Air Force and Marines--are "more ready today than they were when we inherited them" from President George Bush. The military as a whole is "more educated" and "more experienced" than when the Bush administration left office in 1993, Lockhart said.

Defense experts from across the political spectrum said yesterday that both sides' statistics may be largely correct, but that they are missing the real issue, which is how the Pentagon should adapt to a world that has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War.

The experts noted that the old, Soviet-oriented ways of assessing readiness don't measure very accurately whether U.S. forces are able to tackle the problems of today--when there are no major military threats facing the nation, when even North Korea is making nice, but when many small-scale problems still linger in remote parts of the globe.

"What's being talked about isn't significant," said retired Army Col. Kenneth Allard, now a consultant with Stratfor, an intelligence consulting firm. "The current readiness reporting system is from the Cold War, but tells you almost nothing about mobility or the organizations that you might need to execute a specific mission today."

"My sense is that they are arguing about the wrong things," added retired Col. Gary Anderson, until recently the chief of staff of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. "The issue of whether an infantry division in Kansas is at C-1 or C-2 is irrelevant," he said, referring to numerical ratings of unit readiness. "The real issue is what are we doing to prepare for the future--how will we fight the next war?"

Even some of Republican nominee George W. Bush's loyalists are scratching their heads over their candidate's recent handling of the issue. John Hillen, who has advised the Bush campaign on defense issues, suggested that the problem is the focus on readiness measurements, which he called the military equivalent of arguing about financial accounting principles.

In a quarterly report to Congress yesterday, the Pentagon said that "most major combat and key support forces are ready" to fulfill their tasks but that there are some "force readiness and capability shortfalls." In particular, it said the Army and Navy are short of junior officers.

"Readiness ratings are so fungible, it just becomes a matter of he-said, she-said--my anecdotes versus your anecdotes," said Hillen. Although he personally believes that U.S. military readiness is in crisis, he added, "everything that has been said by both sides is pretty much true" and "neither side has been able to score a knockout blow."

Because defense historically has been a strong issue for Republicans, a tie on defense is effectively a win for the Democratic candidate, Vice President Gore.

Privately, some Republican defense experts are scathing in their assessment of the Bush campaign's recent statements. "It is appalling to see the Bushies flail on this one. How'd it ever become the case that Republicans could lose the politics of defense?" said one GOP supporter.

He added that it appears the Bush campaign failed to do its homework, resulting in some factual missteps. In his nomination acceptance speech, for example, Bush incorrectly said that two Army divisions aren't ready for combat. That was technically true last year but has since been remedied.

Similarly, on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Cheney said, "It's the fact that we've got more Marine captains . . . now leaving their service after their term instead of reenlisting than at any time in the last 10 years." Gen. Terrence R. Dake, the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, told reporters on Wednesday that he wasn't aware of any such problem in the Marines. "I don't know what Secretary Cheney's looking at," Dake said.

Republican defense thinkers have been especially taken aback because Bush got out to an early start on the issue, delivering a well-received speech last September at the Citadel in South Carolina, where he called for transforming the military to take advantage of the information revolution and to address the emerging threats of the 21st century.

Bush called then for a military that is "agile, lethal, readily deployable, and [would] require a minimum of logistical support." This is exactly what the Army is trying to do as it creates lighter, faster-deploying brigades at Fort Lewis, Wash., as part of its "Army Transformation" effort. But the diversion of personnel and money to prepare for the future is taking away resources from current readiness.

By contrast, Cheney in recent days has dismayed some in the military by prescribing merely incremental changes--spending a bit more on the military, but doing somewhat less with it by reducing foreign interventions.

Cheney has repeatedly said it is important to increase the defense budget. But a report this week by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments noted that the post-Cold War decline in defense spending began while he was defense secretary.

"There is almost no difference between the level of funding proposed for defense by President Bush in his last fiscal year 1994-99 budget plan and the level actually provided for defense over this six-year period under the Clinton administration," the report said.

"The effectiveness with which the Department of Defense is able to address U.S. security challenges in the future," the report added, "is likely to depend much more on how wisely the Defense Department spends than how much it spends."

Staff writer Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.


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

Israel Monitoring Iraqi Missile

Associated Press
September 01, 2000 Filed at 6:14 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Israel-Iraq-Patriot.html

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Prime Minister Ehud Barak said Friday he saw no reason for concern that Iraq might attack Israel with missiles during the coming months but said the government was monitoring the situation.

Barak was responding to a report that the U.S. military put a Patriot antimissile battery on alert for a possible deployment to Israel because of concerns that Iraq might decide to strike during the U.S. presidential campaign.

The Washington Post said the unit on alert is the 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, based near Frankfurt, Germany.

Barak said he did not believe Israel needed extra Patriot batteries.

``We are following everything that is going on. We are ready for any development,'' he said. ``I am not sure that we need to be concerned now, and I am not sure that the Patriot missile battery needs to be bothered.''

In Germany, Lt. Cmdr. Dave Lee, a spokesman at the U.S. European Command, said that certain units ``are in a heightened state of alert in response to potential future operations.'' He did not elaborate.

Israel has two Patriot batteries, originally posted here during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel. The Patriots, originally designed as antiaircraft missiles, had limited success in downing the incoming missiles.

Israeli Transport Minister Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who was the army chief of staff until 1998, said Friday he did not know about warnings of an Iraqi attack. ``If there are even scraps of information like that in the hands of the Americans, serious American information, we will find out about it,'' Shahak said.

However, the danger of an Iraqi attack cannot be discounted, said Efraim Inbar, an analyst with the Begin-Sadat Strategic Studies Institute at Bar Ilan University outside Tel Aviv. Inbar said Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein is unpredictable and has an account to settle with the United States.

Iraq might be motivated by the presidential campaign, Inbar said. ``They (the Iraqi leaders) have long memories,'' Inbar said, and might want to harm the chances of Republican candidate George W. Bush by ``reminding the people that his father was a failure.''

President George Bush directed the U.S.-led coalition's military strike against Saddam in 1991 but stopped short of deposing the Iraqi ruler.

Though Saddam has been trying to persuade the world that U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War should be lifted, he has sought confrontations with the United States from time to time.

Since the end of the war, there have been several alerts about possible Iraqi attacks on Israel, sending citizens rushing to distribution centers to update their army-issue gas masks and chemical warfare antidotes. No unusual activity was reported at the centers Friday.

In partnership with the United States, Israel is developing a more advanced antimissile system, called the Arrow. The Arrow is designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in the stratosphere, far from their targets. The first battery was turned over to the Israeli air force in March.

Another test launch of the Arrow system is expected in the coming days, the Israeli military said.

---

Israel Shrugs Off Any Threat of Iraqi Missiles

Reuters
September 01, 2000 Filed at 5:07 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-israel-.html

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Prime Minister Ehud Barak shrugged off any threat of Iraq firing ballistic missiles at Israel Friday but promised to be ready for the possibility, however remote.

The United States, concerned that Iraq could try to fire missiles at Israel, alerted a U.S. Army Patriot anti-missile battery in Germany to prepare for possible deployment in Israel, senior defense officials said Thursday.

``I can promise that we are ready and are following well all that is happening and we will be ready for every sort of development,'' Barak told reporters during a visit to schools in the central Israeli town of Ramle.

``I am not sure any more that we must truly be worried and I don't know whether this Patriot battery must truly be worried,'' Barak said in jest.

U.S. officials said they had no indications Iraq would launch the missiles but were getting ready should Baghdad act against Israel as part of any renewed campaign against minority Kurds in northern Iraq or Shi'ite Muslims in the south.

``We have told a battery to be on alert, to be on their toes -- a short tether -- for possible movement'' to Israel, a senior defense official told Reuters.

The Washington Post said Friday that U.S. and Israeli officials were concerned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could try to act against Israel during the U.S. presidential election, in the false belief that U.S. policymakers were distracted.

NO EVIDENCE OF IMMINENT THREAT

U.S. officials insisted there was no evidence of an imminent threat against Israel, but they were not taking any chances.

Washington sent Patriot missiles to Israel for the first time during the 1991 Gulf War, but they failed to halt most of the 39 Iraqi Scud missiles fired at Israel, many of which damaged neighborhoods in and around Tel Aviv.

The Pentagon sent Patriots to Israel again in December 1998 during escalating tensions over Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. That crisis resulted in a brief U.S. and British air war against Baghdad called Operation Desert Fox but Iraq fired no missiles at Israel.

The Washington Post also quoted an Israeli official expressing concern about Iraqi actions as the U.S. presidential election neared.

``There is a feeling that maybe Saddam is going to do something as we get closer to the American election,'' the newspaper cited the official as saying. ``There is a concern.''

-------- canada

Long Nomads, Canada's Inuit Find a Settled Life Unsettling

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By JAMES BROOKE
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/americas/090100canada-scandals.html

IQALUIT, Nunavut, Aug. 29 -- In this brand new territory, where new government buildings rise on nameless muddy streets, people had barely learned that the former speaker of the legislature had been convicted of sexual assault when they heard today that their education minister had been charged with beating up a woman.

This dual attack on the pride of this 17-month-old territory seemed to highlight the rocky cultural transition of the Inuit, who compose 85 percent of Nunavut's 27,000 residents.

Telescoping centuries of sociological change into two generations, the Inuit, known as Eskimos in Alaska and Greenland, have moved from the life of nomadic hunters who survived for centuries in one of the world's harshest environments to a modern, sedentary life marked by snowmobiles, heated homes and satellite television.

One price for this wrenching change has been Canada's highest rate of violent crime, with one attack reported each year for every 19 residents. Last year Nunavut registered 204 sexual assaults, about 10 times the national per-capita average, and 1,115 assaults, nearly six times the national average.

In the past, when attacks on women were debated, callers to radio stations sometimes criticized women's shelters for interfering in traditional family life. Elders reminded listeners that in traditional Inuit society, a man was allowed to beat his wife if she lied to him, was unfaithful or talked too much.

"Men would call in and say, 'The shelters are ruining my marriage,' " said the wife of a territorial minister. "Older women would say: 'I was beaten. If we talk too much, we are beaten.' "

But now younger Inuit, separated by a generation or more from the harsh life of surviving in a wilderness of snow and ice, are saying Inuit should adapt their relations to their new lives in houses and villages.

"We as an Inuit nation need to sit down and reflect," said Simona Arnatsiaq, women's program coordinator of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. "There has been so much change in 50 years. We used to live as families in camps. Now we live in settled communities. We have to discuss getting along in large groups."

Across this vast territory, three times the size of Texas, alcoholism, high unemployment and crowded housing contribute to high rates of sexual assault. Noting that there are two people per room in the territory, twice the national average, Ann Roberts, the chief medical officer, said, "With the drinking, the ennui, the crowded housing stock -- this is the recipe for sexual assault."

For territorial legislators, who have some of the highest-paying jobs in the Arctic, the problem may stem from alcohol mixed with domineering attitudes about women. But even with two members now charged in cases of violence against women, there has been mostly silence from the 19-member Legislative Assembly, 18 of whom are men. Although women across Nunavut have started signing protest petitions, there has been little public reaction from Peter Kattuck, the minister responsible for the status of women.

From Rankin Inlet, Nunavut's second-largest town, Evelyn Thordarson, director of the women's shelter, said of members of the Assembly, "When you go, you take an oath to serve the people, not to harm the people, not to break the law."

Last March, in the first blow to the Assembly, the police arrested Levi Barnabas, the 36-year-old speaker, and charged him with sexual assault. According to the police, Mr. Barnabas, after a night of heavy drinking, tried to have sex with a friend's wife at a house here. The woman resisted and woke up her husband, who chased the legislator into the street, hitting him three times with a baseball bat.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Barnabas was found guilty and received a one-year jail sentence, which was suspended on the condition that he pay $1,000 to the women's shelter here, perform 240 hours of community service and stay out of Iqaluit's two bars for six months.

Under pressure from the Assembly's leaders, Mr. Barnabas resigned his seat. But the politician, who has represented Canada's northernmost Arctic villages for the last five years, before and after the creation of Nunavut, soon announced that constituents were urging him to run in the special election for his seat.

"With the Levi Barnabas case, people are seeing this and asking: 'What is the point of bringing charges? He only got community hours,' " Ms. Thordason said.

Newspaper editorialists say the Assembly, through its silence, is sending out a message of male impunity. "The male-dominated legislature has been strangely silent over the issue," News North Nunavut, a weekly, wrote in an editorial Monday.

"The government had a golden opportunity to take a stand against violence directed at women. Their silence trivialized the severity of Barnabas's crime."

But this week's case may make addressing the issue of violence against women unavoidable.

On Saturday, Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers arrested James Arvaluk, 52, the education minister, and charged him with assault. The police say the victim was a woman at his home in Coral Harbor, about 435 miles west of here.

In 1995, when Mr. Arvaluk represented that area in the legislature of the Northwest Territories, he spent time in jail after being convicted of two charges of sexual assault.

"People were having trouble with him as minister of education with the sexual assault conviction," said the wife of another minister. "Now this charge involves bringing booze into a dry community."

When the Legislative Assembly resumes session in mid-October, Ms. Arnatsiaq said, the first order of business should be to set an example by adopting a code of ethics and a policy of zero tolerance among members for assaults on women.

-------- china

Chinese Leader Sued in New York Over Deaths Stemming From Tiananmen Crackdown

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By EDWARD WONG

Five veterans of the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy movement are suing Li Peng, the chairman of China's National People's Congress, in a federal court in New York for human rights abuses stemming from his role in the military crackdown that killed hundreds of civilians in Beijing.

It is the first time that such a legal action has been taken in this country against a Chinese official.

The civil suit was filed on Monday in federal district court in Manhattan by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal group that specializes in human rights cases. Among the five plaintiffs are Wang Dan, a student leader of the Tiananmen demonstrations, and Zhang Liming, whose sister was shot dead by army troops who overran Tiananmen Square in the chaotic early morning hours of June 4, 1989.

Mr. Li, who is in New York this week attending a conference of the world's parliaments at the United Nations, was served with a court summons yesterday morning at the Waldorf Towers in midtown Manhattan. The summons was handed by a process server to an employee of the United States State Department who was guarding Mr. Li.

In Washington today, a State Department spokesman said, "We are not in a position to accept such a document on behalf of a foreign official." However, earlier this week, Judge Richard Casey ruled that a federal employee guarding Mr. Li could accept the summons, given the difficulty of reaching Mr. Li.

The lawsuit charges that Mr. Li, who was prime minister during the Tiananmen massacre, was responsible for "crimes against humanity, including summary execution, arbitrary detention, torture and other torts."

"We want to prove that he is accountable for the crime, and that this kind of crime, the human rights violation, is beyond China's borders," said Xiao Qiang, executive director of Human Rights in China, a New York-based group that brought together the plaintiffs with lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights in anticipation of Mr. Li's visit to New York.

Zhang Yuanyuan, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, did not return calls.

The first such across-the-border lawsuit was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights in 1979, when an opposition leader in Paraguay, whose son was killed by the authorities, sued the chief of police in Asunción, the capital city. Although the plaintiffs were living in Paraguay, the defendant was residing in Brooklyn at the time. In 1984, a federal court ruling awarded $10.4 million to the family.

Since then, dozens of these civil suits have been filed in the United States. Several have resulted in favorable rulings for the plaintiffs, including one in a federal court in Boston in 1994 that found an Indonesian general responsible for a 1991 massacre in East Timor, ordering him to pay $14 million. In 1996, a federal court in Manhattan found a Hutu leader in Rwanda liable for $110 million in damages stemming from the genocide in that country.

In none of the cases has any money been collected. But if the federal court in Manhattan found in favor of the plaintiffs in the case against Mr. Li, it would be the first time that a representative of the Chinese government had been found legally culpable in the Tiananmen massacre. The government continues to insist that the student-led demonstrations of 1989 constituted a "counterrevolutionary rebellion" that justified the military action.

"The Chinese perception of this will be that, once again, we are attempting to interfere in what they view as a domestic matter," said Bob Berring, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who studies the Chinese legal system. "But for the human rights community, they have to seize on an opportunity like this to put human rights issues on the table."

The legal basis for the lawsuit comes from the Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in 1789, and the Torture Victim Protection Act, passed in 1992, said Jennie Green, the lead lawyer representing the plaintiffs. The two statutes allow human rights victims to file for claims in United States courts even if both the plaintiffs and the defendants live in another country. The only requirement is that the defendant be presented with a court summons while in the United States.

For Mr. Li, that took place early yesterday morning, when a private detective and a process server retained by Human Rights in China walked up to a half-dozen plainclothes police officers standing outside an entrance to the Waldorf Towers. After a tense wait, a supervising officer called for one of the State Department guards.

Mr. Li has 20 days to answer the summons. He is scheduled to leave the United States on Friday.

Ms. Green said that Mr. Li does not qualify for diplomatic immunity since he is not an appointed Chinese envoy to this country. A State Department official said that the immunity question is not relevant yet, but that lawyers will examine it if necessary.

Hours after Mr. Li was served, Mr. Zhang sat in the offices of Human Rights in China and held up pictures of his slain sister.

"This is something that my family has been working toward, even while I was back in China," said Mr. Zhang, who came here in 1997 and works as a cook in San Diego. "I hope to continue with the legal procedure to further the interests of my family. But what benefit will come out of that, I'm not sure."

---

Tiananmen students praised by Jiang

Washington Times
September 1, 2000
World Scene • Combined dispatches and staff reports
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-200091223136.htm

NEW YORK - In a rare admission, Chinese Communist leader Jiang Zemin says he sympathized with the passions for freedom and democracy that drove students into Tiananmen Square 11 years ago.

President Jiang recalled his own days as a student protester against Japan's occupation of China in the 1940s in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes." The comparison was brought up by correspondent Mike Wallace.

"In the 1989 disturbances, we truly understood the passion of students who were calling for greater democracy and freedom," he said.

Mr. Jiang then defended the crackdown. He accused people he did not identify of trying to "use the students to overthrow the government."

---

Americans see China as least-friendly land

Washington Times
September 1, 2000
By David Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-200091224419.htm

If foreign policy were an episode of "Survivor," Americans would vote China off the island first and Canada would collect the $1 million jackpot, a new survey shows.

A Harris Poll has found that 86 percent of Americans rate Canada as either a "close ally" or a "friend," the highest tally for any of 18 countries polled. Just 2 percent rate America's northern neighbor as "unfriendly" or an enemy.

By contrast, just 3 percent characterize China as a close ally in the survey, along with another 24 percent who see the Asian power as a friend. Some 27 percent rank China as an enemy - nearly twice as high as the next most-hostile response, 14 percent for Russia.

The poll numbers may not translate into American government concessions on lumber imports or fishing rights, but a Canadian Embassy official showed no qualms yesterday about playing up the warm feelings.

"The fact that a majority of Americans think of Canada as this country's closest ally makes sense, because we are," said Doug Waddell, Canada's charge d'affaires. ". . . The United States is a second home for many Canadians, and vice versa."

With tongue in cheek, Mr. Waddell also noted that "most importantly, Canada is the biggest source of entertainers for the United States" - a reference to the artistic contributions of Canadian-born performers such as thespian William Shatner and chart-topping singers Shania Twain and Celine Dion.

At the other end of the spectrum, Chinese officials are clearly sensitive to U.S. public opinion, even as candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush wrestle over whether to treat China as a "strategic partner" (Mr. Gore) or a "strategic competitor" (Mr. Bush).

Zhao Qizheng, a minister in the Chinese State Council Information Office, told a National Press Club gathering this week that negative attitudes by U.S. voters about China could complicate diplomacy between the two powers.

"There are some people in the United States who want to find a reason to contain China, and these attempts have changed public opinion and have created an unfriendly atmosphere for China in the United States," the minister said.

"Over time, this will distort how American people see China, so that during a presidential election, candidates will feel that they have to say something negative about China," he contended.

Beyond any serious policy implications, the Harris poll, released Wednesday, provides that same guilty "Survivor"-ish thrill in seeing who likes whom best, whose star is on the rise, and whose diplomatic Tiki torch the average American would most like to snuff.

Anglophone countries, for instance, clearly have an edge. Canada, Britain and Australia hold the top three spots in the 18-country survey as close allies or friends.

Somewhat surprisingly, France is seen as the next closest international partner of the United States, with fully 73 percent of Americans rating France a close ally or friend.

The feeling may not be mutual: A 1999 poll in France found that 68 percent worry about America's status as the world's "sole superpower," and majorities agreed that the United States had "excessive influence" around the world on cultural, economic and military matters.

Israel proved the most polarizing country in the survey, ranking fifth highest in the closest ally competition (31 percent) and third highest in the most unfriendly rankings (8 percent) - out-disliked only by Russia and China.

Taiwan (19 percent) rates as a closer U.S. ally than Chile (a meager 5 percent), but less of a friend than Mexico or Italy (in a statistical dead heat with 28 percent and 27 percent, respectively).

The poll data also imply that the United States has become a slightly less friendly place in the last couple of years. Based on 1999 and 2000 surveys, the percentage of Americans rating individual countries as close allies declined for every country listed except France and Japan, where the survey results were unchanged.

The survey, conducted the week of Aug. 10-14, polled a nationwide cross-section of 1,010 adults and has a margin of error of three percentage points.

-------- colombia

The Mission in Colombia Boston Globe

www.commondreams.org
Friday, September 1, 2000
by Maria Cristina Caballero
http://www.boston.com/globe
http://www.commondreams.org/views/090100-102.htm

The most powerful man in the world on Wednesday spent 11 hours in Cartagena, the nicest and safest of Colombia's cities, and then left, afraid to sleep there. Despite the fact that President Clinton was protected by thousands of security agents, troops and police officers plus six military helicopters patrolling the skies over his head, his advisers felt that the risk was simply too high to stay in Colombia overnight.

Thirty-eight million Colombians, meanwhile, spend night after night in uncertainty and dread with no one to protect them. Colombia has a murder rate 10 times higher than that of the United States; one Colombian is murdered every 20 minutes. In the rural zones, left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries prey on peasants, committing nightly massacres - sometimes of whole villages - in an effort to eradicate their enemies and show their power. Last year, according to Colombian authorities, 399 such massacres took place. Almost 2 million Colombians have run away from their homes to avoid the violence, becoming refugees in their own country.

Colombians in the cities don't have it much better. Random bombings, delinquent gangs, and kidnappings for ransom - 3,000 of them last year - keep Colombians living in fear.

This is reality for Colombians, and despite Clinton's insistence that the United States' $1.3 billion aid package for Colombia does not further a military objective, calling it a ''package in favor of peace'' does not make it so.

The US aid package includes 60 Black Hawk and Huey combat helicopters and US military advisers to train and outfit Colombian antidrug brigades to eradicate coca crops in two southern provinces that are largely controlled by Colombia's largest guerrilla group. That inevitably will intensify Colombia's civil war. The Army Revolutionary Forces of Colombia, or FARC, announced through a spokesman that the FARC is prepared to fight any encroachment into the territory it holds. Clinton last week waived several human rights conditions put on the aid program by Congress, declaring Colombia a national security priority.

Clearly the sides are gearing up for more war, not peace. And desperate Colombians seem to expect that the greatest conflict will be between Colombian guerrillas and US troops. A poll conducted in July for Colombian television broadcaster Canal Caracol asked: Who do you believe has more power right now in Colombia?

FARC leader Manuel Marulanda, known as ''Tirofijo'' or ''Sureshot,'' came in first with 46 percent. The United States was second with 31 percent, and only 10 percent picked Colombia's president, Andres Pastrana. Another poll, by the Gallup Organization, indicated that 56 percent of Colombians would support direct military intervention by the United States to stop the bloodshed. Of course, Colombians believe a lot of the bloodshed is the fault of the US demand for cocaine, which the Colombian defense minister estimated at 300 tons per year.

Clinton's message to Colombians during his visit - ''Please do not misunderstand our purpose; we have no military objective. There won't be American involvement in a shooting war'' - flies in the face of common sense. Can any informed person really believe this?

Why does Clinton not call a thing by its name? Though $238 million of the aid package will go for programs to support drug crop substitution, judicial reform and human rights in Colombia, 80 percent, or more than a billion dollars, will be devoted to funding the Colombian military. A popular Colombian expression seems to apply: ''Aunque el mono se vista de seda mono se queda'' - ''Even if the monkey decides to wear a silk outfit, it still would be a monkey.''

Pastrana, meanwhile, is playing his own word games. He repeats that while he is president there will not be foreign military intervention in Colombia. But that depends on how you define the word ''intervention.''

There are already 100 US military advisers training Colombian soldiers, and according to the Miami Herald, the Pentagon will send US Army General Keith Huber to oversee deployment of part of the $1.3 billion package, making him the only US general posted in South or Central America.

It is important that the United States shows interest in Colombia. But it is also important that US and Colombian leaders tell people what is really happening and not just what they want to hear. The most straightforward answer as to what the future holds seems to come from the commander of the Colombian armed forces, General Fernando Tapias, who said: ''There will be peace. But first there will be war.''

Maria Cristina Caballero, a Colombian investigative journalist, is a Mason Fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

---

Colombia: This Week's Kosovo Toronto Globe & Mail

www.commondreams.org
Friday, September 1, 2000
by Rick Salutin
http://www.globeandmail.com/
http://www.commondreams.org/views/090100-106.htm

'This is not Vietnam, nor is it Yankee imperialism." (President Bill Clinton, in Colombia yesterday to hand over $1.3-billion in military aid to, ho ho, combat the drug trade harming America's cities.)

Well, when was the last time you believed a Clinton denial? Actually, denials are great from public figures. Most of the time, their denials are the closest we get to what's truly on their minds. The telltale sign is usually that no one asked.

Still, let's "parse" the Clinton claims, as the press loved to do with his Lewinskyisms but are less keen in foreign policy. He says the aid is to stop drug traffic. That's insultingly false for these reasons: (1) It will only be used in the half of the country controlled by rebels, who don't even grow crops, though they "tax" them. Army-backed paramilitary groups will be left alone, though they get most of their money -- 70 per cent, says their leader -- from drug traffic. (2) A Rand Institute study for the Pentagon found that money spent treating addicts in the U.S. is 23 times as effective as money spent on "source country control" and 11 times as effective as trying to stop drugs from entering. (3) The Colombian military is up to its eyes in drug trafficking, say U.S officials. (4) The U.S. itself, largely through the CIA, bears a heavy burden for drugs in its own cities. (I know that sounds kooky, but I swear it's well-documented by, for instance, a 1988 U.S. Senate subcommittee on narcotics and terrorism.) The crack explosion of the '80s was used, maybe even created, to help fund Nicaragua's contras.

The President also claimed that his aim was to improve human rights, a good idea since massacres of innocents, mainly by paramilitaries, have reached more than one a day, says Colombia's ombudsman. Then why did Bill Clinton sign a "human rights waiver" last week, meaning that Colombia will not have to live up to human-rights conditions originally part of the package? A U.S. official said yesterday the aid was too important to human rights to let some atrocities hold it up.

This may seem more trouble than anyone thinks is needed to prove Bill Clinton Lies, but it clears the way to ask: So what's the aid really for? Colombia's civil war is almost 40 years old. Between 1986 and 1995, 45,000 people died, 36,000 of them civilians. There are 4,300 political murders a year (and rising), and 1.5 million displaced people. About 2,500 trade-union leaders have been assassinated since 1986, in a Canada-size population. Colombia is rich in oil and gold, but 3 per cent of the people control 70 per cent of the arable land, and 40 per cent live in "absolute poverty" and 18 per cent in "absolute misery." The rebels have a social democratish program -- freeze privatization, subsidize farmers, help local industry. They get along with populist Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, whose demonization in the American media is heading to Saddamian levels. You could say they represent a mild challenge to globalization, at the same time it's stalled in the U.S. Congress -- and they're not going away. It's a situation up with which, in Churchillian terms, the U.S. shall not put. Send in the gunships. Cue the Ride of the Valkyries. Sounds like Vietnam to me.

How do they get away with it? Here's where a co-operative media come in. Colombia is only in the news when the U.S. government decides to put it there -- by, say, toddling down for a day -- and then defines the story on its own fanciful terms. "Colombia has become a first-tier foreign policy issue, and this trip will show that," said a U.S. official. Once they leave, it doesn't exist. Next day, you can't find it on The New York Times Web site. Count me in. I hadn't written on Colombia till now. What's the hook? your editors will say, or the editor in your head, though a massacre a day sounds like it has hook potential. Getting Bill Clinton to deny his real reason for being there was a major outing of truth in this context.

In case this sounds like doctrinaire Chomskyism -- rational imperial self-interest disguised by a steaming pile of media hooey -- I'd say there's irrationality, too. Talk about addiction, you could call the U.S. a nation addicted to intervention. It's hard to think of a time they weren't assaulting some small place: Lebanon in '58, Cuba in '61, Dominican Republic in '65, Vietnam for 10 years, Libya, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia -- have I left any out? Doubtless. In all cases, there are media excuses covering real motives. But there's something else, too, akin to exhibitionism. Colombia, for instance, had already surpassed Turkey as the top recipient of U.S. arms (aside from Egypt and Israel, which are pretty much in-house items at the Pentagon). But now we get the big media buildup to the inevitable mayhem. You could call it the psychopathology of power, or not. Probably doesn't matter a lot to the six schoolkids on a hike gunned down by the Colombian army two weeks ago -- instead of by the customary paramilitaries, with the army merely looking on.

---

Colombia And Einstein's Adage:
'You Cannot Simultaneously Prevent And Prepare For War'

www.commondreams.org
Friday, September 1, 2000
by Justin Delacour
http://www.commondreams.org/views/090100-107.htm

How did Albert Einstein once put it? Wasn't it something like, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war"? Perhaps one should relay that little piece of bumper-sticker wisdom to the LA Times staff writer Juanita Darling, who recently wrote a story entitled "Colombia Seeks Peace as It Prepares for War" (August 26th). "In a way," writes Darling, "a new $1.3-billion U.S. anti-drug aid package is also a bid on both war and peace." Darling's concise description of US assistance as "anti-drug aid" is certainly pleasing to the Clinton Administration, which wants to take away the focus from the fact that approximately 80% of US aid to Colombia is of a military nature. Karl Penhaul, a correspondent in Colombia who writes for Reuters news service, is a bit more honest than Darling, calling the US package an "anti-drug and counterinsurgency plan." Darling leaves out the part about "counterinsurgency," knowing full well that the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá would not be happy with the violent images that terms like "counterinsurgency" conjure up.

Aside from contradicting Einstein's insightful adage, Darling is very vague about the facts that she exposes to the American public. She writes of "frequent massacres" in remote Colombian villages by "armed groups disputing territory." While one should readily acknowledge that all sides of Colombia's civil conflict have committed atrocities, it would help for the American public to know which side is most implicated in the increasing number of massacres . The latest human rights report by the United Nations indicates that most massacres have been carried out by right-wing paramilitaries. Human Rights Watch reports that brutal paramilitary activities have been carried out with "the tacit acquiescence or open support of the Colombian Army." Considering that the paramilitaries' own leader, the infamous Carlos Castaño, has openly admitted that his forces garner over 70% of their funds from the drug trade, the portrayal of the Colombian Army as a valiant drug-fighting force is highly questionable. Yet that is exactly how Darling casts the army, frequently quoting a Colombian commander of U.S.-trained "counternarcotics" forces while never even mentioning allegations of links between the army and drug-connected paramilitaries.

Darling cites four observers who don't represent either the guerrillas or the Colombian and American governments. Yet the statements of three observers are solely aimed at the guerrillas' abuses and illegal activities, while the quote of the fourth observer is openly supportive of U.S. policy. Among those cited is Jeremy Thorp, Britain's Ambassador to Colombia who condemns the guerrillas' kidnappings, forced disappearances, extortion and "recruitment of children for 'military service'". Given that the current British Government is one of only two European governments that have openly expressed support for Plan Colombia, it is questionable whether or not a British diplomat can truly be described as an independent observer. But even if the four observers that Darling cites were to qualify as independent, their singular focus on guerrilla abuses and activities would certainly not represent the opinions of all independent observers of the Colombian conflict. As was recently revealed in a Washington Post report by Stephen Dudley, more than 100 Colombian non-governmental organizations have "banded together to resist the Government's 7.5 billion dollar anti-drug plan, complaining that it has been co-opted by a U.S. military strategy that would make their participation unethical and put them in danger if they accept government aid."

Those who strongly oppose Plan Colombia include Colombia's largest labor confederation, the Unitary Workers' Central (CUT). Given that paramilitaries and state security forces are implicated in most of the 3000 murders of Colombian unionists since 1986, it is quite logical that the CUT rejects an analysis that strictly focuses on guerrilla abuses. Yet the opinions of unionists and human rights groups receive no mention from Darling, who writes of only the "many Colombians" who are "discouraged by the slow-moving peace process" and "have begun to turn their hopes to the anti-narcotics base at Tres Esquinas..."

Toward the end of her story, Darling forgoes all pretense of objectivity, writing that "Colombians desperate for peace are clearly counting on that money and, perhaps more important, U.S. interest in their drawn-out conflict." What of the unionists, human rights workers and others who want nothing to do with Plan Colombia? What of the large number of unmentioned Colombians who are also "desperate for peace" and fear that the United States' stepped-up "interest" in Colombia is leading the country into an all-out civil war? In Darling's world, these people don't exist.

And so the United States dives right into the brutal counterinsurgency fight in Colombia, where "war" means "peace", "peace" means "war" and "counternarcotics" means "counterinsurgency." Surely the LA Times' Juanita Darling is receiving high marks at the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá. One hopes that other U.S. journalists won't be so concerned about how government officials grade them.

Justin Delacour is a human rights activist and member of the Seattle Colombia Committee. He will be attending a human rights conference in Bogotá, Colombia in early September.

---

CLINTON POURS BILLIONS INTO COLOMBIA'S DRUG WAR

www.sky.com
September 1, 2000 Sky.com (UK)
http://www.sky.com/news/world/story5.htm

A bomb scare failed to disrupt the visit of US President Bill Clinton to Colombia, there to present a billion dollar anti-drugs package to the government.

Colombian police acting on a tip swooped into a house in the Caribbean port of Cartagena and found bomb making material, believed to be linked to Marxist rebels.

Three men at the home were arrested.

Speed boats

More than 5,000 soldiers and police, 350 U.S. Secret Service agents, helicopter gunships and navy patrol boats were drafted into the town to provide security for the visit.

Despite the security scare and earlier riots by students, Mr Clinton received a warm welcome from thousands of well wishers lining his motorcade route.

The Colombian President Andres Pastrana took him on a tour of the port, showing him captured speed boats used for smuggling and shipping containers in which drugs had been found.

Security nightmare

Mr Clinton offered $1.3 billion (£900 million) worth of mostly military aid, including 60 army combat helicopters, to help Colombia win its battle against a spiralling drugs trade and increasingly powerful rebel forces.

Up to half of the country is now run by drug barons who control around 22,000 fighters. More than 35,000 people have been killed in the 10 year drugs war so far.

It was the first visit by a US president since the drugs war began in earnest a decade ago.

Direct intervention

Clinton critics in Colombia have also warned that America is planning to intervene directly in the drugs war.

In an effort to allay those fears, the main TV and radio networks broadcast a Clinton address to the people of Colombia.

"Today's world has no place and no patience for any group that attacks defenceless citizens... but please do not misunderstand our purpose," he said. "Our approach is both pro-peace and anti-drug."

Elite troops

Most of the US anti-drugs package will be spread over four years. In addition to the army helicopters, the money will pay for training and equipment for a total of three elite Colombian army anti-narcotics battalions.

US and Colombian authorities say the FARC makes $500 million (£345 million) from the cocaine-based drugs trade every year. Five-hundred and twenty tons of cocaine are produced annually.

-------- drug war

2 Senior Mexican Generals Arrested on Drug Charges
Narcotics: The second such detention in the military underscores the threat of corruption in the armed forces.

Los Angeles Times
Friday, September 1, 2000
By MARY BETH SHERIDAN, Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/asection/20000901/t000082102.html

MEXICO CITY--Two senior army generals were jailed Thursday on drug trafficking charges, in one of the biggest public scandals to hit Mexico's secretive military in decades, officials announced.

"This is an important breakthrough. It establishes a precedent," said Roderic A. Camp, a political scientist at Claremont College near Los Angeles and an expert on Mexico's military.

At the urging of the U.S., Mexico's military has taken an increasingly prominent role in the fight against drugs in recent years, as shipments of U.S.-bound cocaine have soared. But critics have warned that the military could face the same corruption that has crippled this country's police forces. The arrests appeared to underscore that problem.

The Defense Ministry announced Thursday night that retired Division Gen. Francisco Quiroz Hermosillo and Brig. Gen. Mario Arturo Acosta Chaparro have been jailed on drug charges.

It was only the second time that senior military officials have been detained for suspected narcotics trafficking. The first incident, the 1997 arrest and, later, conviction of Gen. Jose de Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, Mexico's top anti-drug enforcer, provoked shock in this nation and among U.S. officials, who were appalled to find that corruption had reached the highest levels of the government.

Quiroz Hermosillo and Acosta Chaparro were not as well known publicly as the anti-drug czar. But they were among the most senior officials in the military. Acosta Chaparro was a legend in the war against Mexico's small left-wing guerrilla bands in the 1970s. Quiroz Hermosillo was a three-star division general--the highest army rank--and was director-general of a key department, military transportation, until 1998.

"Nobody of that rank has been publicly arrested [on narcotics charges] with the exception of the drug czar. And that was a very quick, sudden case, which received a lot of attention. This is something more fundamental," Camp said.

"It gets at what a number of us have recognized is corruption at the highest ranks of the military--about which no one has ever done anything."

The military prosecutor, Gen. Rafael Macedo de la Concha, told reporters that more military officials could be involved, prompting speculation that the scandal could widen.

In its two-page communique issued Thursday, the Defense Ministry said an investigation of the two generals began in 1998, when participants in the country's fledgling witness-protection program implicated the pair in testimony to Justice Ministry investigators.

Those witnesses are linked to the Juarez cartel, whose leader, Amado Carrillo Fuentes, died after plastic surgery in July 1997.

The Defense Ministry, which prosecutes officers in its own military courts, decided only recently to charge the two generals, after further evidence had been gathered, including some from a witness provided by the U.S. government, the statement said. A military judge issued the arrest warrant for the generals Wednesday, accusing them of helping drug traffickers and belonging to a criminal group, the communique said. Quiroz Hermosillo was also slapped with a bribery charge.

The generals were arrested Thursday and sent to a military prison in Mexico City, according to the statement.

The communique provided no further details of the arrests or of the men's careers, and no military officials were available Thursday evening to give information.

The Mexican military has been exceptional in coup-prone Latin America for keeping its distance from politics. But in exchange for the neutrality of the armed forces, the government has largely let the military run and regulate itself.

In the past, senior military officials notorious for corruption were allowed to quietly resign, rather than face criminal charges. When arrests were made, they were rarely revealed to the public. In December 1998, when the Mexico City daily Reforma reported that Quiroz Hermosillo and Acosta Chaparro were under investigation, military officials stoutly denied the report.

But the military is undergoing changes. Since July's elections, in which the Institutional Revolutionary Party lost the presidency for the first time in 71 years, a public debate has begun on the role of the armed forces.

Advisors to the president-elect, Vicente Fox of the center-right National Action Party, have angered the military by saying they want to reduce its role in anti-drug operations.

The arrests announced Thursday signal that things are changing, Camp said. "Top military officials are not going to be immune to civil law and civil authorities," he said.

Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories about: Arrests - Mexico, Military Officers - Mexico, Drug Trafficking - Mexico. You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one.

---

South America chiefs open first summit

Washington Times
September 1, 2000
World Scene • Combined dispatches and staff reports
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-200091223136.htm

BRASILIA - Twelve South American presidents opened their first summit yesterday, worrying about the possible spillover from Colombia's anti-drug offensive and U.S. military involvement.

The two-day summit was convened by Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso to discuss integrating the region's economies, strengthening its democratic institutions and improving education and technology.

But the consequences of the all-out drug war known as Plan Colombia has taken on a greater immediacy for its neighbors.

-------- iran

IRAN: RIOTS CONTINUE

New York Times
September 01, 2000
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/00/09/01/news/world/090100world-briefing.html

Riots erupted for the seventh straight night in the western city of Khorramabad as demonstrators smashed bank windows and threw gasoline bombs, news organizations reported. The daily Kayhan said five people were arrested in the latest troubles, which began when two leading government critics arrived to address a pro-reform student conference. (Agence France-Presse)

-------- israel

U.S. to make Israel 'strategic partner' in exchange for tech export controls

World Tribune
Friday, September 1, 2000
MIDDLE EAST NEWSLINE
http://www.worldtribune.com/index-one-text.html

TEL AVIV - The United States will upgrade its strategic relationship with Israel.

Washington is expected to announce the upgrade of relations with Israel to a strategic ally of the United States. on Sept. 6 when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak is scheduled to meet with U.S. President Bill Clinton at the United Nations Millennium Peace Summit in New York.

But the strategic upgrade enabling Israel to retain its deterrent capability and defend itself is contingent on an agreement between the two countries limiting Israeli arms exports controls and technology transfers.

The agreement stipulates that Israel must consult with the U.S before concluding any defense deals with either China, India, Russia or Pakistan.

Washington is also demanding that Israel participate in a joint technology committee with the U.S., intended to investigate complaints that Israel illegally transferred U.S.-manufactured military components to third countries.

In exchange, the U.S. is expected to include a special aid package for the Israel Defense Forces, Israel's daily Haaretz reported on Aug. 31. as well as U.S. funding for a multi-million dollar project to develop drones capable of attacking missile launchers and ground-to-ground missiles. The extent of the aid package or project funding has not yet been specified.

The U.S. will also pay $150 million towards allaying the cost of Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon on May 24, estimated at at least $300 million. Lastly, the U.S. will raise gradually raise annual military aid to $2.4 billion, while phasing out the civilian aid package.

An Israeli delegation, headed by Defense Ministry Director General Amos Yaron is presently in Washington to hammer out the final details of the agreement.

Meanwhile, defense company chiefs have warned of a serious threat to the industry if Israel continues to lose contracts.

Israel Aircraft Industries has incurred a loss of $4 billion worth of contracts comprising 70 percent of the government-owned company's defense deals over the past year.

"Cuts in the Israeli defense ministry budget and the resulting fall in orders of 25 to 30 percent could deal us a fatal blow," the head of the association of Israeli arms producers, Lt.-Gen.l Herzl Bodinger said Wednesday.

Association officials said that if the trend continues the fate of the entire defense industry could be at stake.

The jobs of 13,000 defense employees would be on the line, 5,860 of them before the end of this year, association official Yaacov Toren said. He predicted that another 3,000 employees would be made redundant in the following four years and 4,000 in the next four years after. He estimated that it would cost the state $750 million dollars to retrain all those employees.

Toren also said that Israel's strategic capability would be affected because the closure of the defense plants would make Israel dependent on importing military platforms, equipment and supplies.

The association has urged the government to maintain its level of domestic contracts and only purchase from the United States equipment that isn't manufactured in Israel.

Washington provides Israel with annual military aid of $1.8 billion dollars but the bulk of the grant is linked to the purchase of U.S. equipment.

---

U.S. Antimissile Unit Ready to Go to Israel Officials Worry Iraq Might Attack

Washington Post
Friday, September 1, 2000; Page A01
By Thomas E. Ricks and John Lancaster Washington Post Staff Writers
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-09/01/254l-090100-idx.html

Concerned about a possible threat from Iraq during the U.S. presidential campaign, the Pentagon yesterday alerted an Army Patriot antimissile battery for possible deployment to Israel, defense officials said.

The unannounced action was taken in response to concerns that Iraq could try to fire ballistic missiles at Israel, the officials said. The unit alerted is the 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, based near Frankfurt, Germany.

Administration officials were extremely reluctant to provide any details about the possible move of the Patriots, which are guided supersonic surface-to-air missiles designed to intercept enemy aircraft and missiles with high-explosive warheads.

The United States has previously sent Patriots to Israel, but only in times of crisis. A Patriot battery consists of eight launchers and 64 missiles, but it is not clear that a full battery would deploy.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, 39 Iraqi Scud missiles were fired at Israel, and the United States dispatched Patriots to Israel for the first time. The Patriots were used with limited success against the Scuds, many of which damaged neighborhoods in and around Tel Aviv.

In December 1998, the Pentagon again sent the missiles to Israel as tensions rose over Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors--a confrontation that culminated in the 70-hour U.S. and British air war against Baghdad called Operation Desert Fox. No Iraqi missiles were fired at Israel.

Yesterday's alert came in response to worries that Iraq might try to attack Israel, a Defense Department official said. "Let's just say that prudence dictates that we should be ready to respond," he said.

It was not clear last night whether the United States was acting out of general concern, or instead was provoked by new intelligence, such as satellite imagery indicating that Iraq was readying a long-range missile. A senior administration official said last night that while he was not aware of any specific missile threat from Iraq, "the situation as we see it now is that [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] has miscalculated in past U.S. elections, thinking we were somehow distracted."

The official noted, moreover, that with a new U.N. weapons inspection team nearly in place, Saddam Hussein may be tempted once again to test the will of the Security Council. "The U.N. is ready to conduct inspections," the official said. "If he doesn't allow the inspections he doesn't get out of the box of international sanctions, and he has a habit of trying to provoke, back down and renegotiate when it comes to U.N. resolutions."

"We're not seeking a provocation," the official added. "At the same time we want him to know we're not distracted. The general attitude is to be on top of our game."

Likewise, an Israeli official declined to go into specifics about the nature of the Iraqi threat and how it might be deterred. "There is a feeling that maybe Saddam is going to to do something as we get closer to the American election," the Israeli official said. "There is a concern."

The official added that the prospect of hostile action by Iraq has arisen in the context of a continuing "strategic dialogue" between Israel and the United States--most recently during a meeting yesterday between Ambassador David Ivry and White House national security officials--on enhancing military cooperation between the two countries.

Officially, the Pentagon had no comment on the alert. In Germany, Navy Capt. Bob Pritchard, a spokesman for the U.S. European Command, said only that "various elements of U.S. Army Europe have been placed on a heightened state of readiness to be prepared to deploy within the command's area of operations." Israel is one of the nations covered by the European Command's area of responsibility, which sprawls from the Arctic Circle to Africa.

Though his military hand is weak, Saddam Hussein has a long record of provoking confrontations at sensitive moments--both to draw attention to the issue of the U.N. sanctions against his country and also to create strains in the alliance that ousted his forces from Kuwait in 1991.

Only this week, the United States and other permanent members of the Security Council persuaded the head of a new U.N. arms agency to cancel his planned announcement that weapons inspectors are ready to resume their work in Iraq. Diplomats expressed concern that such an announcement could provoke a new clash over Iraq policy just as heads of state descend on New York next week for the so-called U.N. Millennium Summit.

Under terms of the cease-fire agreement that ended the war, the sanctions against Iraq cannot be lifted until the country is certified free from weapons of mass destruction. But the country's weapons programs have not been subject to outside scrutiny since U.N. inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq on the eve of the U.S. and British airstrikes in December 1998. So far Saddam Hussein has shown no willingness to permit the entry of a reconstituted inspection agency chaired by Hans Blix of Sweden.

In recent months, U.S. reconnaissance satellites have detected increased signs of missile testing activity south of Baghdad. The cease-fire permits Iraq to test ballistic missiles with a range of less than 150 kilometers (about 93 miles), far short of the range necessary to reach Israel.

-------- korea

Why the Pentagon Hates Peace in Korea

By Bill Mesler
THE PROGRESSIVE
September 2000
From: "Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space" <globalnet@mindspring.com>

You might have missed the significance if you live in the United States, but South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's summit meeting with North Korean President Kim Jong Il in mid-June was heralded around the world as the historic beginning of the end of the Cold War in Asia. For a half century, the two countries have engaged in one of the globe's tensest military standoffs.

For a half century, the two countries have engaged in one of the globe's tensest military standoffs. Their mutual border--a no-man's land of mines, booby traps, and entrenchments with two huge armies on either side of the "demilitarized zone"--had just last year been labeled by President Clinton as "the most dangerous spot in the world." In the days prior to the June summit, former South Korean President Kim Yung Sam revealed in an interview with Agence France-Presse that he had to personally plead with President Clinton not to launch an air strike against North Korea in 1994, a move he says would have ignited "a second Korean war."

Yet when current President Kim Dae Jung returned from his three-day, televised love fest in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, he was able to announce that, for the first time since World War II, there was no longer any danger of a war between the two Koreas. After Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jong Il held hands and sang "our wish is unification," the rapprochement has been so rapid that recent polls show the South Korean public now holding a 90 percent favorable rating of North Korea. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori likened the changes to the "collapse of the Berlin Wall," a comparison heard frequently in Asia.

So why aren't policymakers in the United States celebrating?

Sure, there have been the requisite public congratulations issued to the South Koreans. But while the rest of the world marvels at recent events, U.S. officials fret.

"The threat of war is still there," comments one unenthusiastic State Department official, who asked not to be identified by name. "In terms of [the North Koreans'] military capability, they still have over a million troops ready to go."

The legacy-obsessed State Department, which has bent over backwards to produce a peace treaty--any peace treaty--in the Middle East, has done next to nothing to support the peace process taking place in East Asia.

"The Americans are behaving in a truly surly manner," says Chalmers Johnson, former head of the University of California­Berkeley political science and Chinese studies departments and author of the book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (Metropolitan Books, 2000). "What they desperately dislike is that peace has broken out in East Asia."

The problem is that peace in Korea upsets the Pentagon's applecart. For years, North Korea has been the Pentagon's dream come true, a perfect bogeyman to drum up support for obscene defense spending. Tiny, impoverished, technologically backward North Korea was built up into a threat so insidious it could be used to justify the additional $60 billion the Pentagon plans to spend on a National Missile Defense (NMD) shield over the next fifteen years. But the accord has already helped take the steam out of Star Wars (as did the recent missile test failure).

"The proponents of missile defense are true believers. They would believe in it if Iraq, Korea, and Iran disappeared tomorrow," says John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "But North Korea is and has always been the number one excuse for building this shield. So, politically, [the Korean summit] has changed the landscape for NMD somewhat."

But State Department officials have gone out of their way to say that the Korean summit does nothing to alter their perception that a hugely expensive missile defense system is needed. "I don't think we see in this [summit] as a seed of anything that would change the possibility of a missile threat to the United States," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told the Associated Press.

Perhaps even more important than providing a rationale for Star Wars, a hostile North Korea has justified the extension of American military power into the Far East. The disappearance of North Korea could eventually mean the withdrawal of the Pentagon's highly valued U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan. It is a nightmare scenario for military planners, especially as the Pentagon looks at China as the next enemy on the horizon.

The U.S. bases in South Korea, and the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed there, represent the Pentagon's only deployment on mainland Asia. Strategically, they place U.S. soldiers and weapons virtually at China's door.

In recent years, however, pressure has been mounting in South Korea itself for the removal of the troops. Since the mid-June summit between the Koreas, protests against U.S. troops stationed in Korea have increased dramatically.

"There is real hostility because people don't see the need for these troops to be stationed there," says Tim Shorrock, editor of Asia Trade and Investment Online. (When he was with the Journal of Commerce, Shorrock broke stories on U.S. involvement in South Korea's 1980 military coup, especially the Kwangju massacre, when Korean troops massacred 2,000 people.)

"This is our land! Let's drive out U.S. troops!" protesters chanted on June 17 at a U.S. military base fifty miles southwest of Seoul, according to the AP. "The protesters threw rocks and dirt and wielded bamboo sticks when riot police officers locked their plastic shields and batons to block them from marching on the range."

The protests have forced the Pentagon to place restrictions on its units in Korea. "We are concerned for the safety of the troops," says Department of Defense spokesman Terry Sutherland. "Soldiers have been told to keep together, keep low profiles, and avoid crowds."

The Pentagon has long worried that a thaw between North Korea and South Korea could cause problems. According to one Defense Department official quoted in The Washington Post, William Cohen's first question to policy officials when he became Defense Secretary in 1997 was, "How can we change the assumption that U.S. troops will be withdrawn after peace comes to the Korean peninsula?"

Those worries took center stage as the United States scrambled to react to the unexpected success of Kim's June visit to Pyongyang. No sooner had Kim returned to Seoul than he started hearing the tough questions from Americans about the maintenance of U.S. troops in Asia. Within weeks, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had shuffled off to the South Korean capital. In a telling press conference held with the South Korean foreign minister, nearly every statement--and nearly every question from reporters--revolved around the issue of maintaining U.S. troops.

"Any discussions of lowering numbers or withdrawal are not appropriate," said Albright, noting that "the United States is a Pacific power as well as an Atlantic power." Added Albright, "We don't put a time limit on our responsibilities or on pursuing our national interest."

A month later, she was off to Bangkok to meet with North Korea's Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun. The North Koreans had just made a dramatic announcement to Russian President Vladimir Putin that they were willing to abandon their missile program in exchange for Western aid in building scientific satellites. But Albright said Paek Nam Sun would not confirm the offer. This was the highest-level meeting ever between the United States and North Korea, but Washington downplayed it.

Washington did one other odd thing. Just days after the Korean leaders' summit, the State Department confirmed that it had lifted restrictions in place since 1977 that had limited the range of South Korean missiles. For the last twenty years, the United States has had an agreement with South Korea prohibiting it from having missiles that could reach beyond 112 miles. This limitation meant that South Korean missiles could "target North Korean forces near the border but put the North Korean capital just outside range," The Washington Post reported. "Now, the United States has agreed that South Korea can extend the range up to 300 kilometers, or 186 miles," more than enough to hit Pyongyang. The timing of this disclosure was peculiar, to say the least. The South Koreans did not want it to stall the peace process, so it decided to suspend any new missile development. But why did Washington change the policy, and why did it confirm it now?

It was, in the words of the Council for a Livable World's John Isaacs, "a crazy time to make a decision like that."

Bill Mesler is a writer in Washington, D.C. He wrote "The Mess NATO Left Behind" in our August 1999 issue.

----

KOREAS: TALKS CONTINUE

New York Times
September 01, 2000
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/00/09/01/news/world/090100world-briefing.html

Negotiators from North and South Korea agreed to extend negotiations in Pyongyang until today in an effort to reach an accord to pave the way for regular talks between military officials. South Korea's minister of unification, Park Jae Kyu, pressed North Korea to agree to Seoul's proposal to open a military hot line in an effort to prevent armed clashes. Samuel Len (NYT)

-------- myanmar

Myanmar Makes Suu Kyi End Standoff

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 10:40 PM ET updated 11:34 PM ET Sep 4
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000901/ts/myanmar_suu_kyi_17.html

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - Riot police forced opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to return to the capital, ending a nine-day standoff against Myanmar's military government, a top official in Suu Kyi's party said Saturday.

``At about 11 p.m. last night several riot police raided the place and forcibly took Aung San Suu Kyi and all of us,'' said Tin Oo, Suu Kyi's deputy in the National League for Democracy.

Speaking at his house in Yangon, Tin Oo told reporters that the group was brought back to Yangon in separate cars and that he thought that Suu Kyi was taken back to her house.

Before Tin Oo could provide other details, security forces ordered reporters away from his house in Yangon.

On the eve of the government move against her, Foreign Minister Win Aung said Suu Kyi was trying to attract international attention by provoking authorities into arresting her.

He said the roadside standoff was aimed at forcing the military regime into ``severe action.''

The Nobel Peace laureate and members of her NLD party were stopped by police on Aug. 24 in the Yangon suburb of Dala on their way to conduct political activities in the countryside.

The group, including two senior members of the party and 12 members of its youth wing, was blocked from traveling further and ordered to return to Yangon. They have camped out in their two vehicles and refused to move.

The NLD had said Suu Kyi would not return to Yangon until she ``reaches her destination and accomplishes party organizational duties.''

Suu Kyi has called for foreign sanctions against Myanmar's government and a tourist boycott as a way of putting pressure on the military regime to improve human rights conditions and restore democracy.

Myanmar is also known as Burma.

The activist is the daughter of the country's late independence leader, Gen. Aung San. She has led Myanmar's opposition movement since 1988, when the military smashed mass pro-democracy demonstrations and asserted its authoritarian rule.

She won the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her nonviolent political activities, but was held under house arrest from 1989 to 1995.

The military held a general election in 1990, but refused to allow parliament to convene after the NLD won a landslide victory. Since then, her party members have suffered arrest and harassment from the government.

The current standoff was triggered when Suu Kyi made her first attempt to travel outside the capital since two years ago, when the government blocked four such attempts.

On the last occasion, in August 1998, she stayed in her vehicle for 13 days before returning home for health reasons.

---

MYANMAR: STANDOFF CALLED PLOT

New York Times
September 01, 2000
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/00/09/01/news/world/090100world-briefing.html

The roadside standoff by the pro-democracy activist Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was a well-orchestrated plan to attract global attention as world leaders prepared to meet at the United Nations next week, the military government charged. Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, 55, and 14 members of her opposition party are stranded outside Yangon, camping out in two vehicles and refusing to return to the capital. In Washington, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said, "I am appalled at the actions of the Burmese regime in denying Aung San Suu Kyi the freedom to travel within her own country." (AP)

-------- poland

WARSAW JOURNAL
When Everything Was Gray, Not Red

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By STEVEN ERLANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/090100poland-socialism.html

WARSAW -- The tables are set with thick, badly painted china, government standard, with silverware of some cheap, scratched metal alloy. A fan of thin, shiny and somehow unabsorbent napkins pokes out of a thick glass; the salt shaker is a jam jar with holes punched in the lid and rice mixed in, to stop clumping. There are other jars, with a few dusty plastic flowers.

The menu on the wall has more than 50 choices, but only a few dishes, like macaroni with butter or with sour cream, pirogi and a tomato, macaroni and meat soup, have prices listed next to them, meaning that they are available.

The sour-sweet smell of onions fried in bad oil fills the air.

And today's Poles, amused and nostalgic, file through this re-creation of a socialist cafe, part of an exhibition called, "Gray in Color: 1956-1970."

That was the heyday of Wladyslaw Gomulka, the Communist Party boss who tried to create a socialism in Poland under Soviet eyes that broke with Stalinism and followed a "Polish road." It was a period of intellectual and artistic energy that ended with enormous disillusion, including a bout of anti-Semitism in 1968 and Polish participation in the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. In December 1970, workers' strikes in Gdansk and Szczecin left 45 dead and 1,100 injured, and Edward Gierek soon replaced Mr. Gomulka, who died in 1982.

These events underpin this exhibition in Warsaw's Galeria Zacheta, which tries to show the life of the period, particularly its early optimism, without too much overt irony. Photographs show proud mothers and soldiers, a knife grinder plying his trade, a model posing against a lumpy old Czech Skoda car, a couple embracing on the street near a large poster of Lenin.

"I don't know why it surprises me that people look normal and even happy," said Dorota Dobrowolska, a student at the gallery. "People do the best with what they have."

An older woman, Justyna, did not want to give her surname. "It makes me nostalgic, of course," she said. "We were young, and the war wasn't so long before."

The exhibition shows the tension between socialist Poland and European Poland, how the regime tried to keep a connection with the culture of the West.

There are displays of shop windows with the fashions of the times, with efforts to copy the designers of the West. There are the proud windows of Polish exports: canned Krakus hams and Wodka Wyborowa -- as usual, packaged with a care, neatness and design no one bothered with for the domestic market. Ordinary Poles got by with cheap vodka in reusable bottles with peeling labels, and few at home ever saw a Krakus ham. But there are also photos of the party elite, alike in their dark suits and white shirts, digging in to lavish buffets.

There is a plastic shopping bag with handles -- what the Russians call an avoska, or "perhaps bag" -- that people carried just in case a store had something worth lining up to buy.

The exhibition recreates one of the "International Press and Book Clubs" the regime opened -- 18 of them across the country, 4 in Warsaw -- to allow Poles to read some of the world's press, magazines and books (carefully selected, of course, and concentrating on the products of foreign Communist parties, like L'Unita and L'Humanité). Or they could look at picture magazines or listen to some of the world's music, always a safer proposition.

There is a sample of the student clubs the regime initiated in the 1950's, "to channel cultural expression and help propaganda," as the gallery's notes suggest. A small black-and-white television drones on with a speech by Mr. Gomulka at a Communist Party Congress. A number of these student clubs were turned into jazz places and theaters, more subversive than the party intended, and some were closed down in 1968.

There is a re-creation of a small arts cinema, its walls covered with fabric and photographs of stars and directors, including Sophia Loren, Gary Cooper, Jean Gabin, Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock.

The exhibition concentrates on some of the art of the time, which was graphically bold and somewhat daring, at least in its personal expression. But some of the art feels very dated, which has more to do with the passage of time than ideology.

Some of the art is devoted to the politically correct program of the time, to "stop the arms race," and promote "détente and peaceful coexistence," as one poster says. Another shows a bomb with an "N," for nuclear; the heading reads: "N = Nie," or no.

One of the most striking exhibitions shows the initial optimism of the huge tower blocks that the regime built, as in Moscow, to house the workers of the postwar, socialist Poland. There are mock-ups of typical rooms -- the living room with its modular wall of shelves and cabinets for storage and display, the lace curtains and blocky sofas; the utilitarian bathroom, with its plastic plumbing and a long water pipe that could swing between tub and sink, so only one set of pipes needed to be installed; the tiny bedroom, with its wall shelves and record player, a few jazz albums strewn across the floor.

On the ground floor of the gallery, as a counterpoint to the failed dreams of socialism upstairs, is another exhibition satirizing the modern consumer society of advanced capitalism. It is called "Buy or Die supermarket" and is an homage to "homo shopens" by the artist Pawel Borowski.

Products include "whole lamb stuffed with ideology" and a "lollipop flower stuffed with hope," its ingredients including "light in a tunnel, a better future, coloring and confabulation."

The market also offers brainwashing powder ("free your mind from dirt -- breakthrough formula is the choice for life!") and Lady Macbeth soap and shower gel ("it cleans even the most nagging stains").

The supermarket's fast-food offering is a "Happy Meal," consisting of "a name brand bottle of warm vodka, an excellent piece of fat sausage" and a little vinyl piglet, intended "to make your life more complete."

Throughout the store, the American dollar features as both a lure and a poison, a symbol for greed, globalization and smugness.

On the same theme, in the luxury department (Last Supper Edition) is a tiny jar marked "Good caviar." The label says: "Helps everybody! It contains the annual budget of the United States for charitable activities."

-------- puerto rico

Navy Offers Jobs To Vieques

The Associated Press
Friday, September 1, 2000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_FutureTenseContentServer=82db9b201f9d1618&pagename=wpni/print&articleid=A60543-2000Sep1

VIEQUES, Puerto Rico -- U.S. Navy officials have launched a goodwill campaign on the island of Vieques, offering jobs and other economic benefits to residents who will vote on whether the Navy can keep its bombing range on the island.

Nearly 100 people came to a meeting Thursday at the Vieques Country Club, where Navy officials in civilian clothes encouraged residents to sign up for short-term jobs. Among those is work moving an ammunition supply depot from one end of the island to the other so that land can be turned over to the Puerto Rican government at the end of the year.

"I was surprised at how many people knew about this," said resident Ivette Yolanda Martinez. The event was advertised at the local Labor Department office.

Navy officials said some of the short-term jobs could lead to permanent positions on the main island of Puerto Rico, with free transportation provided by the Navy - depending on whether the Navy wins the referendum that would allow it to stay.

Opposition to the Navy presence in Vieques flared in April 1999, when a U.S. Marine Corps jet dropped two bombs off target and killed a civilian security guard working on the range. President Clinton has agreed to order the Navy to move out if the island's 9,400 residents vote to expel it in a referendum, expected next year.

The Navy also announced it would purchase equipment from local suppliers and help secure Small Business Administration loans for start-up business on the island. Meanwhile, public relations executives hired by the Navy made the rounds at local businesses.

The Navy's campaign to win over the islanders includes assembling a team to oversee development projects, funded with $40 million assigned by Congress.

Anti-Navy activists outside the country club Thursday urged residents to "vote with your conscience" on the referendum.

-------- south america

South America Lends Wary Support to Colombian War

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 7:25 PM ET updated 8:07 PM ET Sep 1
By Phil Stewart
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/wl/latam_colombia_dc_1.html

BRASILIA (Reuters) - South America's leaders meeting in Brazil offered moral support to Colombian President Andres Pastrana on Friday but expressed fears his U.S.-backed military offensive on drugs could drag them into the region's oldest guerrilla war.

In a delicate balance between praise and criticism, neighboring nations rallied behind Pastrana's peace efforts while talking of fallout as refugees, drug traffickers and guerrilla violence threaten to spill over Colombia's border.

The South American presidents issued a declaration on Friday in support of Colombia's peace process -- but omitted any mention of the $7.5 billion ``Plan Colombia'' to fight the drugs trade, and indirectly, the guerrillas who protect and profit from it.

Summit host Brazil's President Fernando Henrique Cardoso said a cautious Pastrana never asked. ``We were never asked for it. What was asked was on the negotiating process, the peace process,'' he said.

``On the one hand, we agree in our support for the search for peace, to consolidate peace in Colombia. And we also share concern,'' said Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. ``This could generate a medium-intensity conflict in all of the northern part of South America, not affecting just Colombia.''

The United Nations reported on Friday that hundreds of Colombians had fled to Venezuela after right-wing paramilitary groups attacked their town last week, displacing 1,500 people.

Pastrana has desperately tried to soothe worries, stressing the three-decade-old conflict will not escalate as a result of his ``Plan Colombia.''

``There is nothing to fear. On the contrary, border fighting and refugees are the result of internal problems, and not ``Plan Colombia,''' Pastrana said at a summit of South American presidents in Brasilia.

Biggest U.S. Military Build-Up Since El Salvador

Cardoso said his country would not accept any U.S. aid obliging its military to assist in ``Plan Colombia,'' saying its armed forces would not be subordinate to ``any country, big or small.''

Meanwhile, neighboring countries Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador have all said they are moving to reinforce their borders when ``Plan Colombia'' kicks in.

President Clinton also tried to reassure Colombians during a visit to the country on Wednesday, saying it would not turn into a Vietnam as a result of a $1.3 billion U.S. aid package -- representing the biggest U.S. military build-up in Latin America since the civil war in El Salvador.

``We are not going to get into a shooting war. This is not Vietnam. Neither is it Yankee imperialism,'' Clinton said.

Fears of U.S. intervention have hit a raw nerve in the region, which has bad memories of heavy-handed U.S. policies to protect American interests, especially during the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Venezuela and Peru have been the most outspoken critics, with Peru's President Alberto Fujimori saying ``perhaps the Americans don't understand the threat to democracy posed by terrorism.''

---

South American Presidents Push Integration

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 6:02 PM ET updated 8:07 PM ET Sep 1
By Axel Bugge
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/wl/latam_summit_dc_8.html

BRASILIA (Reuters) - South American presidents launched on Friday their most ambitious bid for economic integration at an historic summit which was complicated by fears that Colombia's escalating drug war threatens regional stability.

The 12 presidents signed the ``Brasilia Communique'' pledging to create free trade between South America's two main trade blocs as soon as possible, bringing together 340 million people in an area with combined economic output of $1.3 trillion.

The declaration, which called the meeting a ``trailblazing event,'' included a clause obliging the 12 to ``strictly respect'' democracy in a region which for decades was deeply divided by distrustful military dictators.

Brazil's President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, crowning a long-held dream of hosting a South American meeting, told journalists the commodities-dependent region has to integrate but industrialized countries must open markets.

``We are not prepared to open up more our economies without negotiations which will give us access to rich countries,'' Cardoso said.

Peru's President Alberto Fujimori, who himself has been reprimanded for poor democratic credentials, praised the coming together of South America.

``Up to now we have faced external problems in an isolated fashion,'' Fujimori said. ``One of these problems is precisely the drug trade and what has been the result? A very weak and fragile position.''

Colombia's President Andres Pastrana, who has launched a U.S.-backed $7.5 billion offensive on drugs and rebels after three decades of bloody civil war, said the meeting had yielded support for his plan.

The countries issued a separate statement of support for peace in Colombia and a unified fight against drugs which made no mention of Pastrana's divisive plan. ``For now there is only support of a political and negotiated solution to the conflict,'' Pastrana said.

Countries bordering Colombia feared that the effort will spill over their borders in the form of refugees, guerrillas or drug traffickers.

Brazil, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela are all reinforcing their jungle borders with Colombia -- moves which were underlined by news from the United Nations that 500 Colombians had crossed into Venezuela last month to escape the conflict.

New Trade Bloc

Brazil -- the region's giant which borders on every country except for two -- has spearheaded efforts for closer unity and analysts say a new-found confidence in Brasilia after two years of economic hardship helped it go on the diplomatic offensive.

``Looking at this summit, it is clear that Brazil has become a regional leader,'' said Luciano Dias, a political analyst in Brasilia. ``Why do you think (Secretary of State) Albright came here, Mexico's Fox came here?''

The leaders said Brazil's role would help create a 10-country bloc between Mercosur in the south and the Andean Community in the north despite making success more likely than previous failed attempts. They set a January 2002 deadline for the launch of the free trade area.

``As a region we are politically weak,'' said Fujimori. ''Nevertheless, Brazil is one of the biggest countries in the world and one of its greatest economic powers.''

Brazilian officials have attempted to calm fears that regional integration would be a threat to the U.S. vision of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Washington hopes for a 2005 launch of a single hemispheric bloc stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.

Mercosur comprises Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay and associate members Bolivia and Chile, while the Andean Pact countries are Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. Guyana and Suriname do not belong to either bloc.

In order to make closer integration physically possible, the final document launched a new drive for the development of projects such as bridges, energy lines and roads.

The infrastructure projects would boost the links in a region which has formidable physical barriers like the Andes mountains and the vast Amazon jungle, which is four times the size of France.

-------- u.n.

Cuba's Castro Aims to Attend U.N. Summit

Yahoo News
Friday September 1
By Andrew Cawthorne
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/ts/summit_castro_dc_3.html

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba's President Fidel Castro intends to make a rare visit to his arch-enemy, the United States, at the head of his nation's delegation to the United Nations ''Millennium Summit'' in New York next week.

``This morning, we communicated to the U.S. government that the delegation would be presided by Comrade Fidel,'' a Cuban Foreign Ministry communique said on Friday.

It would be Castro's first trip abroad since a mid-1999 summit in Brazil, and, according to Cuban officials, his fourth visit to the United States since the 1959 Cuban Revolution and the ensuing cutting of diplomatic ties with Washington.

Castro, now 74, was last in New York in 1995 for the 50th U.N. anniversary celebration. On his first visit months after the revolution, he caused a sensation by staying at a downbeat hotel in Harlem.

The Cuban leader frequently stresses his enemy is the U.S. government, not the American people. In a reminder of the frosty official relations, Havana implied on Friday that U.S. authorities may have doubts over Castro's intended visit.

``Now everything depends on the attitude taken by the U.S. government. Let's see if the Alarcon situation is repeated or not,'' the communique said, referring to Washington's refusal to grant a visa to Cuban National Assembly head Ricardo Alarcon for this week's meeting of world legislative representatives.

Alarcon is also included in the Cuban delegation for the Sept. 6-8 U.N. meeting.

In Washington, a U.S. official source said a visa application for Castro was under consideration. The United States could deny a visa only on the grounds that Castro's presence would be ``prejudicial to security.''

Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, who also hopes to attend, brushed aside Thursday reports that anti-Castro Cuban exiles were pressing the U.S. government to deny Castro a visa or to arrest him for ``crimes against humanity.''

``There is no threat or risk that is capable of frightening anybody in our country,'' Perez told reporters in Havana.

Havana's communique on Friday said Cuban security personnel had already begun coordinating with their U.S. counterparts and New York police over Castro's agenda and security arrangements.

Cuban Americans To Protest

Castro's proposed visit comes amid unprecedented initiatives in the U.S. Congress to ease the 38-year-old economic embargo on the Caribbean island. It also coincides with a war-of-words over the thorny issue of continuing immigration from Cuba across the dangerous Florida Straits.

The trip is sure to become a focus of protests from his foes among hard-line, anti-communist groups in Florida's large Cuban American community, still smarting from the return of Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez in June after a 7-month custody feud.

Even before Friday's announcement, a leading anti-Castro Cuban American congressman in the United States, Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida, had called on President Clinton to deny Castro a visa.

Diaz-Balart, a distant relative of Castro, added that if he was granted a visa, he should be arrested for the ``murder of American citizens and other crimes against humanity.''

A leading conservative in the U.S. Congress, North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms, who chairs the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to block Castro's entry.

Asked about that, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard pointed out the United States had signed an agreement with the United Nations saying it would facilitate visas for those on official U.N. business. He said the only caveat was that visas can be denied ``if there are overriding national security concerns.''

Ultimately it was a ``matter between the United States and Cuba so I would not want to comment further,'' Eckhard added.

Cuban foreign minister Perez confirmed this week that he intended to meet moderate Cuban American groups during his trip to New York. Perez said he wanted to thank ``the majority'' of moderate Cuban Americans who support changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba, and had also backed for the return of Elian.

---

Mayor Welcomes Some 'Despicable' Leaders to U.N.

Yahoo News
Friday September 1 4:46 PM ET updated 8:07 PM ET Sep 1
By Grant McCool
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000901/wl/summit_giuliani_dc_2.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In his typically abrasive style, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani on Friday opened his arms wide to welcome world leaders attending next week's U.N. Millennium Summit, calling some of them ``despicable, horrible human beings'' and singling out Cuban President Fidel Castro.

Giuliani, who threw Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat out of a concert celebrating the U.N.'s 50th anniversary in 1995 and expressed dislike for the United Nations when he fought an undiplomatic battle with the U.N. community over unpaid car parking tickets three years ago, had harsh words for Castro.

``If you want me to make the point that Fidel Castro is a murderer, I'm more than willing to make the point that Fidel Castro is a murderer,'' Giuliani said at a news conference on the city's preparations for the largest gathering ever of world leaders Sept. 6 to Sept. 8.

``America should not fool itself into thinking he is some kind of benign dictator,'' added Giuliani, who also denounced the communist island's leader the last time he visited the United States for the U.N.'s 50th anniversary.

At the time, Giuliani won praise from a bloc of conservative Hispanic voters he needed for his re-election in 1997, while conservative Jewish leaders praised him for ejecting Arafat from the classical music concert.

Giuliani said Friday that the NYPD, the largest police force in the United States, would have 8,000 officers ready to handle the conference, the traffic jams and 91 demonstrations planned during the week.

The Mayor said there was no evidence to indicate any of the protests would be violent but ``you can't depend on that.'' It appeared unlikely that the police would face the kind of protests that marred the World Trade Organization meeting last November in Seattle, when a few violent demonstrators caused an estimated $3 million in damages.

A number of streets would be closed around the United Nations building and streets would also be closed around the Cuban mission, city officials said. They said police were preparing for 170 motorcades involving 1,300 vehicles for the more than 160 kings, presidents and prime ministers.

``They'll get protected better than any place else in the world, but as far as I am concerned some of them I think are despicable, horrible human beings and you should always make that point every time you get a chance to make that point,'' Giuliani said.

The Mayor, who likes to call the city ``The Capital of the World,'' warned residents to expect gridlock in Manhattan and suggested they use public transportation or walk all of next week.

The feisty former federal prosecutor, whose reputation for overseeing the steepest drop in serious crime in a generation has spread across the globe, grudgingly admitted the United Nations did have some benefit to New York City and its 7.3 million residents.

``Would New York be a great international city without the United Nations? Yeah, probably,'' Giuliani said. ``But it does help and it does bring economic benefits to the city.''

Senior U.N. officials estimated that New York City earns billions a year from the presence of the United Nations. Annually, at least $3 billion is spent on hotels and other accommodations for diplomats and U.N. officials. The figure does not include shopping by visiting diplomats or what the U.N. spends in the United States, and especially in New York, to run its headquarters, agencies and peacekeeping operations.

Next week's gathering was expected to cost the city administration $10 million, $8 million of it in overtime pay for police officers, city officials said.

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

Army Missile Battery Said on Alert

Associated Press
September 01, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Iraq-Patriot.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon put an Army Patriot antimissile battery on alert Thursday for a possible deployment to Israel because of concern that Iraq may decide to strike during the U.S. presidential campaign, The Washington Post reports.

The action is in response to concerns that Iraq may decide to fire surface-to-surface missiles at Israel as the presidential campaign gets into full swing after Labor Day, Monday, the newspaper reported in its Friday editions.

The unit on alert is the 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, based near Frankfurt, Germany, the report said.

The Pentagon did not immediately return a call seeking comment late Thursday night. U.S. military officials in Europe could not be reached.

The Patriot missile is a guided supersonic surface-to-air missile designed to intercept enemy aircraft and missiles, and was used extensively in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

During the war, 39 Iraqi Scud missiles were fired at Israel during the Patriot's first deployment. The Patriots were mostly unsuccessful in deterring Iraq's attacks, which damaged Tel Aviv neighborhoods.

In December 1998, the Pentagon sent the missiles to Israel to head off any possible attacks while Iraq refused to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. The crisis culminated in a 70-hour air war against Baghdad. No Iraqi missiles were fired at Israel during that time.

Defense officials did not say whether the United States was acting out of a general concern or was provoked by hard evidence, the Post said, though in the past Iraq President Saddam Hussein has provoked confrontations during sensitive moments.

U.S. and British warplanes have had many confrontations with Iraq, patrolling over northern and southern Iraq in ``no-fly'' zones set up after the war to protect Kurdish and Shiite minorities from the Iraqi military. Iraq maintains the zones violate its sovereignty and has been challenging the patrols since December 1998.

On Wednesday, an official Iraqi newspaper said that U.S. jets bombed a village in southern Iraq, injuring a child and two others. The paper quoted a statement by a military spokesman that Iraqi air defenses hit one of the planes.

U.S. officials confirmed coalition aircraft struck Iraq on Wednesday, but said they targeted an air-defense command post and anti-aircraft artillery sites. The officials said the planes returned safely.

---

U.S. Antimissile Unit May Be Sent to Israel

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/00/09/01/news/world/israel-missile.html

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 -- The United States, concerned that Iraq could try to fire ballistic missiles at Israel, has alerted an Army Patriot antimissile battery in Germany to prepare for possible deployment to Israel, senior defense officials said today.

The officials said they had no indications that Iraq intended to threaten Israel. They said that in issuing the alert, which was first reported in The Washington Post, the United States was getting ready in case Iraq tried to launch missiles at Israel as part of any renewed campaign against Kurdish or Shiite groups in Iraq.

"Historically at this time of year over the past five years, the Iraqis have made threats against the Kurds, the Shiites in Iraq," one official said.

He said officials feared that such a move could be accompanied by the launch of ballistic missiles against Israel.

The United States has sent Patriot missiles to Israel previously, most notably during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 in an attempt to defend against attacks by Iraqi Scud missiles.

---

PENTAGON REPORT SUPPORTS GOVERNOR BUSH'S CONCERNS ABOUT MILITARY READINESS

Friday, September 1, 2000
From: "Boddy, Lee" <LBoddy@georgewbush.com>,
Ari Fleischer,
Mindy Tucker,
Scott McClellan,
Dan Bartlett,
512/637-7777

AUSTIN- Last night on NBC Nightly News, Jim Miklaszewski reported on the concerns about U.S. military readiness. The "In Depth" report found that there are "some serious shortfalls" in the military that raise questions about "whether U.S. forces can meet America's military strategy."

On last night's report, NBC News Military Analyst Ken Allard said, "There's no way in the world the American military could fight two major regional contingencies at the same time. Not only is there not enough force structure, there's not enough support structure to do that."

Miklaszewski reported on yesterday's release of the Pentagon's quarterly readiness report - a report that revealed readiness problems in all four services.

"The Air Force is in the worst shape," reported Miklaszewski. "Only 67 percent of its fighter planes are ready for combat. That's down 30 percent from ten years ago. Why? A serious shortage of parts and top-line mechanics. Today, the Air Force is 40 percent smaller, but doing four times more missions than it did ten years ago."

The Associated Press noted that the Pentagon report found the 'risk factors' for responding to war on the Korean Peninsula would be 'moderate,' while the risk for responding to a second war, theoretically in the Persian Gulf, would be 'high.'

"Those risks are not meant to suggest the United States would not prevail in either of the two wars, but rather that the potential for American casualties would be greater." (Robert Burns, Associated Press, 9/1/00)

The recently retired commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Command, Richard E. Hawley, reportedly blames the Clinton Administration for taking a "procurement holiday," meaning the purchase of new weaponry has slowed to the point that wear and tear have made it increasingly expensive to operate.

"That, in turn, has forced the military to use money that would otherwise buy new equipment to maintain the old." (Burns, AP, 9/1/00)

Miklaszewski concluded his report by saying, "So while Governor Bush is essentially correct - the military is in decline - the military insists it is still ready to fight today's wars while Gore and Bush promise to spend even more to fight future threats."

----

The Wrong Argument About Readiness

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By WILLIAM A. OWENS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/01owen.html

As a 30-year veteran of the United States military, I'm glad that national security has become an issue in the presidential campaign. But I'm disheartened that the debate as it has played out so far has been far more partisan than enlightening.

Al Gore has said, "Our military is the strongest and the best in the entire world."

But in a speech on Wednesday, Dick Cheney, the Republican vice presidential nominee, said the Clinton administration had neglected national defense and was "running down" the military.

This echoes statements by George W. Bush that today's servicemen and women battle "back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, and rapidly declining readiness."

In his speech at the Republican convention, Mr. Bush charged that two of the Army's 10 divisions were not ready for a major war.

This sort of interchange does not begin to address the important defense challenges facing the nation. It exaggerates problems that don't threaten our national security while ignoring problems that do threaten it.

Let's examine the issues.

Lack of military readiness. Mr. Bush's charge that two army divisions were unprepared for war sounds serious, but is not particularly relevant. Every active duty force, every national guard and reserve unit is currently judged ready for combat according to a list of standards that are in many ways more appropriate for cold war missions and less appropriate for our troops that served in Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda. Troops need to be less like a tightly packed, hierarchical combat force, and more like a sophisticated, flexible police force.

Moreover, the list of standards fails to include equipment that may be especially important in today's missions, like high technology information systems, defenses against chemical and biological weapons and adequate numbers of precision weapons.

The Clinton administration has spent too much money to assure that our forces can, by and large, meet this outdated standard -- even troops who would not, in any circumstance, be used for months into a conflict. Certainly, the fact that all units don't meet every standard means far less than politicians may imply, and our current level of readiness is certainly not a significant threat to our national security.

Too many missions around the world. True, our forces are deployed too broadly, in dozens of places around the globe. And some units are overextended. But the grand mass of the American military is not deployed. The percentage of troops overseas is small. With management, both people and money could be moved from other parts of the services into overextended units.

Low morale and poor recruitment. We need to do more for our troops, including increasing their pay. And it is difficult to recruit and retain people, especially in a hot economy. But over the last decade, the military has been able to maintain its fighting force, and in the coming year, the services are expected to meet their recruiting goals. Moreover, today's morale, while low and needing attention, is not the kind of issue that is likely to bring down our national security. The situation today is not the post-Vietnam military that many decry.

A failure to look ahead. So what issue should our presidential candidates be concerned with? The military's ability to meet challenges five to 15 years from now.

The Clinton administration, to avoid charges of military unreadiness, made sure that today, every division is combat-ready. But that required billions of dollars and precluded buying enough equipment -- ships, tanks, tents -- for the future. The military procurement budget has been cut by about 60 percent since the end of the cold war (the overall budget is down by only 35 percent).

Some of the results can be seen today. The average age of vehicles is much older than in the past. Indeed, some Marine and Army helicopters are older than the pilots who fly them. Because it takes many years to replace equipment, in 10 to 15 years, there could be 30 percent fewer airplanes, ships, tanks and trucks. The ones that do exist will be older -- and harder to keep running -- than the ones today.

Moreover, the military has been unable to invest in America's information technology. For instance, it has not been able to buy enough battlefield sensors and communications, which would allow commanders to have information about an entire battlefield.

Both the White House and the Republican Congress are responsible for this situation. Our presidential candidates should address it. And the next administration and Congress should fix it.

William A. Owens was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1994 to 1996. He is the author of ``Lifting the Fog of War.''

---

Cheney Urges Rethinking Use of U.S. Ground Forces in Bosnia and Kosovo

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By MICHAEL COOPER
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/090100wh-cheney.html

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Aug. 31 -- Dick Cheney, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, called today for a re-examination of the nation's role in peacekeeping missions around the world and said it was time to consider recalling American ground troops from Kosovo and Bosnia.

"I think it is important that we make sometimes difficult choices about when we're going to actually use military force, that we need to avoid situations where we commit troops because we can't think of anything else to do," said Mr. Cheney, who was the secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf war.

"The difficult part is deciding what's in our strategic interest, what's of sufficient significance in terms of U.S. interests so its worth the commitment of resources and the potential loss of American lives. And not every problem around the world is."

Mr. Cheney made the comments after being asked by reporters today to elaborate on a speech he delivered in Atlanta on Wednesday in which he said that the military had been "overused and underresourced" during the Clinton administration.

The speech drew an angry response from Vice President Al Gore's campaign, which called Mr. Cheney's approach "irresponsible," and it was sharply questioned at the White House as well.

Joe Lockhart, a spokesman for President Clinton, said that Mr. Cheney "now has an obligation to come forward and say which deployments he was opposed to."

"Was he against our action in Haiti?" Mr. Lockhart asked. "Was he against our action of returning peace to Sarajevo and Bosnia? Was he against reversing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? Was he against eight years of containment of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction? I think those are questions he should answer."

As the Bush and Gore campaigns continued to debate military preparedness today, the Pentagon released a quarterly report that found most of the nation's combat forces ready to perform their wartime missions.

"America's armed forces remain capable" of achieving the military goals of the Clinton administration, the report stated.

But the report supported Mr. Cheney's claims that the armed forces face shortages in personnel, training problems and aging equipment. It also warned that an inadequate capability to move, protect and supply forces meant that higher casualties might occur should the United States be forced to fight two major conflicts at the same time, as called for in the national war plan.

Mr. Cheney did not spell out a specific doctrine that he and Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican presidential nominee, would follow if they won the election. But he called for applying a more rigorous standard of whether United States military intervention was warranted before committing troops to the field.

"Sometimes," he said, "I think we get into a situation where we have, because of the publicity given to a particular event -- you may have a real tragedy unfolding someplace in the world, but it doesn't affect vital U.S. interests.

And you have to make a decision that you'll do whatever you can diplomatically, working through the international community or perhaps providing sustenance and medical supplies and support for humanitarian purposes, but you're not going to commit U.S. troops to combat to deal with that particular situation. Those are choices that presidents get paid to make. They are not easy choices. If they were they wouldn't land on his desk."

Without addressing the merits of the Clinton administration's initial decision to send troops into Bosnia and Kosovo, Mr. Cheney said today that it was time to consider pulling the remaining American ground troops out of the Balkans, perhaps while still keeping a small presence there to gather intelligence and help the remaining international force with logistics.

"We might continue to do that," he said. "But troops on the ground, in Europe, in the Balkans in particular, now that the crisis supposedly has passed in Bosnia and Kosovo, strikes me an appropriate role for our European friends and allies."

The Gore campaign was quick to note that the United States has already sharply scaled back the number of troops it has on the ground in the Balkans. Kym Spell, a Gore campaign spokeswoman, said that American troops account for 14 percent of the force in Kosovo and 18 percent of the force in Bosnia.

"Dick Cheney's approach would be irresponsible," Ms. Spell said. "It would leave our allies in the lurch, erase the progress we've made toward peace, and only cost the United States in the long run."

The one deployment that Mr. Cheney said he disagreed with was the mission in Haiti in 1994, but he did not specify why. The Clinton administration sent 20,000 troops into Haiti as part of an international force that restored to power the country's democratically elected president after he was ousted in a military coup. About 75 American troops remain on the island today, on a temporary mission to provide humanitarian aide.

Ms. Spell said the vice president stood by the administration's decision to send troops to Haiti.

"We went into Haiti to begin the process of defeating a dictator and restoring a democratically elected president," Ms. Spell said. "We inherited the situation and showed the resolve and took the initiative to help the people of Haiti. Working to restore democracy is never a bad decision."

And although Mr. Cheney has criticized cutbacks in the size of the military repeatedly in recent days, culminating with his speech in Atlanta, in his remarks today he did not call for increasing the size of the armed forces.

"I'm not ready to say that yet," said Mr. Cheney, who began the cutbacks as secretary of defense, reducing the military by a quarter after the end of the cold war.

"I think we'd want to do a broad strategic review of our overall posture with respect to the kind of defense planning guidance that's out there now." he said. "Then you'd have to size the force to execute the strategy."

---

Ready or not

Washington Times
EDITORIAL • September 1, 2000
http://208.246.212.80/op-ed/ed-house-200091194515.htm

"Our military faces readiness problems, including falling recruitment, retention in critical skill areas [and] aging equipment that costs more to keep operating at acceptable levels of reliability." So said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the man Vice President Al Gore has selected as his running mate, last year.

In a policy speech before the Southern Center for International Relations in Atlanta Wednesday, Republican vice presidential nominee Richard B. Cheney fleshed out Mr. Lieberman's observation. Over the past decade, Mr. Cheney noted, commitments of U.S. military personnel have increased by 300 percent while the armed forces have been slashed by 40 percent. Compared to 85 percent of Air Force combat units deemed to be fully ready for their mission in January 1993, the month the Clinton-Gore administration entered office, only 65 percent meet that standard today - a development that doesn't even take into account the fact that Air Force fighter wings have been chopped from 16 in 1993 to 13 today. Forty percent of the Army's helicopter fleet cannot perform its mission, despite the fact that active Army divisions have been reduced from 14 in 1993 to 10 today.

After the air campaign involving Kosovo last year, the Procurement Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee discovered that the Navy's inventory of cruise missiles had fallen to nearly half the number needed to fight two major theater wars, preparation for which the Pentagon has declared to be its primary goal. Even worse, the Air Force's cruise missile supply had fallen to 10 percent of the level military doctrine had required.

The military's readiness crisis is even worse than Messrs. Lieberman and Cheney have charged. As Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times extensively reported Monday and Tuesday, internal military documents paint an even bleaker picture, notwithstanding unsupported public declaration from the nation's politicized military leadership to the contrary. Twelve of the Army's 20 training centers have been rated C-4 - the lowest possible readiness level, which the Pentagon defines as follows: "The school/ installation/command requires additional resources to undertake the mission(s) for which it was designed. It may undertake portions of its mission(s) consistent with resources available. Training deficiencies will have a significant impact on Army readiness." Six of the remaining eight Army training centers were rated C-3, a level that was expected to begin to have "an impact on military readiness."

None of this should be surprising, given that one of the first decisions of the Clinton-Gore administration in 1993 was to double the five-year Pentagon cuts that were already projected following the end of the Cold War. The Clinton-Gore administration then compounded the impact of its military budget-cutting zeal by dramatically increasing worldwide force deployments.

Mr. Gore's predictable response has been to charge Messrs. Cheney and Bush with denigrating the U.S. military, thereby sending the wrong message to American allies and potential adversaries. Even Mr. Lieberman, despite his honest criticism of military readiness only last year, has adopted this deplorable head-in-the-sand tactic. Mr. Gore's eight-year record and Mr. Lieberman's irresponsible flip-flop raise questions about whether they are capable of leading a military whose problems they now blithely ignore.

---

Pentagon sees woes in two-war strategy

Washington Times
September 1, 2000
By Rowan Scarborough
http://208.246.212.80/national/default-200091225813.htm

The U.S. military faces an increased risk of more casualties if ordered to carry out the two-war national strategy, a Pentagon report on combat readiness said yesterday.

The midyear write-up on the operational health of the 1.4 million active force said readiness problems and a force stressed by fast-pace peacekeeping operations would encounter greater difficulty fighting a second regional war.

"Potentially longer timelines required to complete the halt and buildup phases and initiate the counteroffensive increase the potential for higher casualties in the interim and during the fight," the report states.

The national military strategy calls for the funding of armed forces capable of fighting and winning two conflicts nearly simultaneously - most likely wars to defend South Korea and centrist Persian Gulf countries.

Because of shortages of weapons and personnel, U.S. forces would be slower in responding to the second crisis, giving an enemy more time to consolidate gains.

The report is a general overview, with few specifics. For example, it makes no mention of the fact that 12 of 20 major Army training installations reported a C-4 readiness rating, the military's lowest. The Washington Times reported this week that the installations teach such critical combat skills as infantry, air defense, artillery and intelligence.

The Pentagon assessment comes as the readiness of American forces has emerged as a top issue in the presidential race.

Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush charges that President Clinton cut the military too deeply in the 1990s as he sent fighting men and women on a record number of overseas deployments in Europe, the Persian Gulf and other locations. The result: worn-out equipment and personnel, spare-parts shortages and problems recruiting and retaining personnel.

"Our military today is overused and under-resourced," Republican vice-presidential candidate Richard B. Cheney said in a speech on Wednesday.

Mr. Cheney was defense secretary when the Cold War ended and the Pentagon drawdown began. When Mr. Clinton took office in 1993, he proceeded to double cuts proposed by Mr. Cheney, to $128 billion over five years.

Vice President Al Gore counters that the U.S. military remains the world's finest and that increased funding the past two years is correcting problems.

Evidence of a declining force began to surface in the mid-1990s and was publicly acknowledged by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1998. The Pentagon says "tip of the spear" forces overseas remain sharp. But they acknowledge serious shortfalls in stateside units that would move out quickly if war broke out.

Navy pilots, for example, complain that aircraft are cannibalized for parts for carrier operations, cutting down on their realistic flight training.

The Pentagon report said extra funding enacted by President Clinton and Congress has resulted in improved readiness. After missing recruiting targets, the Army and Navy are meeting goals this year. The Army has lowered the boot-camp dropout rate from 20 percent to 14 percent.

Among concerns:

• High rates of overseas operations have "accelerated wear and tear on the Army's equipment and has increased the required level of maintenance effort."

• The Navy is not retaining enough midgrade officers and has a shortage of deployed seamen.

• The Air Force is missing its recruiting benchmark for the first time since 1979 and is short 1,200 pilots.

The Pentagon report reflects a general discussion of readiness. A more expansive classified report was submitted to Congress.

The report's section on the Air Force does not mention, for example, that the Air Force continues to battle declining readiness rates for its major weapons systems, such as fighters and bombers. Also, the rate at which it cannibalizes parts from one plane to keep another flying has increased significantly.

The report says "most" major combat units are ready to meet objectives in a two-war scenario, but does not say which units are not ready.

The Pentagon concludes: "A review of overall force readiness confirms that America's armed forces remain capable of executing the national military strategy. Overall unit readiness is satisfactory in most cases, although some deficient readiness indicators, especially manning and training, are a concern."

---

President Clinton Names Frank Soares To The National Veterans Business Development Corporation

NewsEdge Corporation
U.S. Newswire
September 1, 2000
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=v0830477.1us&level3=265&date=20000901

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 - The following was released today by the White House:

The President today announced his intent to appoint Frank Soares to serve as a member of the National Veterans Business Development Corporation.

Frank Soares, of Freedom, Maine, has served since 1995 as the State Director of the Bureau of Veterans Services of the Maine Department of Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management. Recently, he was selected as the 1999 Maine Small Business Administration Veterans Advocate of the Year. As State Director of the Bureau of Veterans Services, Soares manages seven field offices and two central offices, the cemetery system, and serves as the ex-officio member of the Maine Veterans Homes Systems. He also advises the Commissioner and the Governor on matters relating to veterans. Soares has served in many command, leadership, and staff positions in the U.S. Army and in the Maine Army National Guard. He has received the Legion of Merit award and two awards for valor in combat in Vietnam. He has served on numerous boards and councils for veterans and retired service members and he has organized and run a successful private consulting firm specializing in organizational development of small local companies.

Soares received both B.S. and M.S. degrees in business from Husson College.

The members of the National Veterans Business Development Corporation are charged with the responsibility of expanding the provision of and improving access to technical assistance regarding entrepreneurship for the Nation's veterans. The Corporation will further assist veterans, including service-disabled veterans, with the information and expansion of small business concerns by working with and organizing public and private resources.

---

China exchanges

Washington Times
September 1, 2000
Inside the Ring Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough Notes from the Pentagon.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-20009122314.htm

Critics of the Pentagon's aggressive diplomacy program with the Chinese military are preparing a counteroffensive. They complain of a deliberate effort by pro-China officials in the Defense Department to circumvent legal restrictions on the exchanges.

Pentagon officials told us the senators and congressmen had better hurry. More exchanges are planned that could aid China's military with more details on U.S. capabilities.

A case in point: Several months ago, the Pentagon offered the Chinese a chance to visit the U.S. Strategic Command. They were offered briefings on U.S. nuclear doctrine and operations at Stratcom's headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb.

"The only reason the Chinese didn't jump at the chance was their fear of a congressional backlash," one Pentagon official said.

The offer did not require the Chinese to provide a reciprocal visit by Americans to Chinese nuclear command headquarters.

Other questionable activities are being planned for future exchanges. They include trips by Chinese military officers to sensitive U.S. ships and aircraft, and demonstrations of U.S. war-fighting capabilities.

There is even consideration of lifting a ban on military sales to China and permitting transfers of spare parts for U.S. equipment. China bought the gear before the cutoff of arms sales after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

Two groups of Chinese military officers were given sensitive briefings by U.S. military officers last week and this week.

Barring a tough response from Congress to the current visit by the Academy of Military Science officials and Pentagon speakers at the Harvard University program involving 25 Chinese colonels, "there's going to be a Christmas offensive," we are told. Meaning: more exchanges.

House and Senate national security aides tell us the questionable visits and briefings of the Chinese have set off alarm bells on Capitol Hill.

"We're going to tighten things up," said one senior House aide.

Officials tell us the aggressive exchange programs are being pushed by retired Adm. Joseph Prueher, the U.S. ambassador to China and former commander of the Pacific Command. Another supporter is the top defense attache in China, Brig. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, who is slated to move on soon to a post with the Army in Hawaii.

CIA briefs Bush

Texas Gov. George W. Bush will get his first "presidential" intelligence briefing tomorrow. Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin leaves today for Austin, Texas, with a group of analysts who will give Mr. Bush a classified tour d'horizon based on data from human and technical intelligence gatherers.

The briefing is meant to keep the candidate informed of world affairs and is a courtesy for presidential candidates. It was set up during a telephone call from White House National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger to Condoleeza Rice, Mr. Bush's foreign and defense policy aide, following the Republican National Convention last month.

"He remembered a similar call from Brent Scowcroft back in 1992," said one intelligence official, referring to President George Bush's national security adviser, who offered Mr. Berger the intelligence briefing during the 1992 presidential campaign of then-Gov. Bill Clinton.

Intelligence officials tell us the briefing will include Miss Rice, who still holds a security clearance from her days on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Bush, who we are told at one time had a clearance to receive classified information, will get a special one-time clearance for the CIA briefing. "It's a one-time thing," the intelligence official said of the briefing.

Lott's Navy

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, is trying to sell George W. Bush on a new Navy shipbuilding program.

Mr. Lott recently met with the Republican presidential nominee to urge him, if elected, to boost procurement from $8 billion annually to $22 billion. Mr. Lott's blueprint eventually would increase the fleet from an inadequate 316 ships to 350.

"All the admirals all say we are killing our sailors because we only have a 300-ship Navy and are running our guys to death because we have to send them off to sea so often," said a Senate insider.

The plan calls for building three destroyers, two attack submarines, two supply ships, two amphibious assault ships and one command ship each year. Congress also would fund a new carrier every six years and provide $1.3 billion for overhauls and nuclear refuelings.

Marine Corps assault ships, a platform for helicopters and Harrier attack jets are built in Mr. Lott's state.

The surface-ship Navy is not the only component afflicted by the readiness flu. Navy air forces also are struggling with spare parts shortages and lack of training hours. Vice Adm. John B. Nathman confronted the problem head-on earlier this month in a speech as he assumed command of naval Pacific air forces.

"To me, the fact is that we have reached such a low level of funding it will soon be impossible to meet the expectations of this nation in executing our operational tasks and completing the mission," the fighter pilot said. "There is a fundamental disconnect between the value we provide and the willingness of the richest nation on earth to pay for its demands."

Training wheels

Readiness at the Army's major training bases has been in a steady decline since the mid-1990s, documents and Army officials say.

The Washington Times reported this week that 12 of 20 facilities -including those for field artillery, air artillery, intelligence and infantry - have a C-4 readiness rate, the military's lowest. Army officials blame the shortfall of instructors on a recent plan to man 10 active divisions at full strength. This has left the training sites woefully short on personnel.

But the record shows the downturn began earlier as the Army was deployed on more and more peacekeeping missions while its budget fell.

Our sources say that by 1996 nine institutions were graded C-4 within a network of facilities managed by Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va.

Documents show the quality of soldier being turned out is declining.

"Most field commanders will tell you candidly, they are filled up with about as much 'individual' training as they can handle," said an Army source. "They desperately want qualified personnel to report for duty, not soldiers who still need to be individually trained before they can be useful to the organization."

For example, a confidential readiness report from Fort Sill, Okla., home to Army Field Artillery School, rates its training equipment C-4.

"The age of these major systems and their increased usage results in degraded . . . course instruction," the report states. "This is compounded by high maintenance costs and a lack of available repair parts in the system. There are two tasks not trained to standard because of lack of equipment."

• Bill Gertz can be reached at 202/636-3274 or by e-mail at gertz@twtmail.com. Rowan Scarborough can be reached at 202/636-3208 or by e-mail at scarbo@twtmail.com.


-------- OTHER

-------- environment

A Cloudy Future for Clean Air?

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/a_air.html

In 1969, to its embarrassment, Chattanooga, TN, was called the "the dirtiest city in America" by the Federal government. Air pollution from iron foundries and a huge TNT factory turned the sky orange, forcing motorists to use headlights at midday. "The air was so foul businessmen took two shirts to work because the first one was too soiled to wear after lunch," recalls Jim Holloway of the local air bureau.

PHOTO: Environmental Defense helped secure an EPA program to clean up haze in national parks across the country. Pictured above is Utah's Zion National Park.

Now, thirty years after the passage of the Clean Air Act, Chattanooga has been transformed. "People actually move here because of the clean air," marvels Holloway.

But for every Chattanooga, there is a Houston or an Atlanta, where air quality has declined. Even in Cape Cod, MA, pollution levels routinely exceed those of Boston. Environmental Defense has mounted a campaign to close regulatory gaps that allow air pollution to remain a threat. Last winter, we played a pivotal role in cutting sulfur in gasoline and tightening emissions limits for SUV's. Now we've set our sights on heavily polluting diesel trucks and buses. Los Angeles cancelled plans to buy 370 diesel buses following testimony by our staff attorney Jerilyn Mendoza and others, and opted to buy buses powered by compressed natural gas.

Despite this progress, a cloud looms on the horizon. Last year, a Federal appeals court found EPA's new standards for ozone and soot unconstitutional, putting in doubt the agency's authority to set limits. The case is now before the Supreme Court and a negative decision could turn back the clock on clean air. "This case could put EPA in an administrative straitjacket," says our general counsel Jim Tripp. Environmental Defense filed an amicus brief with the Court this summer. Says Tripp: "This is the most important clean-air case to come before the Supreme Court in the last decade."

"In thirty years, we've made tremendous progress," notes our senior attorney Vickie Patton, "but there's still a lot of unfinished business."

---

Mercury Rising

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/d_fred.html

The pressure is on in Congress to reduce air pollution from electric power plants. Fueled mostly by coal, these plants are leading producers of sulfur dioxide (a cause of acid rain), carbon dioxide (a global warming gas) and nitrogen oxides (which contribute to smog).

PHOTO: Fred Krupp, Executive Director

Electric plants are also the largest uncontrolled sources of mercury in the air. This highly toxic substance made headlines in July when the National Academy of Sciences reported that 60,000 children may be born in the United States each year with neurological problems from mercury exposure.

Now momentum is gathering behind legislation in Congress that would cut all four of these air pollutants in a single stroke. This comprehensive approach is better for human health and cheaper for the electric companies, who can design a coordinated solution rather than react to piecemeal regulation of each pollutant.

Electric utilities want Congress to deregulate their industry. Texas, in a deregulation law that Environmental Defense helped draft, has shown that energy reforms and clean air provisions can go hand in hand. Congress should follow suit so we can all breathe easier.

--Fred Krupp

---

Home Depot Cancels Megastore Alongside Wildlife Refuge

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/b_homede.html

The Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge in Brookhaven, NY, is the cradle of Environmental Defense. It was by this unique marshland on Long Island that our founding chairman, Dennis Puleston, first noticed the decline of osprey populations in the 1960's and helped launch the modern environmental movement.

PHOTO: Still fighting on Long Island: At 95, our founding chairman Dennis Puleston worked with general counsel Jim Tripp to preserve the Carmans River.

Puleston, now 95, was understandably upset when Home Depot announced plans to build a megastore adjacent to the refuge. "This was a threat to the whole ecology of the Carmans River," he said. Our general counsel Jim Tripp persuaded the town to fight the project. "We were within one week of losing this when Tripp came in," recalled local activist Martin Van Lith. "His legal expertise strengthened the town's resolve."

Tripp and our trustee Art Cooley then found money to acquire the tract. By press time, Home Depot was moving to an alternate site and the 18-acre parcel is now slated to become part of the refuge. "Environmental Defense was the key to our victory," said Van Lith.

For his "expertise, creative solutions and leadership" in this and other land conservation efforts on Long Island, Tripp received the Citizens Award for Exceptional Service from Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. At a press conference, Babbitt told Tripp, "Your commitment is an inspiration to all of us."

---

Solutions Eyed for Hog Waste

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/r_hogs.html

North Carolina's 2,400 hog farms produce more waste than all the people in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston combined. What's worse, factory hog farms store this waste in open-air lagoons and then spray it on fields, regardless of whether the fields actually need it.

PHOTO: Goodbye to the lake: Waste lagoons are North Carolina's bane.

Inevitably, these lagoons and sprayfields contaminate surface waters and leach into groundwater. With bacteria levels 100 to 10,000 times higher than what's allowed in treated municipal waste, hog waste poses an unacceptable public health risk.

Environmental Defense will soon release a report describing how North Carolina's citizens are footing the bill for environmental damages by the pork industry. The report recommends alternative technologies--already available and affordable--that outperform lagoons and sprayfields. But few factory farms have installed these new systems.

North Carolina attorney general Mike Easley, with help from Environmental Defense and others, has persuaded Smithfield Foods, the world's largest hog producer, to eliminate lagoons and sprayfields from its 276 North Carolina farms. Meanwhile, EPA is preparing to limit factory farm discharges nationwide. "Our report finally provides the evidence to convince EPA that there are viable, cost-effective alternatives to lagoons," says our economist Kathy Cochran.

---

It's Hurricane Season: Have We Learned Our Lessons?

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/q_hurric.html

Last year the double whammy of Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd unleashed a full-fledged disaster on North Carolina. Storm-related flooding killed more than 50 people and virtually shut down the entire eastern third of the state.

PHOTO: Princeville should be relocated to an upland site before disaster strikes again.

The storms dealt a knockout punch to the environment as well. After the floods, more than half the state's factory hog farms were unable to prevent hog waste from polluting nearby waterways. Some 47 hog waste lagoons were inundated; four others were destroyed.

In their contribution to a new book, Eye of the Storm, Environmental Defense attorney Dan Whittle and scientist Dr. Douglas Rader urge policymakers to learn from the storms' lessons. "Piecemeal land-use decisions in the coastal plain have resulted in a human landscape that is not sustainable," they write. In rebuilding the damaged areas, the state should eliminate sources of pollution and modify water systems to conform to natural flow patterns.

Our recommendations advise against rebuilding two towns, Princeville and Speed, whose location behind dikes in active floodplains made their destruction inevitable. "We recognize that these are difficult decisions, politically and emotionally," Rader says. "But this crisis offers an opportunity to prevent future devastation."

---

Citizen Monitors Will Test Cleveland's Air

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/p_monitor.html

Thanks to hand-held pollution monitors provided by Environmental Defense, Cleveland neighborhood organizations can now measure ozone levels in their communities. The monitors--about the size of a cell phone--are the latest tool deployed by Environmental Defense in our partnership with Cleveland's Clean Air Conservancy to improve air quality in the city.

PHOTO: Back to school: With our help, citizens are learning to use hand-held devices to monitor pollution in their neighborhoods.

A recent "environmental livability index" for Cleveland and Cuyahoga County produced by the partnership gave the area a grade "D" for smog, noting it barely meets Federal criteria for ozone (a principal cause of smog). The report found that the Cleveland area ranks among the worst 3% of U.S. counties in health risks from hazardous pollutants.

Lending urgency to our study is the area's inadequate official air monitoring system. We found that Cuyahoga County's three existing ozone monitors provide insufficient information about pollution hotspots, and none of the monitors are within Cleveland's industrial zone.

"People have a right to know how the factories near their homes are affecting the air they breathe," said Carol Andress, an economic development specialist with our Pollution Prevention Alliance. "These hand-held monitors will empower ordinary citizens to demand necessary changes."

---

Huge CALFED Plan Released: Will it Live up to its Promise?

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/t_CALFED.html

As the celebrated conflict between environmental protection and water development in California enters its third century, CALFED, a consortium of state and Federal agencies, has released a long-awaited $9 billion plan to manage water supply while restoring the aquatic ecosystem in the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary and its watershed.

PHOTO: We will ensure that Bay-Delta water reaches wildlife, as promised.

"We like the environmental parts of the program," says our analyst David Yardas. "But we fear that the new dams and canals under consideration could wipe out any gains on the ecosystem side." The ecosystem restoration program includes provisions to restore habitat and natural flow patterns, as well as to reduce diversions when large numbers of fish are affected. Environmental Defense will work with all parties to make sure the environmental goals are met. We will:

Ensure that funds allocated for the environment are spent correctly. Monitor to confirm that water promised for the environment is provided. Oversee the science being used in all stages of the process, as a member of CALFED's Science Advisory Panel.

"We have waited a long time for this plan," says our attorney Tom Graff. "Now we must work with CALFED to achieve its objectives without compromising the environment."

---

A Solution to Farm Runoff

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/s_runoff.html

California's San Joaquin Valley is one of the world's richest agricultural areas. But its abundant harvests come at a price. The valley's soils contain high levels of selenium, a natural trace element that can be lethal to wildlife when mixed with the irrigation water that runs off the fields. In 1983, selenium-contaminated farm drainage left a trail of dead and deformed birds in the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. Historically, farmers have not been held accountable for such pollution, which comes from numerous sources. Regulators have had little success imposing pollution limits.

PHOTO: The salad's fine, but hold the selenium, please.

In 1994, Environmental Defense scientist Dr. Terry Young broke the stalemate by proposing a system that would make farmers accountable for their discharges, yet grant them flexibility in making the reductions. Now in its fourth year, the program has begun to bear fruit. The farmers' use of economic incentives such as tradable discharge permits has resulted in significant water quality gains in the San Joaquin Valley. Selenium discharges have already decreased 10% and are projected to drop another 40% over the next decade.

"The success of this program proves that controlling agricultural pollution is politically feasible," says our research associate Angela Sherry, who is now negotiating an extension to the program.

---

Maryland's Answer to Gridlock

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/h_MDgrid.html

Maryland commuters know a thing or two about traffic. The Washington area has the second worst congestion in the country, after Los Angeles. But now Maryland is taking steps to increase the use of mass transit and promote smart growth. Drafted by Environmental Defense transportation director Michael Replogle, the recently adopted Commuter Benefits Act of 2000 is the most far-reaching commuter choice law in the nation.

PHOTO: Bikers unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Under the law, employers who pay for employee transit costs or add income in lieu of a parking space at work can receive a 50% tax credit against their expenses, up to $60 per employee monthly. Non-profit organizations such as schools and hospitals will also be eligible. "This is a cheaper and faster way to reduce congestion and pollution than building new highways," said Replogle. "And it benefits both employers and employees."

The commuter benefits "are an especially tangible incentive for lower-paid workers," said our transportation specialist Scot Spencer. To pass the law, Environmental Defense formed a coalition of business, environmental and labor groups called Friends of Maryland Commuter Choice. "Our goal is to establish commuter choice as a standard employment benefit across the country over the next five years,"noted Replogle

---

Government Chastised on Fish

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/i_fish.html

Siding with Environmental Defense and other conservation groups, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a Federal fishing quota for summer flounder, a favorite of seafood lovers that is harvested in the Atlantic from Maine to North Carolina. The court criticized the overly high limit as "unreasonable, plain and simple."

PHOTO: The government has unreasonably bowed to fishing interests.

"This ruling is a clear victory for troubled fish stocks across the country," said Environmental Defense attorney Daniel Whittle. "Federal fishery managers can no longer ignore their statutory duty to protect our precious marine resources."

Summer flounder, also known as fluke, has been overfished for years, and the current population is less than half of historically appropriate levels. Environmental Defense and its partners filed suit last year, charging that the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act by setting a limit so high that it had only an 18% chance of achieving the species' recovery goals set in the agency's own plan.

"The initial quota was a political act to please fishing groups," said Whittle. "Some fishermen claimed our science was inaccurate and fluke were not in trouble. Our team demonstrated otherwise."

The court ordered the government to "give priority to conservation measures" and to set quotas that have at least a 50% chance of rebuilding the stock. "With this decision the recovery of summer flounder can finally begin in earnest," said Whittle.

---

Underseas National Parks Seen as Wave of the Future
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE SCIENTISTS CONTRIBUTE TO HISTORIC VICTORY

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/j_marine.html

The rockfish passes its life in the slow lane. Living for up to 125 years, it likes to hunker down in the deep-water canyons of the Pacific. But because of excessive fishing, the rockfish and dozens of other marine species are being systematically eradicated today.

PHOTO: Legendary commercial fisherman Peter Gladding worked with Environmental Defense scientist Dr. Ken Lindeman to develop marine reserve boundaries in the Dry Tortugas, off Florida's West Coast.

Soon these species can take refuge in Marine Protected Areas that will be kept off limits to fishing, much as species on land find sanctuary in national parks. Years of planning by Environmental Defense, university scientists and other allies led this summer to President Clinton's signing an executive order calling for a national system of undersea parks.

"Environmental Defense and its partners played a key role in getting this order off the ground and onto the President's desk quickly," says Ellen Athes of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Our recommendation for a Federal coordinating body to identify potential reserves is a key part of the executive order. "This will help end interagency strife that has delayed action," adds Athes.

The President's order, which calls for a comprehensive scientific evaluation of the marine environment, will also help fill an information vacuum. "Today, fewer than half the species that are caught commercially have been counted," explains Environmental Defense economist Dr. Peter Emerson. "People fish in ignorance."

Along America's coastlines, Environmental Defense has spent years hammering together coalitions of local governments, fishery management councils and fishermen to ensure the success of future marine reserves. "Conservation must rise organically from the coastal regions," says our marine ecologist Dr. Rod Fujita. "If the plan works, it will be due not only to the strong scientific basis we've helped articulate but also to the political consensus we've helped create."

We are already working to protect several "Grand Canyons of the sea" that could become part of a national system of Marine Protected Areas. For example:

Off the Northeast coast, we helped close large areas to fishing to help cod, haddock and scallop populations recover. As a result, scallop abundance has increased 14-fold in some areas. We are also working to create permanent reserves off Cape Cod. In the Florida Keys, we helped create the 185-square-mile Tortugas Ecological Reserve, which includes the most well-developed coral reef in North America. In the Gulf of Mexico, we helped design a plan to ensure the survival of gag grouper. Two areas totaling 220 square miles have now been closed for four years. Off the coast of Texas, we are protecting the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, the world's most endangered sea turtle. We propose moving shrimp boats five miles offshore, away from turtle nesting grounds. Along the Pacific coast, we are leading efforts that may soon culminate in a network of marine reserves protecting up to 30% of deep-water habitats of rockfish and groundfish. In Hawaii, we are supporting efforts led by native Hawaiians to create marine reserves off the fertile Northwest Islands.

"The President's order offers a framework to unify these coastal conservation efforts," says Environmental Defense scientist Pamela Baker. "A network of marine reserves could do for our coastal areas what Teddy Roosevelt did for our national parks."

An Octopus's Garden in the Shade

Teeming with aquatic life, coral reefs are among the richest ecosystems on Earth. At the recent 4th Annual Bonaire Dive Festival, co-sponsored bythe Coral Reef Alliance and Environmental Defense, coral reefs got the much-needed attention they deserve.

PHOTO: A coral reef in the Solomon Islands

Covering only a tiny fraction of the ocean bottom, reefs are threatened primarily by human impacts. We are working to establish protected areas for reefs near Bonaire in the Dutch Antilles and worldwide.

---

To Build a Fire From the editors of E: The Environmental Magazine

Environmental Defense Fund
By Jim Motavalli
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/k_stoves.html

As venerable as America itself, wood stoves are seen as cheery and sustainable sources of heat. Stoves are showing up in more and more American homes; 1.7 million "hearth appliances" were sold in 1999, according to the Hearth Products Association. But with the stoves come nagging environmental questions. Do wood stoves pollute? Do they harm local air quality and contribute to global warming?

The good news is that wood stoves are cleaner than ever, thanks to an EPA certification process that went into effect in 1988. Catalytic converters (similar to the emission-trapping devices on your car) and secondary-burn technology introduced since the 1980's can reduce the stoves' particulate emissions by 90%. Stoves today burn with little visible smoke and, depending on model, up to 70% efficiency.

PHOTO: A crackling wood fire on a long winter's night can't be bad for the environment, can it? Well, yes and no...

But they're still not clean. The primary culprit in wood smoke is fine particles, so small that several thousand of them could fit on the period at the end of this sentence. Inhaling such particulate matter has been associated with acute respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, lung problems and premature death, according to the EPA's office of air quality. Faulty stoves can also leak poisonous carbon monoxide.

Wood is a renewable resource, but heating with it is not a clear-cut choice for the environmentally conscious homeowner. Wood stoves produce carbon dioxide, the primary global warming gas, although proponents point out that emissions from burning wood are no greater than those from its natural process of decay.

In many parts of America, wood stoves and fireplaces are the largest single source of particulate matter entering homes, says Dr. Wayne Ott of Stanford University. This has caused such states as Alaska, Colorado, Montana, Oregon and Washington, as well as many local communities, to get tougher on wood burners. In King County, WA, all new or remodeled homes must have a source of heat other than wood, and any existing non-certified wood stoves must be removed before a house is sold. In Telluride, CO, open fireplaces are banned in new home construction, and old wood stoves must be retrofitted with clean-burning technology.

If you intend to buy a wood stove, find out its heat output (expressed in British Thermal Units or BTU's) and EPA emission rating (in particulate grams per hour). Look for a heavy, well-made cast iron or plate steel stove with smooth welds, tight-fitting doors and draft controls that operate smoothly. Useful features include a thermostat, insulated door handles, a removable ash pan and an airflow system for the glass doors that makes cleanup much easier.

PHOTO: And now for a good smoke: Wood stoves have advanced since the days of the 49'ers.

Stove Talk
For maximum burning efficiency:

Burn only seasoned hardwood; green wood can be 50% moisture, and pine and other soft woods cause creosote buildup. Make small, hot fires to consume volatile gases more quickly. Install a stack thermometer and keep temperatures between 300°and 400°F. Remove excess ash from intake vents to maximize oxygen supply. Inspect stove and chimney at least once a year. Never use artificial logs or treated wood; they can damage your catalytic converter.

For additional information, check out these and other references on the web at www.environmentaldefense.org/more/10524.

Four of the five cleanest-burning stoves certified by EPA are produced by Vermont Castings. For the name of their dealer nearest you, call 800-227-8683.

Tips on clean stove operation are available from: Coalition of Northeastern Governors Policy Research Center, 400 North Capitol St. NW, Suite 382, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 624-8450.

The wood-burning industry's trade group is the Hearth Products Association, 1601 North Kent Street, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22209; (703) 522-0086.

A citizen's group devoted to the hazards of burning wood, Burning Issues and Clean Air Revival, can be reached at (707) 882-3601.

This Green Living article is one of a series by the editors of E, the leading independant environmental magazine. Opinions in these guest articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Environmental Defense Fund staff.

Interested readers can go to www.emagazine.com to subscribe to E, published six times a year. Regular E features include Your Health, Eco-Home, Money Matters, Consumer News, and Tools for Green Living.

---

Clearing the Air in China's Polluted Cities

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/l_china.html

Set in a high bowl ringed by the mountains of northeast China, the city of Benxi has long been one of the dirtiest places on Earth. Its factories, mills and smelters put out such a dense cloud of pollution in the 1980's that the city vanished from satellite photos and earned the sobriquet, "The Invisible City."

PHOTO: Cleaning up its act: The city of Benxi's one million inhabitants may soon be able to breathe easier, thanks to Environmental Defense.

Fueled by soft coal, China's economic miracle of the past two decades has been accompanied by unhealthy increases in air and water pollution. The Chinese government has enacted an anti-pollution policy called Total Emissions Control, but it has so far failed to develop a structure to implement the policy.

Now Benxi, along with another industrial city, Nantong, is working with Environmental Defense to show how market incentives can help achieve the government's anti-pollution goals. The project is the brainchild of Dr. Daniel Dudek, an Environmental Defense economist who, in 1996, initiated our partnership with the Beijing Environment and Development Institute and went looking for cities willing to try new ideas.

In Benxi, Dudek teamed up with progressive city officials and helped draft a new municipal law to use market incentives to clean up the air. In the process, he became the first foreigner to join in debates of the Benxi People's Congress. The new law, much like the U.S. Clean Air Act, creates strong penalties for exceeding sulfur-dioxide limits but allows industries to trade their emission allowances among themselves--as long as the overall limit is not exceeded. Dudek believes this least-cost approach to reducing pollution could be emulated throughout China.

In Nantong, at the heart of the new China of cell phones, designer labels and quick fortunes, Dudek and local officials orchestrated a demonstration trade between a power plant and a light manufacturing facility. The manufacturer will be allowed to expand operations in exchange for contributing a new boiler and pollution control equipment to the plant. Chinese officials are pleased that the city can grow while still complying with the government's new pollution limits.

For Environmental Defense, these initiatives could eventually yield global benefits. As the world gears up to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, Dudek points out that the trading mechanisms being implemented to cut sulfur dioxide in China could also be applied there to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. "But first," he says, "we need to show how these policies can help control emissions of immediate concern to the Chinese people."

---

A Victory for the Red Wolf

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/c_wolves.html

A handful of North Carolina landowners have long sought permission to kill endangered red wolves that range on their property. Last year, they challenged the Endangered Species Act in court. About 75 of the wolves survive on the coastal plains, occasionally wandering to nearby private land.

PHOTO: About 75 endangered wolves survive on the North Carolina coastal plains, where they often range on private property.

The landowners had maintained that the endangered species regulations exceed the power of Congress under the Constitution's commerce clause. Together with our partners, Environmental Defense filed an amicus brief in the case. In June, by a 2-1 margin, the court's Fourth Circuit upheld the protective measures for the wolves as a valid exercise of Federal authority. The decision rested in part on the arguments we presented in our brief.

"This victory repels an attack on the Endangered Species Act that would have been its undoing," said Michael Bean, director of our wildlife program. "About half of endangered species would have been at risk had the landowners won." The next step, says Bean, is to ensure that this precedent is used to protect all endangered species. "We'll be seeing more of these challenges," he predicts.

---

Restoring a Vital Rest Stop

Environmrntal Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/m_platte.html

Water from the Platte River helps Nebraska farmer Vernon Nelson grow bumper crops of corn in a semi-arid region, and he'd prefer it if nothing changed. "I've got a nice life here," he says. "But we do have an Endangered Species Act for a reason, and it's not going to go away." Stopping near his farm are some 200 endangered whooping cranes as well as half a million sandhill cranes. Each spring, the cranes rest and refuel on the sandbars and corn fields of the Platte.

PHOTO: For sandhill cranes, Nebraska's Platte River is a vital link on America's central migration route between Mexico and Canada.

But the cranes' stopover spot is in trouble because cities and farmers throughout the area have diverted so much of the Platte's natural flow. Three years ago Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming signed an agreement with the Interior Department to balance these competing interests and restore river habitat.

The agreement was reached with the help of Environmental Defense. Scientist Dr. Daniel Luecke, who helps implement the agreement, broke a stalemate by proposing a "flow management plan" that equitably balances water allocations. The plan is now under final review, and the cranes may soon have a safe place to rest.

Luecke notes, "As part of the Oregon Trail, the Platte Valley has been the road to the West for more than 150 years. Restoring this vital and historic stretch will be a great achievement."

---

Fewer Bad-Air Days for El Paso

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/n_elpaso.html

Until recently, El Paso had more than its share of bad air days. Stringent air-quality rules on the U.S. side could not stop pollution wafting over the border from neighboring Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where there are fewer resources to enforce environmental laws.

PHOTO: Switching to sawdust reduces pollution from Juarez brick kilns.

"To solve the problem, we needed to think of the region as one big air basin," says Dr. Carlos Rincón, an Environmental Defense air-quality expert. Working at the grassroots level, Rincón formed a bi-national task force that came up with a plan for U.S. firms to meet mandated air-quality standards by investing in pollution reductions across the border.

Among the most obvious targets were the 400 brick-making factories in Juarez, which traditionally burned tires and chemical-treated wood as fuel. The task force convinced many brick makers to switch to cleaner fuels, and it plans to upgrade all ovens, using state-of-the-art technology, by 2004.

Some brick makers, who have used the same ovens for generations, were initially opposed. So the task force appealed to brick-makers' wives, who are especially concerned about the potential harm to children posed by the smoky kilns.

Thanks to this and other task force projects, such as mandatory auto-emissions inspections in Juarez, the air is clearing in both El Paso and Juarez. Impressed, officials in the twin cities of San Diego and Tijuana have approached us for advice about setting up similar projects.

---

On the Farm, a New Crop Ripens

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/o_crop.html

Family farmers are vulnerable to changes in the weather. As it turns out, they can also do much to influence climate. Environmental Defense is at the forefront of a nationwide campaign to enlist farmers to help reduce global warming. Along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other partners, we have released a new publication, Growing Carbon, that shows how changes in farm practices can reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

PHOTO: Alternating rows of crops and forage can reduce global warming.

Agriculture produces substantial amounts of three greenhouse gases: methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. These can be reduced through practices including no-till cultivation, improved grazing techniques and manure management. Farmers can also help stabilize the climate by storing more carbon in the soil with windbreaks and erosion control. Environmental Defense is working to win financial incentives for farmers who adopt these practices. "The brochure Environmental Defense helped produce was incredibly helpful in Congress and the White House," says a White House official. "It showed how each farmer can contribute and persuaded a key Senator to sponsor a bill to pay farmers to conserve carbon."

"My neighbors thought global warming was a hoax. Now they see the weather extremes and want to help," says Martin Kleinschmidt, a Nebraska farmer who is assisting us.

For copies of Growing Carbon, see: www.environmentaldefense.org/more/10525.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/newsreleases/2000/apr/l_soil.html

---

Soil Sense: How Farmers Can Profit And Help To Control Global Warming New Brochure Shows Farmers How To Go Green By "Growing Carbon"

Environmental Defense Fund
April 24, 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/NewsReleases/2000/Apr/l_soil.html

Most people know that emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (C02) from industry and automobiles contribute to global warming. But how many knew that there are many ways for farmers to manage their fields and livestock that can improve their wallets and the world? Practices that keep more carbon in the ground make good soil sense.

"These practices are a win-win option," said Dr. Janine Bloomfield, an Environmental Defense scientist. "These strategies make economic and ecological sense for farmers. Investing in climate change control can have financial benefits for US agriculture, and long-term benefits for people and the planet."

An informative new brochure released today by the US Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the USDA National Agroforestry Center, the Soil and Water Conservation Society and Environmental Defense highlights many practices farmers use that improve the fertility and productivity of farms and are good for their bottom line while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from farm activities and increasing carbon storage on agricultural lands. More carbon in the soil means less carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere.

For example, conservation or "no-till" cultivation systems increase carbon storage in the soil, reduce the number of field operations, thereby saving energy, money, and time, and can often increase productivity, and reduce soil erosion. While concerns have been raised that no-till could necessitate more pesticide or herbicide application than conventional tillage in some cases, in other cases no-till reduces weed seed germination and thus requires less herbicides. In addition, many management options including crop rotation, biological control, and other Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques are available that reduce the need for chemical use.

Better management of nitrogen fertilizers means that less greenhouse gases will become trapped in the atmosphere and fields lose fewer nutrients to ground and surface waters. Farmers save money on fertilizer costs and protect water quality. In large livestock operations, recovery systems for liquid manure reduce methane emissions (a powerful greenhouse gas), improve water quality, and can be a source of energy - biogas.

The brochure is available on-line at www.swcs.org/f_pubs_education.htm.

Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization based in New York, represents more than 300,000 members. Since 1967 we have linked science, economics, and law to create innovative, equitable, and cost-effective solutions to the most urgent environmental problems.

---

Landowners Join Fight to Save Songbirds

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/g_landow.html

Bill and Mary Lynn Spangler had a problem. A powerful neighbor upstream wanted to divert 90% of a river on the couple's 1300-acre ranch in the Texas hill country. Environmental Defense attorney Melinda Taylor sensed an opportunity. After meeting with the Spanglers about their water rights, Taylor discovered that their ranch was a key habitat for vanishing Texas songbirds. She convinced the couple to enter into a unique arrangement to save their land--and the birds.

PHOTO: Thanks to Bill and Mary Lynn Spangler, endangered songbirds aren't forced to nest inside a subdivision.

Many old-time ranchers in Texas have long been suspicious of wildlife conservation. For some, the motto is "shoot, shovel and shut up." "We are not tree huggers," said Bill Spangler. "But Environmental Defense offered us a way to take baby steps into conservation."

Taylor has asked the U.S. government for permission to administer a "Safe Harbor" program for the Spanglers and other ranchers to protect endangered golden-cheeked warblers and black-capped vireos in 25 hill country counties. Under Safe Harbor, an approach pioneered by Environmental Defense, landowners promote the survival of endangered species without fear of land-use restrictions. Some 1.5 million acres are already enrolled in Safe Harbor.

Approximately 750 pairs of black-capped vireos and 3,700 pairs of golden-cheeked warblers survive in Central Texas, but urban sprawl and second-home developments are decimating their habitat.

With support from the Meadows Foundation, we are paying 30 ranchers to maintain wildlife habitat. We sponsor bird surveys, land management plans and prescribed fires to create the open shrubland favored by the vireos. We also serve as an intermediary with the Federal government to reduce bureaucratic red tape. "In Texas 98% of the land is privately owned," said Taylor. "Benign neglect of endangered species can be incredibly harmful."

"We did some soul searching with our neighbors and found our objectives matched Environmental Defense's," said Mary Lynn Spangler. "Many ranchers are now retiring," she added. "They want to do the right thing but don't know who to turn to."

---

EPA Cracks Down on Diesel Trucks

Environmental Defense Fund
Vol. XXXI, No. 3 -- September 2000
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/Newsletter/2000/Sep/e_diesel.html

A dump truck pulls onto the road and belches a plume of black smoke from its exhaust pipe. It's a familiar sight that can literally take your breath away. While automobiles have been subjected to tough pollution limits over the last 25 years, large diesel trucks and buses have basically had a free ride.

PHOTO: An 18-wheel truck can emit as much pollution as 150 cars. Environmental Defense is helping push through long-delayed pollution limits for diesel trucks and buses.

Prompted by recent engineering advances and by pressure from Environmental Defense and others, EPA is finally cracking down on 18-wheelers. This summer, our staff testified at numerous public hearings across the country and our email Action Network unleashed thousands of letters in support of EPA's proposed limits for cleaner diesels. The new rules would dramatically tighten emissions standards for trucks and buses and require oil companies to remove 97% of the sulfur in diesel fuel. Sulfur clogs catalytic converters and other pollution-control equipment.

Nearly nine out of 10 people believe diesel trucks and buses should be required to use the best available pollution control technology, according to a national survey conducted for Environmental Defense. And eight out of 10 believe cleaner diesel fuel is worth the projected three- to four-cent added cost per gallon. "Most Americans couldn't attend the public hearings," says senior attorney Vickie Patton, who testified in Denver. "But our poll clearly shows they want these vehicles cleaned up."

Diesel trucks spew millions of tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxides into the air as well as fine sooty particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs. California's South Coast Air Quality Management District recently concluded that 70% of the cancer risk from air pollution in Los Angeles is attributable to diesel particulates. EPA plans to phase in the stricter diesel standards over the next 7 to 10 years, but the public wants a quicker cleanup. "Today's toddlers will be teenagers by the time these standards take full effect," testified Patton. "EPA should require compliance much sooner to help rid our communities of cancer-causing diesel exhaust."

The new rules should be finalized this year. "If fully implemented, this will be one of the single most important steps the country has taken to protect air quality," says Patton.

---

The Phthalate Esters Panel of the American Chemistry Council Statement on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Biomonitoring Results

Yahoo News
Friday September 1, 5:29 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
Phthalate Esters Panel of the American Chemistry Council
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000901/va_esters_.html

ARLINGTON, Va., Sept. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement is being issued by the Phthalate Esters Panel of the American Chemistry Council:

* The recently released CDC report is consistent with earlier estimates of human exposure to phthalates and indicates that those levels are at or within the safety limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

* Independent scientists, international government bodies and phthalate producers have conducted extensive studies about the safety, health and environmental effects of phthalates, none of which present credible evidence that people are harmed by phthalates. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse health effects (including no human reproductive or developmental effects), in children or adults. Consumers can remain confident about using products that contain phthalates.

* The concept of measuring exposure to substances is not a new one. The technique employed by the CDC in its measurement of phthalate metabolites is new. It will enable the monitoring of phthalate exposures to verify that they stay within government-determined safe levels. The Panel will continue its practice of working cooperatively with government agencies so that these valuable compounds can continue to be used safely.

* Phthalate esters are a key ingredient found in hundreds of products that families rely on in their daily lives and that their doctors rely on to provide quality medical care. They are important ingredients in such products as medical devices, toys, vinyl flooring and wallcovering, food packaging, detergents, lubricating oils, solvents, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, such as cosmetics and lotions. Phthalates provide an excellent combination of performance and value.

* Phthalates have been used in products that have improved the quality of life in American homes, offices, hospitals, and businesses for over 50 years. Because of their common use in a wide variety of applications, phthalates have been subjected to extensive health and environmental effects scrutiny by both independent scientists and international governmental bodies. Phthalates are some of the most studied and best understood compounds in the world from a health and environmental viewpoint.

* The CDC data indicate that exposure levels are consistent with environmental exposure estimates that have previously been developed by a number of U.S. and international government agencies (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), European Union (EU), and the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR)).

* The maximum exposures indicated by CDC are at or within the "safe" levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Those EPA levels, known as reference doses or RfDs, incorporate conservative margins of safety so that even exposures above the RfD are not necessarily of concern. The average exposures indicated by the CDC data -- including phthalates that are used in personal care products -- are well below those conservative RfDs.

* Since its inception 27 years ago, the Phthalate Esters Panel and its members have sponsored health and safety research on phthalate esters. This cutting-edge research always follows the strictest government and scientific standards to promote reproducibility, reliability and accuracy. Resulting data and conclusions are peer-reviewed and published in respected scientific journals such as Toxicological Sciences, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. The Panel shares its data with government agencies around the globe, such as the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

---

EUROPE
UKRAINE: ECOLOGICAL DISASTER

New York Times
September 01, 2000
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/00/09/01/news/world/090100world-briefing.html

With hundreds of villagers in south-central Ukraine complaining of skin rashes and other symptoms of environmental poisoning, President Leonid Kuchma declared the region about 320 miles south of Kiev an ecological disaster zone. Some officials said the outbreak was caused by chemical spills from a Soviet-era missile base, but others said high concentrations of nitrites in drinking water and foodstuffs indicated high fertilizer concentrations may have contaminated water supplies. Patrick E. Tyler (NYT)

---

Fires Not Caused by Reduced Logging, Congressional Report Finds

New York Times
September 01, 2000
By TIMOTHY EGAN
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/090100western-fires.html

There appears to be no link between reduced logging on national forests over the last decade and the wildfires now raging through much of the West, a report by a bipartisan research group for Congress has found.

If anything, heavy logging from earlier years may have contributed more to the conditions that have made Western forests ripe for big fires, because more flammable small trees and heavy brush are often left in the forest after the larger stands of timber have been taken out, said the report, by the Congressional Research Service, which analyzes policy for Congress.

Over the last month, Western Republicans, and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, have said that logging reductions under the Clinton administration have been a cause of fires that have burned more than six million acres this year. Logging in national forests has been reduced by more than 75 percent since 1989.

Speaking in Oregon earlier this month, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, the Republican presidential nominee, said Clinton administration policies that restricted logging "made the forests more dangerous to fire," although he did not blame the president for the fires.

But some of the years with the most fires over the last two decades were those in which logging was at record high levels, the report states.

"Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood products, but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles," wrote Ross W. Gorte, author of the report. "The concentration of these 'fine fuels' on the forest floor increases the rate of spread of wildfires."

The report was done at the request of Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, but it was conducted by the agency that analyzes policy for all of Congress. Some Republicans who have linked Clinton forest policies to the fires say the report is not conclusive enough to determine policy.

"It presents a mixed picture," said Gov. Marc Racicot, Republican of Montana. "This year is the lowest ever for timber harvesting and it could be the worst fire year in decades."

Next week, the Clinton administration plans to release its recommendations on how to manage more than 40 million acres that are considered to be at extreme risk of wildfires.

"These fires are being used by both the timber industry and environmentalists," Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said. "One side says increase logging; the other side says no logging, even thinning. Neither position is the accurate way to address forest health problems."

Mr. Babbitt said the commercial logging program for national forests would not play a significant role in the plan to be presented next week. The plan will try to restore forest health through controlled burns and some thinning, and try to get people who live in forested areas that are high-fire risks to clear the hazards near their homes, he said.

The report looked at logging and fires for each of the last 20 years. The years in which there was the highest volume of logging -- 1987 and 1988 -- were also years in which the highest number of acres of national forest lands burned. The report does not address this year, when logging has been at a historic low, and the fires are at near-record highs.

"The assertion has been that we're getting more acres burned as we have reduced the timber harvesting levels," Mr. Gorte said in an interview. "In fact, for the most part, we were getting fewer acres burned."

In the West, 77 large fires were burning 1.6 million acres on Thursday, but forecasters held out hope for residents and firefighters as their predictions called for rain and cooler temperatures across the northern Rockies through Monday.

The fires have been at the heart of a clamorous debate in the West. On Tuesday, on the day that Vice President Al Gore made a campaign stop in Oregon, a number of groups that favor more logging took out full-page advertisements in the state, blaming the vice president for the fires.

Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, has been critical of Mr. Clinton's timber policies, saying forest neglect and mismanagement have contributed to the fires.

"If you look at things on a short-term basis, we could concede some of the points made in this report," said Joe Sheffo, a spokesman for Mr. Smith. "But the fact is we have a cumulative problem. And the Clinton administration has known about it for years."

---

Vote the Environment

New York Times
September 01, 2000

To the Editor:

When it comes to protecting the earth (editorial, Aug. 28) -- rightly a big-picture issue -- voters need to keep the smaller picture in mind, too.

Local and state elected leaders make in-your-backyard decisions affecting a wide range of environmental issues, from curbing sprawl and conserving farmland to water-quality protection and smart transportation planning.

By Election Day, our organization will have issued candidate endorsements for races all over New York, informing voters who the best pro-earth candidates are. Then it's up to everyone to get out and vote for a cleaner, healthier environment, both locally and globally.

MARCIA BYSTRYN Executive Director, New York League of Conservation Voters New York, Aug. 29, 2000

---

California Energy Crisis

New York Times
September 01, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l01pal.html

To the Editor:

Re "States Deregulate Energy at Their Peril," by Gregory Palast (Op-Ed, Aug. 25):

Mr. Palast stated that the chairman of Green Mountain Energy Company, Sam Wyly, is a former business partner of George W. Bush. He is not.

Recent price increases in California have resulted from a capacity crunch and a failed market structure. The demand for energy in California has overwhelmed supply.

Since 1995, California has added only 672 megawatts, but demand in just the last three years has grown by 5,500 megawatts. California has set up a market structure in which few companies can compete.

Our company is one of a handful that have chosen to come into the state. We are succeeding because many Californians understand the connection between cleaner air and cleaner energy and thus choose Green Mountain Energy products that feature cleaner and renewable sources like wind, water and solar.

SUZIE QUINN South Burlington, Vt., Aug. 29, 2000 The writer is corporate communication manager, Green Mountain Energy Company.

---

Organic Food Safety

New York Times
September 01, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l01org.html

To the Editor:

John Tierney's concern about the "danger" of organic food (Big City column, Aug. 25) is easily addressed by the use of common sense. Washing fruits and vegetables before eating them should remove any residual bacteria from improperly treated manure.

But the same common-sense approach will not eliminate the health risks posed by pesticide-treated produce. Some of the most toxic pesticides used on fruits and vegetables penetrate the skin of the produce and cannot be removed by simply washing.

SARAH MATTHEWS Vineyard Haven, Mass., Aug. 29, 2000

---

Environmental laws curb firefighting

Washington Times
September 1, 2000
By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://208.246.212.80/national/default-200091232043.htm

Environmental regulations meant to protect plants, streams and fish are restricting the use of fire retardant and bulldozers to fight Western fires, according to residents and firefighters alike.

Firefighters say the use of bulldozers to draw fire lines is being severely restricted and they are forced to chop trees by hand. The use of fire retardant is prohibited near Montana streams containing Bull trout, which are listed as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act.

"Once the fire starts and you have all these criteria, it just throws out every fire plan and training about how to address wild-land fires," said Cy Jamison, former director of the Bureau of Land Management.

"If you put all these caveats on what fire bosses can do and what equipment is used you just tie the hands of the professionals whose job it is to put the fire out," said Mr. Jamison, who served under President Bush.

Westerners, who are accustomed to assertive firefighting policies under previous administrations, say environmental policies of the Clinton-Gore administration are crippling efforts to extinguish fires -some of which have burned for nearly two months.

"At Clear Creek, [Idaho], they stopped the whole fire line to look at sensitive plants to make sure proper riparian and stream management was followed," said one firefighter, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The Forest Service shut the whole thing down for a day or two."

The National Interagency Fire Council reported yesterday the Clear Creek fire is burning on 200,000 acres.

Harry Croft, deputy director of fire and aviation for the Forest Service in Washington, said he is skeptical of anecdotes from the field.

"It demonstrates people don't understand what is going on. It is not firefighting at any cost, we've learned that," he said.

"Some of those things are going to be true, but the cure can't be worse than the disease, and in many cases, bulldozers cause damage that lasts for years," Mr. Croft said.

He said bulldozer lines from a California fire 30 years ago are still visible and scar the land. When analyzing how to fight fires, the strategy this year is to fight fires safely and effectively, "not making more harm than good," and "balancing the need of environmental protection and firefighting strategy."

One firefighter agreed the heavy equipment can cause damage, but said it is easier to reclaim bulldozer lines than thousands of acres of scorched forests.

Aircraft assisting in firefighting are being told to steer clear of streams no matter the fire danger, firefighters said.

"On one stream, they made them quit pumping water because they were taking too much, making the water temperature come up and hurting the trout. Now the water is completely gone, it just boils down to steam and everything is dead in there anyway," the firefighter said.

"It's absolutely ridiculous the way they are doing this," he said.

Another firefighter said the refusal to allow fire retardant near Phillipsburg, Mont., because of the threat to Bull trout has allowed that fire to grow to 42,000 acres.

Firefighting experts say it is beneficial to use fire retardant in many cases as part of an overall control plan, but could not say whether the absence of that specific tool is hurting containment efforts.

However, they agree that chopping wood by hand rather than using bulldozers is slowing firefighting efforts.

"It does impact it quite a bit," said Les Rosenkrance, former director of the National Interagency Fire Center.

"Hand lines take so long to construct, and with a bulldozer, you can go quicker, build more fire lines . . . and have more effective fire lines," Mr. Rosenkrance said, while acknowledging the bulldozers will cause some environmental damage.

Firefighter Charlie Parke said federal officials are also reluctant to drag the chopped wood out of the fire areas because environmentalists are accusing them of logging the burned areas. He said officials are reluctant to even use logging equipment such as bulldozers because of the criticism.

Another firefighter said that rather than dragging the trees away from fires and disturbing the ground, U.S. Marines are carrying the wood out of the immediate fire area by foot.

In what is being called the record fire season in more than 50 years, 6.4 million acres have burned to date. In Montana, 28 fires are burning on 637,000 acres. In Idaho, 26 fires are burning on 720,000 acres. Firefighters say they have seen hundreds of dead animals that failed to escape the flames, including deer, elk, bear, mountain lions, moose and beavers.

Westerners are clearly frustrated by environmental and other federal regulations they say are hampering firefighting efforts.

"Everyone is disgruntled from the top to the bottom," Mr. Jamison said.

"There is a lot of pent-up anger that goes back to the policies of the Clinton administration, which tried to manage forests like pre-European times and you can't do that. They have sat on their hands for the last eight years," Mr. Jamison said.

The Clinton administration is also embracing a policy of just letting the fires burn, saying it will clear underbrush and dead trees. However, critics say some fires could have been avoided by allowing logging companies to thin the trees.

Don Shearer, a Montana farmer, said the Forest Service deserves credit for their firefighting efforts, but that "administrative regulations are hampering the whole mess."

The 75-year-old farmer sparred with the Forest Service recently when a fire broke out on his private property and an official ordered Mr. Shearer to stop fighting the fire because he was not following safety regulations.

When the Forest Service official threatened to arrest Mr. Shearer, he said he ignored the threat and said, "Get . . . out of my way, I have work to do."

With the assistance of his son and local volunteer firefighters, they were able to draw a fire line and stop the fire on his property. After returning a hard hat the Forest Service official ordered him to wear, he was told he would not be arrested.

While Mr. Shearer was fighting the fire on one end on his property the fire was left unattended by federal officials on the other side and the fire escaped onto Forest Service property.

It is now the second-largest fire in the state burning 81,000 acres.

---

Whale of an issue

Washington Times
September 1, 2000
Embassy Row James Morrison
News and dispatches from the diplomatic corridor.
http://208.246.212.80/world/embassy-20009122710.htm

Japanese Ambassador Shunji Yanai defended his country's decision to expand whale hunting when he was summoned to the State Department this week to hear U.S. threats of trade sanctions and boycotts of bilateral fisheries talks.

Undersecretary of State Alan Larson called Mr. Yanai to come to the department on Wednesday, the Japanese Embassy said in a statement.

The ambassador said the Japanese hunt whales for research purposes, a right established under the 1948 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

He also said the species covered by the program are not endangered.

Japan earlier this year adopted a plan to catch 10 sperm whales, 50 Bryde's whales and 100 minke whales in the northwestern Pacific.

The State Department noted that sperm and Bryde's whales remain protected under U.S. law.

"The United States remains strongly opposed to Japan's expanded lethal whaling program in the North Pacific," the department said in a statement.

"Sperm and Bryde's whales are protected under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act and sperm whales are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act."

The department added that the United States is "actively considering all other options" against Japan.

The Commerce Department is expected to decide this month whether to ask President Clinton to impose trade sanctions.

The department can recommend punitive measures against a country that threatens endangered marine species.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher yesterday said that "we are taking on Japan."

"We don't like the whaling practice," he said.

"And the international community has made clear in its resolutions that they don't like these whaling practices.

"And in light of that, we are not attending several meetings that have to do with the environment and science that were to be held in Japan, because we just don't think it's appropriate for us to go there."

The United States is boycotting a meeting of the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, that opened yesterday in Japan and runs through Tuesday.

Washington also plans to boycott a related meeting Sunday that is organized by the Japanese government.

The United States will also object to Japan acting as host for next year's meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

To contact James Morrison, call 202/636-3297, fax 202/832-7278 or e-mail morris@twtmail.com

-------- police

Federal Agents Posed as Photographers to Track Skinheads

New York Times
Septemner 01, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/090100agents-aryan.html

COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho, Aug. 31 -- Federal agents posed as members of the news media to take pictures of neo-Nazi skinheads gathered this week to support the Aryan Nations at the trial of a lawsuit against them.

The Kootenai County Sheriff's Department revoked credentials issued to seven people late Wednesday after learning they were undercover agents for the F.B.I. and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Capt. Ben Wolfinger of the Sheriff's Department had initially directed the agents to obtain media passes so they could blend in with photographers covering the trial.

But after a reporter complained, Sheriff Rocky Watson revoked media credentials for the undercover agents, who were on the scene wearing photographer vests, glasses, hats and camera equipment.

"I was surprised it became an issue," Captain Wolfinger said.

Officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not immediately return telephone messages.

Representatives of the firearms bureau were at the trial to help inspect suspicious packages for possible explosives, said Tony Woo of the agency's Seattle office.

Asked if any of the agents were posing as journalists, Mr. Woo said, "On that I would have no comment."

"There are numerous investigative techniques we are deploying out there," he said.

The skinheads, many carrying Aryan Nations banners, have gathered outside the Kootenai County Courthouse each day since the trial began on Monday in District Court. Security is heavy. SWAT teams patrol the grounds and escort trial participants, while bomb-sniffing dogs and metal detectors are used to detect weapons because law enforcement officers have concerns about a possible terrorist attack.

Because of those concerns, reporters were required to obtain new photo-ID badges from the sheriff's office, and access to the courtroom has been tightly controlled.

Two people -- Victoria Keenan and her son Jason -- are suing the white-supremacist group and its officers for damages stemming from a 1998 confrontation in which they were assaulted and shot at by Aryan Nations security guards. The civil rights lawyer Morris Dees is using the lawsuit in an effort to bankrupt the Aryan Nations.

Members of the news media said it was dangerous for law officers to pose as journalists.

The Society of Professional Journalists may protest the agents' ruse, said Kyle Niederpruem, the organization's national president.

"No law enforcement officer should ever pose as a media person," said Ms. Niederpruem, city editor for The Indianapolis Star.

Reporters have enough trouble gaining public trust without having people "worried that the reporter knocking on their door" might be an F.B.I. agent, she said.

---

BRITAIN: SHORT OF OFFICERS

New York Times
September 01, 2000
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/00/09/01/news/world/090100world-briefing.html

The government introduced an $11 million television and newspaper ad campaign as part of an effort to help recruit police officers. The number of officers is now 124,418 in England and Wales, the lowest in a decade. With key crime rates going up, the government has promised 9,000 new positions but has had trouble attracting people to the profession. Warren Hoge (NYT)

---

Reality check

Washington Timez
September 1, 2000
Inside Politics Greg Pierce
News and political dispatches from around the nation.
http://208.246.212.80/national/inpolitics.htm

"The Rev. Al Sharpton's status with Washington's Democratic elite just keeps on rising. Last Friday, he commanded an audience with Attorney General Janet Reno and White House aides to demand a federal monitor for the New York City Police Department," Heather MacDonald writes.

"Mr. Sharpton has also demanded, and won, meetings with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and former presidential hopeful Bill Bradley. Last year he shared the stage with President Clinton at a Justice Department conference on police misconduct. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission glorified him as an expert on policing in its recent report attacking the NYPD. Mr. Sharpton's transformation from racial agitator to 'statesman' appears complete," Ms. MacDonald said in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

"But it's time for a reality check. If Mr. Sharpton's high-placed admirers are indifferent to his history of racial rabble rousing and character assassination [exemplified by the never-repudiated Tawana Brawley hoax], they should visit New York to see what their ambassador for minority rights is doing for racial harmony and police-community relations there."

Mr. Sharpton is doing everything in his power to undermine the city's new police chief, Bernard Kerik, as he attempts to repair relations between police and black people in the city, Ms. MacDonald said.

Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or by e-mail: Pierce@twtmail.com

-------- spying

Second American Was Detained Along With Accused Spy

Tampa Bay Online
Sep 1, 2000 - 04:24 PM
By David McHugh Associated Press Writer
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGI1VXVAMCC.html

MOSCOW (AP) - A U.S. businessman jailed here since April on espionage charges was originally arrested along with another American, but the second man was freed after questioning, the Interfax news agency reported Friday.

Interfax said Russia's Federal Security Service picked up Daniel Kiely of Pennsylvania State University at the same time it arrested Edmond Pope, who has been in jail since his April 3 arrest. Citing a report by the Voice of Russia radio station, Interfax said Kiely was questioned and "his complicity confirmed" before he was allowed to go home.

Kiely, reached at the university's Applied Research Laboratory in State College, Penn., referred questions to lab director L. Raymond Hettche. Hettche said he could not answer questions.

The State Department said it could neither confirm nor deny the Interfax report. A duty officer with Russia's Federal Security Service also was unable to confirm the account.

The Interfax report followed an angry public statement issued Thursday by the Russian Foreign Ministry. The statement accused the United States of using double standards by demanding that other governments take accused spies' health into account but not doing so itself.

Kiely's release showed that "the Russian special services often proceed from principles of humanity and the nature of relations between Russia and the United States," Interfax quoted Voice of Russia as saying. The report said authorities took Kiely's age, given as 68, into account when freeing him.

The Pope case has generated tension between the United States and Russia, and President Clinton may take it up with Russian President Vladimir Putin when they meet next week during the U.N. Millennium Summit in New York.

The Federal Security Service says Pope illegally bought plans for a high-speed torpedo capable of traveling more than 300 feet per second. He faces 20 years in prison if convicted.

Pope denies doing anything illegal. His representative in Congress, John Peterson, R-Penn., says Pope was seeking information on an underwater propulsion system that is at least 10 years old and has already been sold abroad.

Pope worked for the Applied Research Laboratory after retiring from the U.S. Navy. He later founded CERF Technologies International, a company specializing in studying foreign maritime equipment. He frequently traveled to Russia.

The State Department has called on Russia to free Pope. His family says he suffers from a rare form of bone cancer that is in remission and may return. Russia has not allowed a U.S. Embassy doctor to examine him.

The State Department increased the pressure this week, with a spokesman accusing the Russian authorities of failing to provide sufficient evidence to back up the charges.

---

NETHERLANDS: LOCKERBIE TRIAL SUSPENDED

New York Times
September 01, 2000
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/00/09/01/news/world/090100world-briefing.html

The Lockerbie trial was adjourned for three weeks to let American intelligence services search their archives for more information about a key witness, Abdul Majid Giaka, who was on a C.I.A. payroll at the time of the bombing. He is expected to testify that he saw the defendants place the bomb on a flight in Malta in May 1998.

Mr. Giaka was supposed to testify two weeks ago, but the defense demanded complete transcripts of C.I.A. interviews with him. Donald G. McNeil Jr. (NYT)


-------- activists

Senate "Mini-Nuke" Plan Could Lead to Nuclear Testing

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000
To: Trident Network
From: Stephen Kobasa <skobasa@pop.snet.net>

This month, the Defense Authorization bill for the US Fiscal Year 200l will be voted on in both houses of Congress. Both have drawn up their own versions and now the Conference Committe, made up of a number of congressmen and senators, will draw up a joint version which will then go back to both the Senate and the House for a final (usually pro forma) vote. The Conference Committee will start work on it right after Labor Day, September 5.

In the Senate version (only), there is a provision to allow the development of a new nuclear weapon, a "mini-nuke" with an explosive ppower of less than 5 kilotons. (The Hiroshima bomb was a l2.5 KT weapon, i.e. had a power- equivalency rating of 2,500 tons of TNT.)

This provision was placed in the Senate version of the Defense Autho. bill by Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Waye Allard (R-CO). (Colorado is the HQ for the US Air Force.) They put it in the bill in response to an Air Force request that would require the weapons labs to develop an earth-burrowing nuclear warhead that could be used in regional wars, such as the Gulf War or Kosovo, to destroy underground bunkers. These might be underground hide-aways where nation leaders likeSaddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic might be taking refuge, or storage areas where biological or chemical weapons might be held by so-called "rogue" states.

The development of a "mini-nuke" has been banned since l993, when Reps. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR) and John Spratt (D-SC) ensured passage of a measure preventing the labs from doing design and development work on "mini-nukes"; and this ban has been supported by the Armed Services Committees of both houses. The Warner-Allard provision threatens to take off this crucial "saffety-lock."

You yourself can help defeat this very significant move toward a renewed arms race by contacting Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) who is on the Conference Committee, through

phone: 202-225-2876 fax: 202-225-2695 e-mail: ike.skelton@mail.house

You can l) tell him of your opposition to the development of any "mini-nukes," and 2) ask him to support the removal of the Warner-Allard provision from the final languagge of the bill.

Skelton is Ranking Member of the House Select Intelligence Committee and is on the House Armed Services Committee, as well. If you can take the time, it would be VERY HELPFUL if you would also contact YOUR OWN district's representative and senators, too. They need to know how you feel before the final floor votes.

We need to make our voices heard, quickly, for the sake of ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and our world. Small efforts, early on, can sometimes change the course of history.

You can be sure that the multiple lobbyists of the "military industrial complex" will be pushing very hard for the inclusion of this "small" provision. It means "Big Bucks" for all of them.

(Probably none of them have ever read John Hersey's small ll6-page paperback, "Hiroshima," which had 52 printings between l946 and l98l.)

For more information, you can phone Tim Barner at "20/20 Vision" (800-669-l782) , or you can phone me at 94l-728-3049. For whatever you do, thanks. <bheinrich@webtv.net>
Bobbie Heinrich

----

Austrians in Czech reactor protest

London Times 09/01/00
FROM MARK ANDRESS IN PRAGUE
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/09/01/timfgneur01005.html

PROTESTERS are expected to blockade Austria's border with tractors and cars tomorrow in a protest against the opening of a nuclear power station in the Czech Republic.

The Temelin reactor is to go into test operation by the middle of this month, with full operation next spring. Designed on a Soviet model in 1986, the reactor, run by the Czech power monopoly CEZ, has been made like a Western reactor.

A diplomatic rupture between Vienna and Prague over the issue could threaten the latter's accession to the European Union. Wolfgang Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, was reported this week as saying that safety and environmental issues at Temelin should be linked to Prague's accession talks. On Wednesday, President Havel of the Czech Republic urged his Austrian counterpart, Thomas Klestil, not to link Temelin to the EU.

"Both Presidents agreed that safety should be guaranteed by international experts, which is already happening," Mr Havel's spokesman said.

Greenpeace believes the reactor could overheat, although Temelin said tests had shown that temperatures could be monitored accurately. Josef Pühringer, of the Upper-Austrian Platform Against Nuclear Danger, said he hoped the protest would influence returning Czech holidaymakers.

----

WIPP, CARD, and The Walk for Saner Solutions

From: Shundahai Network <shundahai@shundahai.org>

On Labor Day weekend Sept 1-4 CARD (Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping) will host a Walk for Saner Solutions. This walk is dedicated to Ed and Lily Zaragoza and the memory of Dorothy Purley. Please join us on this walk to honor the lives of Dorothy, Ed, and Lily and to let the public know about the consequences of nuclear weapons production, nuclear power, and nuclear waste dumping. Help us walk for saner solutions and find viable alternatives to those dilemmas.

This walk will focus on the Southwest and Mexico, due to the numerous toxic or radioactive dumpsites either located or planned for this part of the country. According to Felix Perez, organizer for Coalicion Bionacional Contra Tiraderos Toxicos y Radioactivos (Binational Coalition Against Toxic and Radioactive Dumps) there are 30 existing or planned dumpsites along the U.S./Mexico border.

There are plans to store high-level nuclear waste in Nevada. A nuclear waste dump has been sited near the small rural community of Andrews TX.

Another nuclear dump is planned for Monahans TX against the will of its mostly Spanish Speaking Residents. WIPP, sited in SE NM will host radioactive waste shipments from all over the US, while plutonium waste burned up gradient from a neighborhood in ABQ NM is not being dealt with.

Nuclear bombs are still being tested on Western Shoshone land in Nevada & atomic bombs are still being made in Los Alamos National Labs. A uranium mining company has already been licensed to establish a new uranium mine near Churchrock NM, which would intentionally contaminate a pristine aquifer, the only source of domestic and livestock water for that community.

The walk will begin in Roswell,New Mexico on September 1st at the County Courthouse and will end up in Carlsbad NM (home of WIPP- Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) on the 4th. CARD will provide picnic dinners, water, fruit snacks, port-a-potties, support vehicles (for gear & so some can rest while others walk, camping locations, and our love and respect.

Our hope is to bring citizen voices from all over the Southwest, other parts of the country, and Mexico, to focus attention on the desecration of our land and people by the nuclear industry. We encourage eberyone who is concerned about the continued destruction of our communities to join us on the walk. If you have any questions, would like brochures, or would like further information, phone/fax is (505) 266-2663

Email: cardnm@hotmail.com
New Mexico Research,Education, and Enrichment Foundation-CARD
144 Harvard SE, Albuquerque NM 87106
NEW WEBSITE ON WIPP- http:///www.unm.edu/~ryand/

---

Bearing Witness to U.S. Military Policy in Colombia
Witness for Peace Announces a ground breaking delegation to Colombia January 5-17, 2001

Date sent: Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From: Elizabeth Miller <miller@witnessforpeace.org>

Colombia has endured almost four decades of brutal armed conflict between the national army, leftist guerrilla movements, and right-wing paramilitary forces. Overwhelmingly, the victims of this conflict have been civilians. Into this situation, the U.S. Congress has approved the Clinton Administration's request for over $1 billion in military aid ostensibly to fight the "war on drugs." This delegation is a response to this aid package. More importantly, it is response to calls for solidarity from Colombian churches and human rights organizations that know this aid package will only escalate their country's violent conflict.

· Meet with a wide range of experts and activists to hear their analysis of U.S. policy vis-à-vis their country. · Learn about the economic roots of Colombia's conflict. · Hear testimonies of displaced people and others directly affected by the conflict. · Travel to areas outside of Bogotá to see first-hand the impact of U.S. military assistance. · Gather the tools and the skills you will need to work on changing U.S. policy when you return to your community.

For an application and more information, contact: Gail Phares Witness for Peace - Southeast Tel. (919) 856-9468 RPhares105@aol.com Or Elizabeth Miller Witness for Peace 202-588-1471 miller@witnessforpeace.org

This is a special delegation with space for only 20 participants. For information and guidelines on our Colombia program, please contact Elizabeth Miller at the WFP National Office.

Witness for Peace (WFP) is a politically independent, grassroots organization. We are people committed to nonviolence and led by faith and conscience. Our mission is to support peace, justice, and sustainable economies in the Americas by changing US policies and corporate practices that contribute to poverty and oppression in Latin America and the Caribbean. We stand with people