------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
China prepares for war with U.S. over Taiwan
U.S. Now a 'Threat' in China's Eyes
Dr. Doug Rokke's address on Depleted Uranium
Eyeing U.S. Missile Defense, Russia Wants Less Offense
The Leaner Russian Military
Gore Comes Out Against Using Nuclear Power

MILITARY
Colombian Rebels Leave Peace Talks
Rebels freeze Colombia talks
Providing U.N.'s Peacekeepers

OTHER
Global Warming Spawns New Business
Three LAPD officers convicted
Undercover officers arrested during GOP convention
4 L.A. COPS CONVICTED


-------- NUCLEAR

-------- china

China prepares for war with U.S. over Taiwan

Washington Times
November 15, 2000
By Bill Gertz
http://208.246.212.80/national/default-20001115222728.htm

Missteps and appeasement by the U.S. government helped China develop into a dangerous global power, according to "The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America" (Regnery), a new book by Bill Gertz, national security reporter for The Washington Times.

In the third of three excerpts, he examines the growing danger of nuclear war between China and the United States over Taiwan.

Use reality, make a noise in the east, but strike to the west. Cut time and strike in multiple waves. - PLA Col. Wang Benzhi, on missile strikes against Taiwan

"DSP reports five events from known ICBM bases in western China." The airman's voice was tense but carried an air of nonchalance, a sign of rigorous training.

The airman was stationed inside a dimly lit command bunker nearly a mile beneath Colorado's Cheyenne Mountain, along with 20 other airmen, soldiers and sailors from the U.S. and Canadian militaries. This is headquarters for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, known as NORAD.

At NORAD, they think about the unthinkable 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Closed to the outside world by huge steel doors designed to withstand a nuclear attack, the bunker is where military personnel scan the globe from computer terminals, looking for signs of missile launches. They depend on infrared sensors around the world, primarily the constellation of satellites with the nondescript name of Defense Support Program - or DSP, as the airman said.

The five "hot pops" he reported as picked up by satellite over China were the first sign of trouble. Less than a minute later came more bad news: "Sir . . . we have multiple missile launches. Stand by for target report."

A few seconds later, the intelligence officer on duty broadcast further details: "Intel indicates probable launch of five ICBMs from China. Intel assesses this to be combat against North America."

It was Sept. 3, 1999, and the Chinese missile attack was only an exercise. But it was a sobering reminder of how the strategic nuclear threat against the United States has not gone away with the demise of the Soviet Union.

A nuclear war with China over its dispute with Taiwan is a real danger. And even though the Clinton administration went to great lengths to ignore it, that danger is growing.

Shortly after the beginning of the simulated Chinese nuclear combat, five red lines emanating from western China streaked across the computer map in the command center. Each line represented the flight path of a Chinese CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, headed directly for the United States.

China's 24 silo-based missiles are old by American standards. But they can hit targets more than 8,000 miles away and are the backbone of China's strategic nuclear force. The missiles are based on the design of America's first generation of missiles, which China obtained from a defecting U.S. missile engineer.

Each of the CSS-4s carries a huge, 5-megaton warhead with the equivalent of 5 million tons of TNT - enough to blow up an entire city. NORAD's computerized attack-warning network plotted the targets of the incoming ICBMs and they appeared as dots on the giant map: Seattle, Colorado Springs (site of the Cheyenne Mountain complex), Chicago, New York and Washington.

Air Force Col. Allen Baker, NORAD's director of operations, explained that confirmation of Chinese missile launches would be followed by a call to the White House.

"At this point, I'd be telling the president how many minutes until Washington, D.C., is gone," Col. Baker said.

Flight time from China to the capital: about 35 minutes. Asked whether the U.S. military had the means to shoot down the incoming missiles, Col. Baker said, "Absolutely nothing."

The 'detargeting' lie

A national missile defense system to counter a limited attack such as this simulated Chinese strike -or an attack by a single North Korean missile - is being developed but may not be deployed for several years, Col. Baker said.

So why track the missiles?

"We're tracking them so we can tell our commanders exactly what is happening so they can figure out what their response is going to be," he said. "If they take out Washington, D.C., do we want to take out Beijing? I don't know. That's their decision."

NORAD's 1999 missile exercise also showed that the U.S. military could not afford to give up its strategic nuclear deterrent, despite efforts by the Clinton administration to pretend it no longer is needed.

Only months earlier, the president had announced that U.S. strategic nuclear missiles no longer would be targeted on China after the Communist regime promised to "detarget" its missiles and not aim them at American cities.

On June 27, 1998, Chinese President Jiang Zemin appeared at a news conference after meetings with Mr. Clinton in Beijing. He announced: "President Clinton and I have decided that China and the United States will not target the strategic nuclear weapons under their respective control at each other. This demonstrates to the entire world that China and the United States are partners, not adversaries."

As with so many other statements by the Chinese Communist leader, President Jiang lied. The proof arrived in a form common during the highly politicized Clinton administration. It was kept hidden from public view as part of a classified intelligence assessment.

On Dec. 2, 1998, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that that the Chinese People's Liberation Army conducted exercises that included simulated nuclear missile attacks on Taiwan and U.S. military forces in the region.

The exercises, which ran from late November to early December, involved road-mobile CSS-5 medium-range missiles spotted by U.S. spy satellites as they moved up and down roads along China's coast. The DIA report, based on sensitive intelligence gathered by U.S. spying systems, also cited activities by silo-based CSS-2s.

"They were doing mock missile attacks on our troops," said one official who saw the report.

A direct threat

Analysts determined that the mock nuclear attacks not only were targeted against Taiwan, but against about 37,000 U.S. Army troops based in South Korea and 47,000 Marines in Japan, including 25,000 on the island of Okinawa.

A White House official, confirming the intelligence report, said both weapons systems had "never been pointed our way before." But the official sought to downplay the threat by noting the age of the weapons (the CSS-2 first was deployed in 1971, the CSS-5 in the 1980s).

The important point missed by the White House - intentionally -was that the missile exercises directly threatened our troops. They also provided evidence that Mr. Jiang's promise about detargeting was hollow.

Or was it? The Chinese president had referred to "strategic" nuclear weapons. Apologists for Beijing argued that the CSS-2s and CSS-5s technically may not be in the same category as longer-range ICBMs.

The Air Force's National Air Intelligence Center dispels that notion. In its annual report on "Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threats," the center stated that medium-range missiles "are strategic systems" armed with nonconventional warheads.

One element of the exercises that surprised DIA analysts was the PLA's use of "obscurants" -smoke and particle-filled clouds dispersed around the mobile missiles to shield them from U.S. precision-strike weapons.

The Chinese missiles were seen ready for launch on mobile truck launchers, although none was fired. Pentagon officials concluded that the simulated attacks were a sign that China is prepared to go to war with the United States over Taiwan.

In August, the Air Force moved several dozen air-launched cruise missiles to the island of Guam, perhaps in anticipation of a conflict over Taiwan.

The PLA's 40 liquid-fueled CSS-2s, with ranges of about 1,922 miles, are being replaced in most regions of China with the more advanced, solid-propellant CSS-5s, with a maximum range of 1,333 miles.

Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military, believes the Chinese may interpret the June 1998 detargeting pledge to exclude shorter-range nuclear missiles and include only long-range ICBMs.

"Chinese doctrine puts special emphasis on missile forces, concealing mobile forces for obtaining surprise and using a wide variety of current and future nuclear and non-nuclear warheads," Mr. Fisher said.

Targeting Taiwan

Taiwan is a mountainous island about the size of West Virginia. Located off the southern coast of China, it has a population of about 22 million. Unlike its archenemy, Taiwan is a thriving, multiparty democracy. It also is a major international trading power.

Taiwan's military includes about 430,000 soldiers equipped with weapons obtained primarily from the United States. But U.S. arms sales to Taiwan were cut back sharply by the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile, China has dramatically increased its military forces over the past decade. In October 1998, a DIA report labeled "Secret" outlined a major buildup of short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan.

Until 1998, missile deployment had been modest and limited to a garrison of CSS-6 missiles at Leping. What the DIA uncovered was a Chinese plan to accumulate 650 missiles by 2005.

According to the DIA, China had 150 missiles near Taiwan in 1998 and intended to add about 50 new missiles a year. The report said the new missiles include two versions of the short-range, ballistic CSS-7 - Mod 1, with a range of 350 kilometers, and Mod 2, with a range of 530 kilometers.

Last Dec. 5, the DIA issued another secret report updating the missile buildup. The conclusion was not good news.

"The DIA believes there are at least 40 CSS-7 missiles in Chinese military bases near Taiwan," said one intelligence official familiar with the report. "This gives China the ability to target Taiwan with little or no warning."

The report stated that China's goal was to have 500 short-range missiles within range of Taiwan by 2005, allowing the PLA to target all of the island's major military bases.

"They will be able to take Taiwan with little or no warning," the official said.

The report identified a third missile base under construction along China's coast near the town of Xianyou. Photographs by U.S. spy satellites showed the layout of buildings and storage sheds was similar to that of the missile brigade headquarters at Leping, base for CSS-6 missiles.

The report also identified a second CSS-7 base at Yongang, including storage areas in tunnels. This was a sign that the Chinese were protecting the systems against U.S. bombers equipped with precision-guided bombs and missiles.

Unchallenged threats

Pentagon analysts viewed the buildup as ominous, since it showed that Beijing's intention was not to conduct aircraft or seaborne assaults but to launch barrages of missiles. A Pentagon report to Congress made public in June stated that Beijing views ballistic missiles - as well as ground- or sea-hugging cruise missiles - as "potent military and political" weapons against Taiwan.

And another, internal Pentagon report obtained by this reporter warned that the danger from the short-range missiles was growing.

"A large arsenal of highly accurate and lethal theater missiles serves as a 'trump card,' a revolutionary departure from the PLA of the past," the internal report said. "The PLA's theater missiles and a supporting space-based surveillance network are emerging not only as a tool of psychological warfare but as a potentially devastating weapon of military utility."

Even after this reporter wrote an article for The Washington Times about the intelligence on the missile buildup, President Clinton did not demand that China stop the destabilizing deployments. Mr. Clinton, asked about them at a news conference Dec. 8, said he had "grave concerns" about the growing threat.

"China is modernizing its military in a lot of ways, but our policy on China is crystal clear. We believe there is one China," Mr. Clinton said.

The phrase "one China" meant that whatever happens, the administration would stand with Beijing.

The dispute between the mainland and Taiwan should be resolved through dialogue and "we oppose and would view with grave concern any kind of violent action," the president said.

But Taiwan never has threatened the United States. Communist China has, and its threats went almost unchallenged by the Clinton administration.

'Not a wise move'

One of the most alarming statements appeared Feb. 28 in Liberation Army Daily, the official organ of the PLA that reflects the views of Central Military Commission Chairman Jiang Zemin and other senior leaders.

American intervention in a conflict between Taiwan and China would lead to "serious damage" to U.S. national security, the newspaper said. It warned in only slightly veiled language that China would resort to long-range missile attacks against the United States.

"China is . . . a country that has certain abilities of launching strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike," the newspaper said. "It is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which the U.S. policy-makers know fairly well also."

The threatening article was written by PLA Col. Zhu Chenghu, an influential hard-liner who is deputy director of the Institute of National Security Studies at the National Defense University in Beijing.

A war with China would force the United States to "make a complete withdrawal" from East Asia similar to the loss in Vietnam, his article said.

The Pentagon was surprised by the harsh, anti-American tone of what amounted to an official threat. But instead of criticizing China, Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon told reporters in a briefing that "Chinese doctrine" does not include "first-strike" nuclear attacks.

"And there is nothing new in that article that changes that," he said.

The answer was misleading. The PLA commentary made no reference to a "first-strike" attack, but to the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent or retaliation for intervention by U.S. conventional forces in a war between Taiwan and China.

Document 65

The Chinese missile threat to the United States reflected official policy, as revealed in an internal military document obtained by dissidents in China.

This reporter received a copy of the report, known as "Document 65." Dated Aug. 1, 1999, it is signed "General Political Department of the People's Liberation Army."

The DIA and CIA both have copies of Document 65, though the latter is not certain whether it is a genuine leak or a deliberate disclosure. Defense officials say the format is similar to that of secret materials delivered by defecting Chinese officials.

Document 65 declares that "a most important task" of the Communist Party of China is reunification with Taiwan. All military units must "be well-prepared for the war based on the rapidly changing relationships with Taiwan," it states.

That was the year Taipei declared it no longer was the government of all of China and thus no longer sought to take back forcibly what was lost during the civil war of the 1940s.

Document 65 discloses for the first time that the issue of Taiwan would not be allowed to "drag on indefinitely." The document says the Chinese military was given "solid grounds for achieving reunification using military power" because of Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui's remarks of July 9, 1999.

On that day, Mr. Lee declared that Taiwan "has been a sovereign state since it was founded in 1912" and called for relations with China on a "special state-to-state" basis. This was a challenge of Beijing's "One China" policy.

The document also states that the timing of reunification -peaceful or forceful - had been hampered by the United States. It adds that Europe would not join the United States in fighting a war with China.

'Better to fight now

Document 65 reveals what Pentagon specialist Michael Pillsbury has called "dangerous misperceptions" by China about the United States. It is just these kinds of misperceptions that could lead to a war.

For instance, Document 65 contains the following alarming passage:

"Taking into account [the] possible intervention by the U.S., and based on the development strategy of our country, it is better to fight now than in the future - the earlier, the better. The reason being that, if worst [sic] comes to worst, we will gain control of Taiwan before full deployment of the U.S. troops.

"In this case, the only thing the U.S. can do is fight a war with the purpose of retaliation, which will be similar to the Gulf war against Iraq or the recent bombing of Yugoslavia as far as its operational objective is considered, namely, to first attack from the sky and the sea our coastal military targets, and then attack our vital civil facilities so as to force us to accept its terms like Iraq and Yugoslavia.

"This is of course wishful thinking," the document goes on. "However, before completely destroying the attacking enemy forces from the sea and their auxiliary bases which together constitute a threat to us, even if we successfully carry out interception and control the sky, our military and civil facilities will still incur some damages."

Document 65 asserts that the U.S. military has not been tested in a major conflict with a large nation such as China and will become "exhausted" by long-distance warfare.

"It can be safely expected that once the U.S. launches an attack, the front line of the U.S. forces and their supporting bases will be exposed within the range of our effective strikes. After the first strategic strike, the U.S. forces will be faced with weaponry and logistic problems, providing us with opportunities for major offensives and [to] win large battles."

As for nuclear war, Document 65 states, the Chinese military "does not foresee" a strategic nuclear exchange because the United States has shown no willingness to fight a massive conflict and suffer "major losses" over Taiwan.

--------

U.S. Now a 'Threat' in China's Eyes

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, November 15, 2000 ; Page A01
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21693-2000Nov14.html

BEIJING -- In 1998, when China issued its second white paper on national defense, representing the consensus view of the government, the document mentioned the United States 10 times, each time positively. Last month, China's third white paper mentioned the United States 13 times. All but two of the references were negative.

The numbers underscore an important shift that will likely vex the next U.S. administration. Faced with what it feels is a shaky security environment and a strong and sometimes arrogant America, Beijing has increasingly viewed the United States as an obstacle to its rise as an Asian power.

In government pronouncements, stories in the state-run press, books and interviews, the United States is now routinely portrayed as Enemy No. 1. Strategists writing in the pages of China Military Science, the military's preeminent open-source publication, are grappling publicly with the possibility that the United States and China could go to war, specifically over Taiwan.

"A new arms race has started to develop," wrote Liu Jiangjia, an officer in the People's Liberation Army, in a piece in the magazine. "War is not far from us now."

The new calculus is rooted in a belief that the United States does not want to see China strong and powerful--a belief that has united officials of many political persuasions. Even moderate academics express the fear that the two countries, despite $95 billion in trade last year, are somehow headed for a showdown in Asia in the next 10 years.

"China's public view of the United States has changed quite seriously since 1998," said Shen Dingli, a prominent arms control expert at Fudan University in Shanghai. "The U.S. has been painted as a threat to Asian-Pacific security. We've never said it so bluntly before. . . . I think China is more clearly preparing for a major clash with the United States."

While few in China, except for some strategists in the army, seem to think war is inevitable, the fact that conflict with the United States is openly discussed is a significant development in China's security thinking and in its relations with the United States.

The United States is now perceived as opposing Beijing's two premier goals in the region: unification with Taiwan, thereby ending what the Communist Party has called 150 years of humiliation at the hands of foreigners; and gaining control over the strategic shipping lanes in the South China Sea, through which the bulk of Asia's oil passes.

But while China is increasingly united in its view of the United States as a possible adversary, the leadership does not appear united on how to deal with the challenge. Beijing's current policy is a modification of the policy pursued by dictator Mao Zedong in the 1950s. The country supports many policies that the United States opposes--regarding Iraq, Iran and former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic--and questions some key policies that the United States supports--such as humanitarian intervention in other countries and nonproliferation of missiles.

In some ways the tussles over how to handle Washington mirror those in the United States regarding China. Americans argue about engaging or containing Beijing; Chinese argue about engaging or confronting the United States. The United States has its "Blue Team," a group of politicians, academics and political aides who are concerned with the China threat. "And we have our 'Red Team,' " said Li Dongsi, a political scientist at People's University, referring to a vocal group of anti-American nationalists in research organizations, the military and security services.

"There is no clear sense of direction," said Shi Yinhong, an international relations specialist. "Positing the U.S. as a threat is too simple. It gives us no answers on how we are going to deal with continued U.S. dominance, how we are to deal with the worldwide trend in democratization, how we are to deal with globalization and with the loss of sovereignty implied by our accession into the WTO," the World Trade Organization.

China's views on the United States have always been contradictory; one term for the United States translates as "beautiful imperialist." But in the last two years, a cascade of bad news has increased China's misgivings about Washington.

Beijing's view of America has been soured by a combination of events: NATO's expansion; the strengthening of U.S.-Japan defense guidelines regarding joint action in the areas surrounding Japan; a congressional report alleging two decades of Chinese espionage in the United States; Premier Zhu Rongji's tough visit to the United States in April 1999 when he failed to secure an agreement on Chinese membership in the WTO. In addition, China has been disturbed by talk in Washington of a national missile defense system and talk that such a system might be sold to Taiwan. The May 1999 allied bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade during NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, which killed three Chinese journalists, outraged China, which declined to accept Washington's explanation that it was an accident.

"No fundamental change has been made in the old, unfair and irrational international political and economic order," last month's defense white paper said. "Certain big powers [the United States] are pursuing 'neo-interventionism,' 'neo-gunboat policy' and neo-economic colonialism, which are seriously damaging the sovereignty, independence, and development interests of many countries, and threatening world peace and security."

Central to this premise is Washington's relationship with Taiwan, an island of 23 million people that China generally views as a renegade province. The white paper said Washington's continued arms sales to Taiwan were stymieing its attempts to unite with the island. In September, the Pentagon approved the sale of $1.3 billion in arms, including $150 million worth of the AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM.

These events prompted a profound debate over the past year in China about whether "peace and development are the dominant trend of the times." That formulation, by the late leader Deng Xiaoping, is the fundamental underpinning of China's economic reform program, which placed economic development on the top of its four modernizations and national defense on the bottom.

While "peace and development" won out in the end, Chinese and American analysts, such as Evan Medeiros at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, believe that China's leadership is now paying more attention to military modernization--mainly as a result of troubled ties with the United States and problems with Taiwan.

Domestic political currents have also played a role. Beijing's political masters are replacing communism with nationalism as a new state ideology, creating an atmosphere that is not conducive to close ties with Washington. Indeed, Chinese officials say that these days China's version of political correctness demands a tough stance against the United States.

"We have a saying," said Yuan Ming, a professor of international relations at Beijing University: "It's better to be 'left' than 'right.' "

One official who appears to have learned this lesson is the president, Jiang Zemin.

"Jiang staked a lot of his credibility on improving ties with the U.S., but after the summit [with President Clinton] in 1998 he had no successes, so he was weakened," said Shen of Fudan University. "The leadership tried their best and their face was slapped by America. They must listen to the military now."

The modernization program pursued by the Chinese military is concentrating on missiles, warhead delivery systems and their accuracy, Western military experts say. China is also upgrading and expanding its nuclear forces; it possesses several dozen delivery systems, compared with thousands in the United States.

On Oct. 31, China launched its first homemade navigation positioning satellite, which could improve the accuracy of its missiles. That project, according to one Chinese arms control expert, has been a key task of the army's general staff department for 10 years.

China's air force and navy are also being upgraded. China has purchased Su-27 and Su-30 fighter jets from Russia and is starting to produce the Su-27. It has taken delivery of one Russian Sovremenny-class destroyer equipped with supersonic anti-ship missiles; it will receive another one shortly and, according to a Western military attache in Beijing, is prepared to buy two more.

It has purchased two Russian-made Kilo-class submarines and is believed to be buying one more.

Still, China's resources remain limited and military training is relatively primitive. China's defense spending is a fraction of America's and the secondary tasks the army is responsible for, such as combating floods and separatist movements in Tibet and the region of Xinjiang, can only hinder its modernization drive.

A Chinese research institute run by the Ministry of State Security forecast last year that the gap between China and the United States in key indicators of comprehensive national power would continue to widen for the next 35 years, according to a Western security expert familiar with the report.

China's leaders, in addition, have cautioned the military in recent weeks not to stray from the party line that economic development is still the country's top priority. Jiang criticized the military in a semi-public forum recently for increasing China's sense of crisis in order to justify bigger defense expenditures, a source close to the military said. Premier Zhu announced last month that China would do all in its power to settle the Taiwan issue peacefully.

Shi, the international affairs expert, said he believes that the next U.S. administration's dealings with China will have a great effect on China's behavior.

"The U.S. must neither be too fearful nor too nervous," he said. "In the end, the United States has a much bigger influence on China than China on the United States."

--------
-------- depleted uranium

Dr. Doug Rokke's address on Depleted Uranium, November 10, 2000

San Francisco Times,
Wednesday, November 15, 2000
http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$61

The following is a copy of the Address given by Dr. Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, at the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition 17th Annual Leadership Breakfast, at the U.S. Senate Caucus Room on November 10, 2000. Adrian Cronauer was Master of Ceremonies.

Distinguished Members of Congress, Coalition Leaders, Fellow Warriors, and Guests-- It is a distinct honor to address you today. During the Gulf War I was the U.S. Army health physicist assigned to 12th Preventive Medicine AM theater command staff and the 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command headquarters. I was recalled to active duty 20 years after serving in Vietnam, from my research job with the University of Illinois Physics Department and sent to the Gulf to ensure that all military and civilian personnel were prepared for the anticipated nuclear, biological, chemical, and environmental exposures. I also was assigned to two equally vital special operations teams: Bauer's Raiders and the Depleted Uranium Assessment team.

The preparations for war take many forms. Infantry soldiers learn and practice their combat skills, truck drivers practice maneuvering their rigs to make sure they can deliver supplies, and medical personnel prepare to treat the expected combat casualties. Ideally, preparations are driven by intelligence reports. However as the recent bombing of the U.S.S. Cole shows commanders may ignore intelligence information and not protect either their personnel or equipment. Prior to the start of Operation Desert Storm military intelligence reports and threats issued by President Saddam Hussein suggested that nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare and environmental hazards (NBC-E) would be employed to win battles.

As we prepared for the battle in the Deserts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, medical and combat unit commanders realized that medical personnel must be able to provide emergency medical care to conserve the fighting strength in an NBC-E environment. This required an assessment of medical capabilities. Four deficiencies were identified. First, an assessment of existing emergency medical response capabilities in the staging areas located within Saudi Arabia revealed the need to respond to medical emergencies resulting from combat to disease and non-battle injuries (DNBI). Second, an assessment of medical personnel arriving in Southwest Asia verified that most of them did not have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to provide medical care for the expected nuclear, biological, chemical, and environmental (NBC-E) casualties much less the conventional weapons casualties. Third, the we verified that that most operations personnel needed a NBC-E defense refresher course that was specifically designed for verified threats. Fourth, we needed to design and construct decontamination facilities, prepare standard decontamination procedures, and train personnel to provide immediate personnel and equipment decontamination. Consequently, Bauer's Raiders, the 3d U.S. Army Medical Command theater NBC-E special operations planning and teaching team was formed. Each team member had prior combat experience and was a qualified medical and NBC-E instructor. This team also designed and supervised the construction of the NBC decontamination facilities and provided operations assistance throughout the echelons above corps, corps, and coalition forces. Since 1991 numerous Department of Defense reports have stated that medical and tactical commanders were unaware of the probable NBC-E exposures and never told about the medical and environmental consequences of these exposures. THAT IS A LIE! They were told! They were warned! Immediate and long-term medical care was recommended. The threats, health and environmental consequences, and medical care recommendations were provided in written messages and during courses such as the 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command & ARCENT Medical Management of Chemical and Biological Casualties, the NBC-E defense refresher course, the Combat lifesaver course, and the Decontamination procedures course which we taught to over 1200 military personnel in the theater between December 1990 and February 1991. I gave the classified threat briefing specifically identifying the anticipated NBC-E exposures, taught the NBC-E defense refresher course, the combat lifesaver course, and decontamination procedures course. Thus I can confirm that commanders knew what to expect and how to be prepared!!! Another important fact is that although Department of Defense officials have stated over and over that the vital chemical and biological logs were misplaced or lost, U.S. Government Accounting Office representatives and the Pulitzer prize winning author Seymour Hersch have verified that these logs were ordered destroyed in Florida during December 1996 while Congressional committees were conducting hearings on potential exposures.

As the DU assessment team health physicist and medic I was responsible for planning and implementing DU (uranium 238) contaminated equipment and terrain clean up and for providing medical care recommendations for exposed personnel. As we surveyed the battlefield it became obvious that we had serious equipment, terrain, and medical problems requiring immediate action. Although, effects of uranium exposure have been identified the effects from combat exposure during ODS were unknown. We had over 100 friendly fire U.S. casualties and several hundred others with verified exposures because of their U.S. Department of Defense assigned duties. We also observed what is known as "Tours Are Us". This event was numerous individuals visiting and climbing all over contaminated and destroyed equipment and terrain without wearing any protection. I immediately contacted unit and the theater medical command staff to recommend medical care for all exposed individuals. Consequently, the theater occupational health physician wrote and then distributed immediate medical screening and care guidelines on June 13, 1991. As verified by GAO officials, it was ignored then and still is today. Upon our return to the United States our team continued to recommend immediate medical care for DU exposures. I described DU hazards and exposures and once more recommended immediate medical care during an Occupational Medicine conference held during February 1992 at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The Government Accounting Office based on reports issued recommendations for medical care, environmental remediation, and training during January 1993. On June 8, 1993, the Deputy Secretary of Defense ordered then Secretary of the Army Togo West to quote "complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during the Persian Gulf War". During August 1993, then Brigadier General Eric Shinseki signed the order on behalf of the Army. This order, in most cases, is still disobeyed without any accountability. A Headquarters, Department of the Army memorandum dated October 14, 1993 specified DU exposures that required medical screening and care. Although these directives and Army regulations require medical screening care for those exposed to uranium contamination, representatives of the Department of Defense and Veterans affairs continue to deny or delay medical screening and care. Today, affected individuals include military personnel from all nations that were involved, civilian non-combatants; and even residents of Vieques, Puerto Rico; Okinawa; Tennessee, Kentucky, Kosovo, Serbia, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. The wartime and now peacetime decision that you could just shoot solid rods of uranium 238 (DU) anywhere without providing medical care for all exposed persons and without cleaning it up is a crime against God and the citizens of the world. Recently, the U.S. Navy willfully used DU munitions during peacetime exercises on the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques in violation of laws and regulations. Still there is no accountability for these actions that spread radioactive waste that causes indiscriminate harm to all that are exposed for 4.5 billion years unless contamination is cleaned up. I ASK: WOULD ANY OF YOU WANT HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF RODS OF SOLID URANIUM WEIGHING UP TO 10 POUNDS EACH LYING IN YOUR BACKYARD? Of course not, so why should it be anywhere? Depleted uranium was only one of the verified exposures which also included chemical warfare agents, biological warfare agents, pesticides, industrial chemicals, endemic diseases, sand (El Eskan disease), food borne illnesses, water borne illness, organic and inorganic byproduct compounds from oil well fires, airborne particulates, asbestos, cleaning compounds, low level radioactive materials, and then the deliberate immunizations and drugs designed to protect individuals from verified threats. Many exposures were caused by our deliberate actions. We knew where Iraqi chemical and biological chemicals were stored so as General Schwarzkopf wrote in his autobiography .It Doesn.t Take a Hero., we decided to blow them up with artillery rounds and aerial bombardment. Consequently chemical, biological, and radiological warfare materials were released. We had specifically discussed this anticipated consequence and that medical care would be required for any exposures. Consequently, with these releases, thousands of chemical agent alarms were going off all the time all over the battlefield documenting exposures. A couple of weeks ago, DOD officials announced that they were modifying the exposure list again. It seems peculiar that 10 years after the fact and ten years after alarms went off that the exposure list is modified once more based on DOD analysis. Why can.t the assumption be made if an individual was near an alarm that went off that they were exposed? Yet, today, DOD officials still claim the alarms were all false alarms. If the alarms are ineffective who is responsible and why are they still in use? Because the logbooks were lost according to DOD officials, so there is no record of who was exposed based on alarm activation reports. Thus official denials continue to conflict with reality. And yet we wonder why confidence in DOD leadership has eroded! During the battle as enemy industrial and agricultural facilities, schools, businesses, and hospitals were destroyed individuals were exposed to released hazardous materials. Then as we prepared for battle, conducted battle, and cleaned up after the battle we exposed our soldiers to more hazardous materials. For example, after the completion of the ground war, a senior logistics officer and I were sent into Iraq by LTG Franks to clean up the 7th Corps. hazardous waste dump. It was total mess with observable releases and spills resulting in additional adverse health and environmental effects. We also decided based on the verified threats to immunize our troops against a whole host of diseases and biological warfare toxins such as anthrax and botulism. If immunizations been maintained rather than giving individuals 4 or 5 or even more simultaneous immunizations we could have reduced adverse effects on the immune system. But we did not; we gave individuals numerous shots at the same time and then did not keep track of what was given or what adverse reactions occurred. We messed up immune systems before deployment. Basically, after we declared war we had to immunize everyone. As I administered hundreds of anthrax and botulinum shots in Saudi Arabia, I could only wonder why we were ordered not to record any information. Once more, our actions to protect individuals against a verified threat ignored common sense. Today we know that the anthrax manufacturing process was never inspected and approved by the FDA before 1993 and today the FDA still has not approved the facility.

We also know that there are adverse short term and probably long-term effects. The anthrax vaccine that we administered was licensed for prevention of cutaneous and not respiratory anthrax. Then just within the last month, Department of Defense officials finally admitted after continued denials that an illegal adjuvant, squalene was used instead of alum in some vaccine batches. Consequently, we probably reduced the ability of the immune system to fight off the multitude of exposures that occurred.

Pesticides proved to be yet one more problem. Although, pesticides were ordered from official Department of Defense sources, they did not arrive in sufficient quantities so we were required to buy them on the open market to control a verified threat. Consequently, who knows what we actually used and what adverse effects could be related to their use?

The confirmed nerve agent threat resulted in the use of PB, which is actually a reversible bond nerve agent, in an attempt to reduce the effects of chemical warfare nerve agents such as Sarin, VX, Soman, Novachuks, and Multiple 7. PB can be compared to spraying gumdrops with Raid or Black Flag and then eating them. We expected adverse reactions from consumption of PB because it is a carbamate pesticide compound. Therefore, we made sure that NBC operations and medical personnel knew of potential adverse effects. Again, we knew there would be health effects and yet commanders decided to ignore our warnings and force individuals to eat PB tablets. As part of our discussions we also identified and warned about the anticipated interactions between pesticides, nerve agents, and drugs such as PB (pyridiostigmine bromide / mestinon). Official Department of Army medical records confirm that over 50 % of the individuals who took the PB got sick with nerve agent effects. OH WELL, ANOTHER ANTICIPATED ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT TO IGNORE.

Food and water problems were all over. We could not ensure that Saudi government supplied food preparation and serving personnel met even basic U.S. public health requirements. We saw too many food borne health problems which once more caused adverse health problems. Severe diarrhea was observed in troops eating at the mess hall located in the tent camp just off of King Abdul Azziz Airfield in Riyadh during December of 1990.

I was one of the casualties. We traced the problems to contaminated food. Similar problems occurred all over the theater of operations through at least May 1991. At one time during April we had so many at KKMC that were sick and because we did not have the medical supplies required to treat them, we just let them ride it out without medical care. THAT WAS WRONG!!!!!!! We do not even know if some type of biological agent was introduced via sabotage into our food supply or if troops crossed contaminated areas. WE DO KNOW THAT FOOD WAS PURCHASED AND SERVED THAT HAD BEEN GROWN IN NIGHT SOIL WHICH IS UNTREATED SEWAGE. We established strict rinsing and cleaning requirements during food preparation.

However, without complete control of food preparation personnel, we do not know if these guidelines were followed. Water borne problems occurred during bathing, drinking, food preparation, and decontamination. Rashes were observed in troops taking baths at Eskan Village and so we had to order no baths or use of chlorine to sanitize the bath water. This created a problem for female hygiene efforts. Even with use of chlorine to sanitize the water before use, rashes abound! The Star Lighter showers which used water from a box which was open to the air also caused problems, especially when water mixed with oil well combustion byproducts or other contaminants was used for bathing and washing clothes. We reported skin irritation upon taking a shower at King Kahlid Military City (KKMC) and other areas. Uniforms and clothes must be kept clean, yet my own DU team had to use the Star Lighters to clean our clothes while we took showers. So more contamination was spread on the ground. We did not have alternative choices to wash our contaminated clothes. The Service and Supply (S & S) Bath unit would not let us near their equipment and rightfully so for safety. I wonder how we will keep uniforms and equipment clean in the future?

The burning of the oil wells as Iraqi forces retreated was an excellent tactical operation. Health and environmental problems started immediately. Members of our unit were dispatched to conduct an initial assessment of potential risks. It was obvious that incomplete combustion of inorganic and organic compounds was occurring and that these were being released into the air and onto terrain causing immediate respiratory and skin problems. The released mixture was so thick that we used sticks to scrap the junk out of our nose, ears, and mouth. We reported immediate splitting headaches, breathing problems and burning skin. Official on-site medical command reports said that exposures were causing immediate adverse health problems. Consequently, we, by unanimous agreement, prepared, issued, and distributed the medical command directive that no one should be exposed to any oil well fire byproducts without respiratory and skin protection. We tried, yet, history proves that this directive was disregarded and now we suspect that the observed illnesses are caused in part by oil well fire byproduct exposures. Today, the full list of byproducts has been published and any first year environmental chemistry or other student studying hazardous materials would agree that you should NEVER expose anyone to even one of these pollutants much less the entire combination. Once again, hazards were recognized, warnings were issued, and recommendations ignored.

As we provided emergency medical care we wrote reports identifying respiratory problems, rashes, diarrhea, neurological, bone muscle injury, immediate problems from PB use, and immediate problems from oil well byproduct exposures. These medical problems were annotated into individual medical records as they occurred. Although, medical records did exist before individuals and units were redeployed the records disappeared. OH WELL.. IF THERE IS NOT ANY DIAGNOSED EVIDENCE OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS..... THERE IS NOT ANY PROBLEM. Medical personnel who performed the redeployment physicals deliberately ignored reported problems and denied that any exposures occurred. I tried to get my verified exposures listed but they said none occurred and refused to list the exposures or treat my respiratory and rash problems. Once we returned to the U.S. the observed health concerns forced the U.S. Department of Defense to initiate the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program (CSEPP). I went through the program during which serious medical problems were found that my VA physicians now know were caused by wartime exposures. YET, DESPITE MY BEST EFFORTS THE CSEPP PROGRAM PHYSICIANS REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL TESTS REQUIRED TO VERIFY KNOWN EXPOSURES. HOWEVER, EVEN THE DIAGNOSED PROBLEMS THAT THEY DID VERIFY WERE NEVER PLACED IN MY OFFICIAL MILITARY MEDICAL FILE. My medical reports. along with hundreds of others, were separated, locked up in a special room at Noble Army Hospital, Fort McClellan, Alabama, until I was told they were there and I was finally able with intervention to obtain these secret files during the fall of 1997. They were sent to me in the mail. I then had my Army Reserve Command Chief Nurse review the medical evidence and insert them into my official military medical file. Yet, it is worse. As we completed the Depleted Uranium Burn Test at the Department of Energy Nevada Test Site in November 1994, DOE medics performed a radio-bioassay on me that found 5000 times the permissible level of uranium in my body. THEN THEY NEVER TOLD ME FOR 2.5 YEARS. AGAIN A DELIBERATE ACTION TO DENY MEDICAL CARE BY PREVENTING CORRELATION OF EXPOSURES TO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS!!!

I am painting a picture that shows we knew about the threats, warned commanders about the threats, recommended medical care that was and is still ignored, and that our leadership has abandoned the troops for political purposes. Yet, it gets worse. While preparing to conduct our command level briefings and courses two senior Army medical officers came from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland to make sure we limited our information to commanders and medical personnel. IN OTHER WORDS: DO NOT TELL THEM-----THEY WILL NOT KNOW--- AND WE WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.

These two senior officers went to my unit commander and told him to force me to stop making sure the commanders and troops knew about the hazards and were ready to respond to the anticipated exposures and consequence health and environmental problems. AFTER THAT FAILED THEY WENT TO THE 3RD U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND STAFF TO FORCE US TO STOP AND THAT FAILED! There were and still are dedicated professionals who care! Yet despite our best efforts- the exposures occurred and today individuals are sick and medical care was and still is denied!! Exposures will continue because despite our efforts environmental remediation has been delayed or not completed.

To paraphrase 1950.s television program title; "I WAS THERE!" We knew, We warned. We were ignored. Today we are still ignored. TODAY, TOO MANY INDIVIDUALS AROUND THE WORLD ARE SUFFERING AND DYING BECAUSE OF OUR DELIBERATE ACTIONS. IN SIMPLE WORDS: THE BATTLEFIELD WAS A TOXIC SOUP TO WHICH ALL CIVILIANS AND MILITARY WERE EXPOSED. Reported, observed, and verified medical problems include: Respiratory problems, rashes, cancer, dental problems, eye problems, muscle weakness, neurological problems, birth defects, sexual dysfunction, kidney problems, memory problems, pain, cardiac problems, blood problems, thyroid problems, liver problems, and immune system failures.

Although, OFFICIAL denials continue when you see the same health problems over and over again in individuals from around the world then we must acknowledge a cause and effect relationship and accept responsibility to provide medical care.

Today, many of us; including scientists, physicians, pastors, and others; who decided to speak up about what occurred, why it occurred, what should have been done years ago, and what should be done now have lost jobs, experienced retaliation, and been threatened by Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and Department of Veterans Affairs officials. The direct and indirect threats, warnings, and attacks also have been directed to our family members to bring pressure on us to stop demanding accountability. This is all about liability! Therefore the truth must be suppressed! If what happened is acknowledged, then specific individuals within our government and other governments will be required to accept responsibility for the consequences of deliberate actions. The health and environmental problems are not limited to Iraq or surrounding areas. Similar adverse health and environmental effects have been identified within and around U.S. military installations or Department of Energy facilities in Alabama, Washington, California, Alaska, Tennessee, Korea, Panama, Germany, Philippines, Maryland, Nevada, Florida, California, and especially surrounding the U.S. Navy range on the Vieques, Puerto Rico. I recently had the father of a warrior stationed in California come up to me while I was eating supper in a restaurant outside Chicago to ask for help in obtaining medical care for his family who was sick from exposures.

Another dangerous location is Calhoun County (Fort McClellan) Alabama. Extensive PCB contamination mixed with contamination from DOD activities and the potential release of nerve and mustard agents during weapons incineration without any effective emergency response threatens the residents and the environment. DOD and Army representatives have told the residents of Calhoun County to just close their doors and windows and hold their breath in the event of releases. OH MY GOD!!!!! Recently, Denver Colorado residents were faced with the discovery of a bomb containing the nerve agent Sarin in a garbage dump. Somehow, Army officials had lost it!!! Then in a new press report dated November 1, 200 the Army admitted that their may be more lost Sarin bombs lying around the Rocky Mountain facility. NO WONDER VERY FEW INDIVIDUALS TRUST DOD LEADERS.

No matter where I go, I encounter individuals or families members seeking help. I receive telephones call day and night. Individuals approach members of my family asking for help. Physicians and scientists attending an international conference this past weekend at Manchester, England described, discussed, and carefully verified the serious adverse health problems from chemical, biological, and radiological materials releases.

The cancer rates, birth defects, neurological problems, respiratory problems, rashes, kidney problems, and many other medical problems seem to be increasing throughout Iraq, Kuwait, Serbia, Korea, England, France, Australia, Canada, Japan, the U.S. and the Vieques, Puerto Rico. Basically the OFFICIAL denial of exposures and consequent adverse health and environmental effects has been ongoing for years. The dilemma is that we made decisions based on verified threats and the tactical situation which were correct at that time but then since 1991 DOD and VA officials have ignored the consequences of these decisions and refuse to accept responsibility for current adverse health and environmental effects. The evidence exists and is increasing so we must acknowledge the adverse health and environmental effects of our actions. So what are our national obligations?

Two hundred and 24 years ago, the Minutemen of Massachusetts responded to a call to arms and our Nation was born. Now, ten years after the Gulf War and the abandonment of our nation.s military personnel and their families; recruiting and retention to fill our military forces with dedicated men and women is failing because Warriors have been denied earned medical care and too many are living on food stamps!!! Our nation is at risk!

I and others have sent numerous messages to the Honorable Dr. Bernard Rostker, Deputy Secretary of Defense, who was not there, whose staff was not there, and whose staff still ignores the warnings and recommendations those of us who were there for political and economic reasons. It is painfully obvious that DOD and VA officials have no intention of accepting responsibility for what has happened! The reason is very simple! If they acknowledge what happened to our nation.s heroes and accept responsibility for medical care and environmental remediation then these same officials must acknowledge the consequences of our actions on non-combatants and enemy forces around the world. We suggested that Dr. Rostker, Secretary of Defense Cohen, or the President Clinton state that: During the Gulf War essential decisions to protect our warriors and win the war were made based on the tactical situation and verified threats.

Today, we know that those decisions and our deliberate actions have resulted in serious adverse health and environmental consequences. We can no longer ignore the consequences of our deliberate actions. We apologize to our warriors, our warrior's families, and the citizens of the world. We resolve to provide medical care or medical care recommendations and complete environmental remediation.

ALTHOUGH, WE HAVE OFFERED THIS SOLUTION MANY TIMES IT IS IGNORED! We owe the combat veterans of our nation the medical care they earned! We must provide all WARRIORS with education and training to ensure combat readiness and prevent a repeat of what has occurred. We must provide military personnel with all of the operational equipment they need to complete their assigned missions.

We must hold those officials who have willfully harmed our nation.s heroes accountable for their deliberate actions. We must force a stop to the retaliation against those warriors who try to tell the truth and who epitomize our nation.s ideals expressed so eloquently by General Douglas MacArthur's three immortal words: DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY

We have the ultimate obligation as leaders of the world to provide medical care or medical care recommendations to all that are sick. Finally we have an obligation to complete environmental remediation of contamination caused by our deliberate actions throughout the United States and the rest or the world! I want to recite a poem that I wrote in memory of SFC John Sitton, a Vietnam and Gulf War Veteran, who answered his nations call during two wars. He was my friend! He is a true American hero because he set up and ran the 3rd U.S. Army's medical evacuation radio communications system during the Gulf War. It is ironic that the warrior who saved so many lives died abandoned on the battlefield of political denials.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR GOD, OUR WARRIORS, AND THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD! I will never quit until all individuals are cared for and environmental remediation is completed. I was ordered to complete that mission as a soldier and I will succeed even in the face of adversity! Today, I ask you to help. UNLIKE ANOTHER WARRIOR, I AM ONE SOLDIER WHO WILL NOT JUST FADE AWAY.

-------- russia

Eyeing U.S. Missile Defense, Russia Wants Less Offense

November 15, 2000
By PATRICK E. TYLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/15/world/15RUSS.html

MOSCOW, Nov. 14 - Unwilling to wait for a declared winner in the American presidential race, the Kremlin has mounted a diplomatic offensive to advertise its desire to make deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States as soon as possible after a new president takes office.

With a statement directed at Washington by President Vladimir V. Putin on Monday, followed by presentations today by a senior military commander and a top foreign ministry official, the Russian leadership chose this week of electoral chaos in the United States to make its case.

No matter who wins the election, the Russians said, Moscow is eager to move swiftly to eliminate the cost of maintaining large strategic nuclear forces a decade after the end of the cold war.

"What counts most now is that Russia and the United States start moving jointly or along parallel courses toward radically lowered ceilings on nuclear warheads without any holdups," Mr. Putin said before leaving for Mongolia and then Brunei for a summit meeting of Asian and Pacific leaders.

While in Brunei, Mr. Putin and President Clinton will meet for the last scheduled time before Mr. Clinton leaves office.

Russian officials hinted that Moscow might be ready to negotiate amendments to a treaty banning missile defenses, something Washington wants, if cuts in offensive weapons are deep enough.

The commander of Russia's strategic rocket forces, Gen. Vladimir N. Yakolev, warned Monday that Russia would find it "very difficult" to stop the political momentum in the United States for building a national missile shield to defend against attacks by rogue states and accidental launchings. Therefore, he said, Russia should make a new deal with Washington: trading any American buildup in missile defenses for deeper cuts - perhaps deeper than Russia's cuts - in offensive weapons.

The reason for the pressing Russian initiative, say analysts here and in the United States, has more to do with Moscow's domestic economic and security concerns than with American politics.

Saddled with an unfinished military campaign in Chechnya and a general deterioration of Russian conventional forces that may have contributed to the disaster that sank the nuclear submarine Kursk in August, Mr. Putin is pressing his military commanders to slash the still bloated Russian armed forces by a third or more. His goal is to build a smaller and more capable fighting force to defend Russia against threats of Islamic extremism in Central Asia and ethnic tensions loosed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

To finance the modernization of Russia's conventional armed forces, Mr. Putin would like to avoid the large expenditures necessary to maintain several thousand strategic nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

"Certainly we would like to save money on weapons that are never supposed to be used," said Aleksei G. Arbatov, a member of the defense committee of the Russian Parliament.

"Nuclear weapons are virtual weapons, designed and deployed never to be used," he said in an interview, "and this is the best area to seek economy while using our available resources for peacekeeping, or for countering ethnic or religious extremists and the destabilization which follows them."

In his statement on Monday, Mr. Putin said Russia was prepared "to consider even lower levels" than the 1,500 warheads presented by its negotiators in Geneva earlier this year at the outset of negotiations for a Start III agreement. Some officials said Mr. Putin would like to cut strategic arsenals to 1,000 weapons each.

Such a cut would require the incoming American president to issue a new directive to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to further reduce the list of targets in the highly classified plans for defending the United States in a nuclear conflict. Those war plans set a floor of 2,500 nuclear weapons necessary to cover all targets in current war plans.

Both presidential contenders have given Russia some hope that a compromise can be reached.

In May, Gov. George W. Bush declared that Russia "is no longer our enemy" and said that if elected he would order the Pentagon to conduct a new assessment "of our nuclear force posture" with a goal of significant further reductions, while also moving forward with a national missile shield even if Russia refused to amend the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which prohibits the deployment of nationwide missile defenses.

If elected, Vice President Al Gore has said he would seek to negotiate with Russia on amendments to the antimissile treaty to allow deployment of missile defenses, while also seeking further reductions in offensive weapons.

Ivo H. Daalder, an arms control expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said Mr. Bush's declaration demonstrated to the Russians that both candidates held out the promise of supporting much deeper cuts in the nuclear arsenals. Mr. Bush would support deep cuts while ignoring Russian concerns about missile defenses, thus freeing the Russians to take other steps to counter American defenses. But the net result would be fewer offensive weapons.

"The fact that the Republicans were the ones to break through the wall when it comes to going lower than 2,500 weapons provides the underpinnings" for a bipartisan American consensus to reduce offensive weapons, Mr. Daalder said.

Russia and the United States signed the Start II agreement in 1993, calling for cutting the superpower nuclear arensals in half - to 3,000 to 3,500 weapons each - and eliminating Russia's force of large multiple- warhead missiles.

But the struggle to win full approval for the treaty has carried over to this year. The Senate approved the treaty in 1996, but the Russian Parliament, dominated by Communist members, objected to its terms until April. It was approved after the election of a non-Communist majority.

--------

The Leaner Russian Military

November 15, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/15/opinion/15WED2.html

Russia's decision to shrink its military forces by 600,000 people over the next five years is encouragingly realistic. So is President Vladimir Putin's renewed call for drastic cuts in the number of Russian and American nuclear warheads. Russia can no longer afford to sustain the imperial-size forces it inherited from the Soviet Union. Conversion to a smaller, better-equipped force will allow more effective defense against any foreign threats and would decrease the risk to democracy from restive, underpaid military officers.

Russia has between four ion and five million men and women in its military forces, including regular defense forces and Interior Ministry troops. Almost one-fourth of the national budget goes to defense. Yet most soldiers are not paid enough to live on, some are not paid at all, housing and food are inadequate, training has been drastically cut back and equipment is obsolete.

Russia has moved slowly to shrink its armies and nuclear arsenal to more realistic levels. Influential generals have resisted the cuts and civilian leaders hoped that maintaining the military trappings of a superpower might preserve Moscow's diplomatic clout. But the strain of keeping up these troop levels merely advertised weakness. Ill- equipped and poorly trained units lost Russia's first war in Chechnya, and in the current conflict Russian forces have prevailed through the indiscriminate use of firepower against Chechen fighters and civilians.

The personnel cuts, announced by Mr. Putin this week, come partly in response to these developments. The money saved, together with planned budget increases, will let Moscow triple its spending per soldier over the next decade. That should produce a force strong enough to repel any external threats that may develop along Russia's frontiers in the Caucasus, Central Asia or Siberia.

Mr. Putin has also appealed to the next American president to reduce both sides' nuclear warheads to somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 each. Currently each has more than 5,000 warheads available for use on intercontinental missiles or bombers. Further reductions have been held up by arguments over American missile defense plans. Even if that issue were resolved, the Pentagon has opposed cutting American warheads below 2,000 to 2,500. Russia cannot afford to maintain strategic nuclear forces that large. If Moscow proceeds with deep cuts, the Pentagon should reassess how many warheads America really needs.

The era in which Moscow and Washington spent trillions of dollars vying for conventional and nuclear supremacy is mercifully over. Russia's move toward a smaller, more modern military is healthy, and its eagerness to further reduce nuclear weapons levels deserves American encouragement.

-------- us nuc politics

Gore Comes Out Against Using Nuclear Power

November 15, 2000
by Reuters
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/111600-01.htm

THE HAGUE - The nuclear power industry's hopes for a major new role in combating global warming were shaken Tuesday by the distribution of comments by Vice President Al Gore that he opposed such a move.

In a letter dated Nov. 3 Gore, who is still awaiting the result of the presidential election that could put him in the White House, said nuclear should not be used as a means of cutting ``greenhouse gases.''

``I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable,'' Gore said in a letter to Harvey Wasserman of the Ohio-based Nuclear Information and Resources Center.

Gore said proposed U.S. legislation on restructuring the electricity sector excluded nuclear and large scale hydro electricity. ``It is my view that climate change policies should do the same,'' he added.

The comments will be warmly welcomed by environmentalists who fear world governments meeting at a ``climate summit'' during the next two weeks might allow nuclear power to be promoted in developing countries as a way of combating global warming, because it does not emit the carbon dioxide which comes from fossil fuels.

Canada and Japan are pushing for such a policy.

The leader of the U.S. delegation at the talks, David Sandalow, told a news briefing: ``The United States is open to discussion on this issue.

``We have expressed concerns. We have noted the challenges of cost, public acceptance, non-proliferation, waste and safety,'' he said.

Some 180 countries are meeting in The Hague to finalize the rules on implementing a 1997 United Nations agreement on cutting six gases believed to contribute to global warming.


-------- MILITARY

-------- colombia

Colombian Rebels Leave Peace Talks

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, November 15, 2000 ; Page A40
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21609-2000Nov14.html

BOGOTA, Colombia, Nov. 14 -- Colombia's largest guerrilla force today suspended cease-fire talks with the government. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, accused President Andres Pastrana's administration of failing to move against privately funded paramilitary groups that it has been fighting.

The FARC has left the talks, which are seeking an end to 36 years of civil conflict, several times since the discussions began almost two years ago. This suspension comes less than a month before the Colombian congress will decide whether to continue providing the FARC with a safe haven in southeastern Colombia.

FARC leaders called on the government to "clarify" its opposition to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, the privately funded group created to oppose the guerrilla insurgency. They also condemned Plan Colombia, the government's anti-drug program buoyed by $1.3 billion in U.S. aid.

Government negotiators did not immediately comment.

For months, FARC leaders and international humanitarian groups have called on the government to take a stronger position against the right-wing paramilitary groups that oppose the FARC. This week the army conducted several operations against them.

The indefinite suspension of the peace talks comes as FARC guerrillas continue to paralyze Putumayo, the southern state where the military phase of Plan Colombia will begin next month.

--------

Rebels freeze Colombia talks

USA Today
11/14/00
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwstue09.htm

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) - Leftist guerrillas on Tuesday declared a freeze on negotiations to end the country's 36-year conflict, accusing the government of tolerating right-wing paramilitary groups and of favoring a U.S.-backed military offensive over peace talks.

The announcement by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, cast into further disarray efforts by President Andres Pastrana to reach a negotiated peace agreement with the country's largest leftist insurgency.

The rebel announcement came on the same day that the two sides were to open long-awaited cease-fire negotiations Tuesday and as the army was in the midst of an anti-rebel offensive in southern Colombia's coca-producing Putumayo province.

Presidential peace envoy Camilo Gomez said the rebel decision places the peace process ''at risk.'' Attorney General Jaime Bernal called the FARC announcement a ''pretext'' for avoiding cease-fire talks.

Speaking from a rebel stronghold in southern Colombia, FARC spokesman Andres Paris accused the government of tolerance toward a rival right-wing paramilitary group and of favoring a U.S.-backed military offensive instead of a real peace plan.

''Until the president and his government clarify before the country and the world its official position toward paramilitary terrorism, and the development of policies to liquidate it, the current dialogues should be frozen,'' Paris said, reading from a FARC communique.

Paris lashed out at a meeting last week between Pastrana's interior minister and fugitive paramilitary leader Carlos Castano, to obtain the release of a group of lawmakers kidnapped by Castano's United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia.

The government maintains the contact was for humanitarian reasons - not political dialogue. But Paris said it gave legitimacy to Castano's ''genocidal'' forces.

The guerrillas, alleging widespread massacres and assassinations by the paramilitary group, contend the 6,000-strong, landowner-backed militia force should be treated as a criminal organization.

Colombia's conflict pits Marxist guerrillas against the armed forces. But paramilitary groups allegedly backed by elements in the military have also joined the fight against the rebels.

Paris claimed ''militaristic'' elements in the media, congress, the business community and the security forces were conspiring to undermine peace talks in favor of a military solution.

''The conspiracy has as its central axis the application of Plan Colombia, that is, the open military participation of the United States of America on our territory,'' Paris said.

The FARC opposes U.S. policy, including a $1.3 billion aid plan from Washington that will provide combat helicopters and training to Colombia anti-narcotics troops. The assistance is a major component of Pastrana's so-called Plan Colombia, an initiative aimed at eradicating drug crops protected and taxed by the rebels and at shoring up the nation's embattled democracy.

Peace talks have also been faltering with Colombia's second-largest rebel group, the National Liberation Army, or ELN, accused by officials in a mortar attack Friday that wounded eleven people and damaged a hospital in Cali, Colombia's third largest city.

Explosions rocked the city again Tuesday, when a bomb went off outside a city police barracks, injuring four officers. Another person died when a bomb he was carrying exploded outside a shopping center. Police did not immediately assign blame for either explosion.

-------- u.n.

Providing U.N.'s Peacekeepers

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post
Wednesday, November 15, 2000 ; Page A36
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19973-2000Nov14.html

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 14 -- As recently as the early 1990s, American and European soldiers formed the backbone of U.N. forces trying to keep the peace in Cambodia, Somalia and the Balkans. But today, U.N. peacekeeping largely is subcontracted to Third World soldiers who endure the physical risk while rich countries bear the financial cost.

This situation, which has developed gradually as the United States and other developed countries have scaled back their involvement in U.N. missions, increasingly is under attack as unfair.

"You can't have a situation where some people contribute blood and some contribute money," said Lakhdar Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister who headed up a U.N. panel that studied peacekeeping and presented proposals for reform in August. "That's not the U.N. we want."

In the first 10 years of U.N. peacekeeping, from 1948 to 1958, the overwhelming majority of international casualties, including 41 out of 54 fatalities, were among U.S., Canadian and European troops. Today, if a U.N. peacekeeper is killed in the line of duty, it is far more likely that he will be from Africa or Asia.

In Sierra Leone, the largest and most dangerous of current U.N. missions, all 21 fatalities this year have been troops from developing nations--Nigeria, Kenya, India, Ghana, Guinea, Zambia and Jordan.

Bangladesh, a major troop contributor, proposed this week that the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members--the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China--each be required to provide at least 5 percent of the troops for any U.N. peacekeeping operation that they authorize. None of the permanent members supported the proposal, and it was dropped.

Developing nations now contribute more than 75 percent of the nearly 30,000 U.N. troops taking part in 15 missions around the world. The five largest troop contributors--India, Nigeria, Jordan, Bangladesh and Ghana--supply about 13,700 soldiers, well over a third of all U.N. "blue helmets."

The United States, Japan and European countries, on the other hand, provide relatively scant numbers of troops but will be billed for more than 85 percent of the $3 billion cost of U.N. peacekeeping this year.

Some of the major troop providers are losing patience with this arrangement. Jordan recently joined India in announcing plans to withdraw from the U.N. operation in Sierra Leone, citing in part the failure of NATO countries to participate.

The current division of labor also contrasts starkly with the early days of U.N. peacekeeping, when American soldiers joined European, African and Asian troops in attempting to keep the lid on border disputes and civil wars from the Sinai to the Congo.

Nearly a decade ago, the United States participated in a rainbow coalition of troops attempting to prevent starvation and restore order in Somalia. But after 44 Americans were killed there, President Clinton signed a presidential directive in May 1994 that imposed strict conditions for U.S. involvement in U.N. peacekeeping. American participation has since plunged from more than 3,300 troops in 1993 to zero today.

As the number of U.N. peacekeeping missions has surged in recent years, the United States has looked to regional powers to fill the gap. NATO has played a key role in the Balkans. Australian troops have taken the lead in East Timor. But African missions have been problematic.

"We all know that the U.N.'s most challenging and important operations face desperate shortfalls in terms of troops, equipment and training," James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy representative to the United Nations, said in a Security Council meeting Monday. "Unless we move decisively, peacekeeping--the core function of the United Nations--will fail."

U.S. and European officials insist that they are carrying their weight. They note that most of the 65,000 peacekeepers under NATO command in Kosovo and Bosnia are from the United States and Europe. In addition, Britain maintains a rapid reaction force for Sierra Leone, poised to bail U.N. troops out of trouble.

While U.S. officials acknowledge that they have been stingy with combat soldiers, they also note that Washington provides the United Nations with 36 military observers and 865 police in the Balkans and East Timor. The United States also has pledged to contribute six military observers to monitor the border truce between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

European countries have followed Washington's example, offering troops only in places where there are limited risks and where they have vital interests or historical responsibilities.

Like the United States, they have been traumatized by some past operations. In Rwanda in 1994, 10 Belgian soldiers were executed by Hutu extremists engaged in the mass slaughter of more than 500,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus. In Bosnia, U.N. commanders delayed a request for air support by Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica, where Bosnian Serb forces slaughtered more than 7,000 Muslim civilians.

"The Dutch had a searing experience in Srebrenica and the Belgians in Rwanda," said Britain's U.N. ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock. "The French and the British haven't quite had in recent years those experiences, but we could easily get caught in difficulty of that kind." As a result, the number of British and French peacekeepers has fallen from nearly 12,000 in Bosnia in 1993 to 576 in Cyprus and southern Lebanon today.

"The Europeans said if the Americans won't [contribute], we won't," said Chester Crocker, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

Some developing countries, on the other hand, have been eager to dispatch troops, partly for the money.

Pakistan, for example, believes peacekeeping provides valuable military training, burnishes the country's image, and raises morale among troops who are paid higher salaries than at home. "The public remains extremely happy when the army participates in peacekeeping operations," the Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharaff, said in an interview. "We would like to contribute as many troops as possible anywhere in the world."

Crocker noted that some of the U.N.'s most effective peacekeepers come from poor countries. "The Indians and the Pakistanis may be at war at home, but they are damn good at peacekeeping," he said.

Indeed, peacekeepers from the world's most technologically advanced armies have not proven much better at suppressing conflicts. "Their participation in Bosnia, Somalia and even Rwanda couldn't guarantee success," said David Malone, president of the New York-based International Peace Academy. "But their absence preordains failure."


-------- OTHER

-------- environment

Global Warming Spawns New Business

November 15, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/15/science/15CLIMATE.html

THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- In Canada, a company spews heat-trapping gas from its smokestack. In Finland, a power company switches to a fuel that produces fewer greenhouse gases. Thus, the stage is set for a deal -- not of power, but of pollution credits.

Efforts to check global warming have created a new commodity: pollution -- or the lack of it -- that is being traded on the market like sugar or equities. And it is producing a new breed of businessman, the pollution trader.

As negotiators from 175 countries continued talks in The Hague on Tuesday on how to curb greenhouse gases, emissions trading is standing out among the most contentious issues. Some parties denounce it as a huge loophole that will let major polluters go unrestrained.

A small group of professional traders are circulating among the delegates, holding workshops and explaining how trades can be structured, monitored, verified and regulated.

``We are telling them, 'This is how it works, you don't have to be afraid of it,''' said Garth Edward, of the New York-based trading company Natsource.

Natsource put together the deal last week for electricity company EPCOR Utilities Inc., of Edmonton, Canada, to buy 50,000 tons of carbon credits from Fortum, owner of the Finnish power plant that converted to from peat to biomass -- now using shrubs and residues from crop harvests to fuel the plant. The price was not disclosed, but credits normally sell for $1 to $3 a ton, said Edward.

EPCOR can bank those 50,000 credits, cashing them in later if it overshoots the emissions allowance set by the Canadian authorities.

So far, such deals have been small and experimental. But if trading become widely accepted, the price of credits could rise sharply, developing into a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Eventually, they could be traded in a bourse like soya futures.

Emissions trading was enshrined in the agreement concluded in Kyoto, Japan, three years ago, that set reduction targets for the industrial world, but the negotiators could not agree on how much trading should be allowed.

The United States, Japan, Canada and some other industrialized countries want a free and unlimited market. They argue it will lower the cost of meeting the Kyoto target of trimming emissions globally by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012.

``We reject quantitative restrictions and artificial limits,'' said Undersecretary of State David Sandalow, heading the U.S. delegation. Open trading ``will promote innovation and reduce cost. We don't have the luxury of wasting dollars, euros or yen.''

Environmentalists and the European Union say trading dilutes the incentives for industrialized countries to curb their own pollution, letting them buy their way out of their commitments rather than take painful steps to reduce pollution.

The United States has been singled out by the Europeans and many environmentalists for trying to evade its commitments to cut pollution by using emissions trading and other methods.

At a news conference Tuesday, Sandalow said the United States was showing flexibility in its talks at The Hague, citing the issues of nuclear energy and ``sinks,'' referring to the credits countries may earn for using land and forests to soak up carbon dioxide from the air.

``In order to reach a deal, all parties have to show flexibility from their historic positions,'' Sandalow said. He did not say how the U.S. position was modified.

The most glaring example of a pollution scam, environmentalists say, is the ``hot air'' trade with Russia and the Ukraine.

After their economies collapsed in the 1990s, the closure of factories led to a drastic drop in carbon emissions -- to just 37 percent what they were in 1990 in Russia, and 55 percent in the Ukraine. That left both countries with plenty of credits to sell on the open market.

Environmentalists call that gap hot air, because the lower emissions were not achieved through greater efficiency or switching to renewable energy. Some delegates want to review the Russian pollution benchmark, and so far no one has purchased any of the so-called hot air credits.

Emissions trading is not new. U.S. companies have been trading for several years in the industrial pollutants sulfur and nitrogen oxide, the main contributors of ``acid rain.'' The World Wildlife Fund acknowledges the trade has helped meet targets and sharply reduce costs.

``Acid rain, we reduced it faster and quicker than anyone would have predicted,'' said Sandalow, the U.S. delegate.

But the worldwide trade in carbon equivalents, which is being discussed in The Hague, might be much different, said Mark Kenber, of the WWF. The sulfur trade was transparent, tightly regulated, easy to monitor and subject to sever sanctions. Falsifying emission results could lead to a jail sentence, he said.

``These are the lessons we can learn,'' Kenber said. And the pollution traders will help. ``Finding loopholes will only bring down the price of credits -- and their commissions,'' he said. ``Traders are an essential part of the system.''

-------- police

Three LAPD officers convicted

USA Today
11/15/00
http://usatoday.com/news/ndswed03.htm

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Three of four police officers accused of framing gang members were convicted of conspiracy Wednesday in the first trial to come out of the LAPD corruption scandal.

The Superior Court jury found Sgts. Brian Liddy and Edward Ortiz and Officer Michael Buchanan guilty. Officer Paul Harper was acquitted.

The officers sat stone still as the verdicts were read, while their families, who filled two rows of the courtroom, showed no emotion. One woman told others as the proceeding began: ''Remember, no crying.''

The partial convictions were a victory for prosecutors working under District Attorney Gil Garcetti, who lost his re-election bid a day before the case went to the jury.

The prosecution had pressed forward despite losing their star witness: Rafael Perez, a disgraced former cop whose allegations about police brutality and other wrongdoing in the Rampart station started the widening scandal. Prosecutors declined to call him as a witness after he demanded immunity from murder charges.

The jury was told to consider the case against each officer individually.

Besides conspiracy, Liddy was convicted of one count of filing a false police report and acquitted of two other counts. Ortiz also was convicted of filing a false report.

Buchanan was convicted of all three counts against him which had to do with his claim that he was hit by a truck driven by a gang member. Liddy's convictions included that incident.

The probe of the Rampart station's elite gang-fighting unit has led to the dismissal of approximately 100 criminal cases. The city attorney's office has agreed to pay $10.9 million to settle 29 lawsuits connected to the scandal, and some estimates say damage settlements could cost the city $125 million.

At the heart of the case was Perez, a disgraced former officer who turned informant in exchange for leniency after he was caught stealing $1 million worth of cocaine from a police evidence room.

Perez claimed that officers in the Rampart anti-gang squad known as CRASH had framed gang members, planted evidence, testified falsely and even shot innocent victims.

Perez was expected to be the prosecution's star witness until he demanded immunity from murder allegations - now recanted - made by an ex-lover. Jurors were already deliberating when Sonia Flores said she made up the story because Perez had spurned her.

Without Perez, prosecutors were forced to rely on a parade of gang members with credibility problems and police officers who said they knew little if anything about the charges.

The four officers faced charges that stem from three cases between March 1996 and April 1998.

In one incident, an officer was accused of planting a gun on a gang member. In another, an officer allegedly rubbed a gun on a suspect's hand to get his fingerprints and frame him. Prosecutors also said Liddy and Buchanan fabricated a story about gang members trying to run them down in order to arrest them.

Defense attorneys said prosecutors had framed their clients much like the Rampart unit had allegedly framed gang members.

The defense called only the defendants and one accident reconstruction expert. The final defense witness, Ortiz, said Rampart officers handled all cases the same way and did not single out gang members for tougher treatment.

---

Undercover officers arrested during GOP convention

Nando Times
November 15, 2000 11:58 p.m. EST
By JENNIFER BROWN, Associated Press
http://www.nando.net/noframes/story/0,2107,500280232-500439830-502820740-0,00.html

PHILADELPHIA (http://www.nandotimes.com) - Four state police officers working undercover as protesters were arrested along with dozens of activists who were blocking a busy downtown intersection during the Republican National Convention, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

State police officials confirmed that at least six undercover state troopers were arrested during the protests last summer, despite vigorous denials from state and city authorities during the convention that any officers were infiltrating activist groups.

"We found out about it when we reviewed the videotape and began preparing the case for trial," Assistant District Attorney Trevan Borum said Wednesday. "As soon as we became aware of the arrests, as is our responsibility, we made full disclosure to (defense attorneys)."

The activists have alleged that authorities overstepped their bounds in preparing for the nearly 10,000 activists who flocked to the city for the GOP convention July 31-Aug. 3.

"It makes all the more clear that the behavior of the state police and of the Philadelphia Police Department was intended to infringe on people's First Amendment rights," defense attorney Bradley Bridge said.

A search warrant unsealed in September revealed that an undercover trooper was arrested in conjunction with the raid on a warehouse on Aug. 1. It is unclear where the sixth undercover trooper was arrested.

Philadelphia police are restricted from such undercover operations under a mayoral directive that has been in place since 1987. The directive says city police need the permission of the mayor, the city's managing director and the police commissioner before infiltrating protest groups.

Police Commissioner John Timoney has declined to comment on the reports of undercover troopers. He was out of town and could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Of the nearly 400 people arrested in disruptive demonstrations during the GOP convention, about 200 defendants have accepted plea agreements or had their charges dismissed. About 20 people remain charged with felonies.

---

Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2000
*THE MORROCK NEWS DIGEST
Fast, free and independent http://morrock.com

4 L.A. COPS CONVICTED: In the first trial resulting from the massive corruption scandal within the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Street Division, four officers were found guilty Wednesday of framing suspects for crimes not committed. All four had denied the charges during the four-week trial. A fifth officer was acquitted.

------- Onelist (submissions from subscribers)