NUCLEAR
Chretien, Putin discuss nuclear missiles
Russia, Canada Seek Clarity on Missile Plan
Uphill march for Putin
Putin seeks Canada's help to fight U.S. missile shield
Russia, Canada call for stability on missiles
Canada, Russia Promise Closer Ties
Putin Pays a Visit to Canada, Winning Support on Missile Issue
Putin Asks Canada to Mediate With U.S.
Canada, EU Plan Defense Talks
Chretien, Putin talk arms
China Congratulates Powell, Wary of Missile Plans
Palestinian Hiroshima
Texas says no to DU counterweight disposal
TV documentary on Kosovo: can you help?
GULF WAR DU ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE REPORT
DoD Updates its DU Environmental Exposure Report
DoD examines vaccine use in the Gulf War
53% Increase In Early Childhood Cancers Near Nuke Power Plants
India, Pakistan Remain U.S. Concern
Russia's Top Spies Speak Out on Secret Police Day
Washington Calling:
Rich Slice of Soviet Asia, Left to a Lonely Despair
Questions Haunt Lazio's Eriksson
Hoover Institution Fellows
Prelude to a Missile Defense
The Bush foreign policy
Europe, Asia praise Powell, Rice choices
At the Movies: 'Thirteen Days'
States
U.S. Foreign Policy May Change
The Powell Perplex
Powell, Up First for the Bush Team
Text of Clinton - Bush Statements
Bush Meets With Clinton, Gore

MILITARY
Citibank Starts Selling $250 Mln Loan for Colombia
Colombian Army Goes High Up to Fight Rebels
Cadet charged with dealing LSD, Ecstasy
States
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT THE NICE SUMMIT
Burmese Sales to the Pentagon Spark Criticism
Rocky Road to Liftoff for a Successor to Space Shuttle
Pentagon supports arms sales to Taiwan
U.N. Rejects Troops for Palestinian Territories
U.N. withdraws from Afghanistan
World Briefing
U.S. angles for a smaller slice in U.N. budget
U.N. withdraws foreign-aid workers
Copernicus Therapeutics, Inc.
Conneticut
Democratic objections doom bill on voting booths

OTHER
Study: Cell phones not linked to cancer
Report lets cellular telephones off the hook
MANHATTAN: MAYOR ENDS RADIATION
M.T.A. SET FOR HYBRID BUS ORDER
World Still Gripped by Warming Trend
Washington Calling
New Jersey Pastoral
Mandatory Water Meters
HARTFORD: STATE ENTERS BEACH FRAY
States
What's Next for Biotech Crops? Questions
I.M.F. Plans Billions in Aid to Argentina
City Hall and Police Union Trade Blame as Talks Stall
Foreign Spying in Russia Is Reportedly on the Rise
Terror Label No Hindrance to Anti-Arab Jewish Group

ACTIVISTS
Join us in a Solemn Candlelight Vigil
Democracy Petition- It's Time to Rock the Vote!
CharitEx Expands Online Financial Services for Nonprofit Organizations

-------- NUCLEAR

Chretien, Putin discuss nuclear missiles

CBC News
WebPosted Tue Dec 19 00:42:21 2000
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/12/18/putin_001218

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Jean Chretien says Canada is caught in the middle of growing tensions between Russia and the incoming U.S. administration over nuclear missiles.

Chretien and visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin have spent five hours behind closed doors over the past two days. When their meeting was over, the two men signed an agreement on nuclear stability.

Both are questioning plans by U.S. President-elect George W. Bush to create a national missile defence system.

Chretien and Putin and their key ministers signed an agreement on arctic co-operation, as well as the nuclear stability treaty - one that could catch the eye of the incoming president.

Canada and Russia have affirmed their support for the long-standing antiballistic missile treaty. And as soon as the ink was dry Chretien and Putin were questioning American plans to create a national missile defence system.

INDEPTH: An interview with Vladimir Putin

http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/putin/

Any North American system would need Canada's co-operation. Chretien admits being in between the U.S. and Russia on this issue is not a very comfortable position.

"We are in a bit of a geographical bind in a way, because Russia is on one side and on the other side is the Americans," said Chretien. "So we want to access all the consequences this program could have for Canada."

Russia says if the U.S. goes ahead it would destabilize world security. And now that it's no longer a superpower Russia is looking to Canada for a little leverage with Washington. Putin says Canada could act as mediator.

Putin appears to have gained Canada's cautious support in his fight against Bush's plans for a nuclear defence system. It's uncertain how the new administration in Washington will react to this new co-operation between Canada and Russia.

In other developments on Monday, Canada and Russia signed an agreement for greater co-operation in the Arctic as well as an Air Services Agreement. That allows both countries more landing rights.

Russian airlines now fly scheduled flights to Montreal. Under the agreement, they will get scheduled flights to Toronto and three other cities.

Putin is making his first official visit to Canada. Earlier on Monday, he met with the Governor General. Adrienne Clarkson spoke of the bond between the two countries.

"We are happy that we will be able to discuss with you the common interests in our North and the interests that we have also in good governance and in multicultural diversity," she said.

Speaking through an interpreter, Putin said the Canadian and Russian people must become closer and should work together.

"The global challenges of today, and the realities of the 21st century, call for us to pool our efforts and to work in close co-ordination - both in the bilateral format and in the international arena," he said.

Putin plans to explore an expanded trade relationship with Canada during talks with the government and business leaders.

Right now, exports to Russia account for only 0.2 per cent of Canada's international business.

Ottawa and Moscow are currently negotiating changes to a decade-old agreement designed to make it easier for Canadian businesses to invest in Russia.

On Tuesday, Putin addresses a business lunch in Toronto, where he's expected to tell people Russia is still a good place to invest.

---

Russia, Canada Seek Clarity on Missile Plan

Russia Today
Dec 19, 2000
http://www.russiatoday.com/news.php3?id=231606§ion=default

OTTAWA -- (Reuters) Canada and Russia called on Monday for the U.S. to clarify its plans for an anti-missile defense system and reaffirmed their commitment to uphold a landmark 1972 arms treaty Washington may want to alter.

A statement signed by Prime Minister Jean Chretien and President Vladimir Putin during a three-day visit by the Russian leader called for efforts to bolster the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and press forward with other arms pacts.

Both men suggested Canada, with its sensitive geographical position between Russia and the United States, could act as a go-between in negotiations.

The joint statement described the ABM pact as a "cornerstone of strategic stability and an important foundation for international efforts on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation".

U.S. President-elect George W. Bush favors amending the ABM pact to enable Washington to proceed with a proposed missile defense shield to prevent strikes by "rebel states" like North Korea and Iran. Outgoing President Bill Clinton has left the decision on the system to his successor.

Russia and China have led denunciations of the proposal, while leaving open the possibility of talks. Canada and Western European countries have expressed deep suspicions.

Putin, who arrived in Canada on Sunday from Cuba, had suggested close positions on the missile issue could be the basis for extending co-operation between the world's two largest countries, which straddle a vast polar expanse.

The Russian leader told a joint news conference the U.S. missile proposal "without any doubt will cause serious damage to the existing system of international security and undermine work undertaken for decades."

"We proceed on the assumption that dialogue with our U.S. colleagues will be continued in a positive manner," he said. CANADA AS GO-BETWEEN

"Canada believes that it could play the role of go-between between Russia and the United States on this issue. I believe Canada not only can do this, but is fully entitled to do so."

Chretien said Canada had received no formal request from the United States to take part in development of such a system, but wanted to know more of the possible consequences.

"Our preoccupation and everyone's preoccupation is to ensure that the stability which exists now is not undermined by this plan put forward by the Americans," he said.

"We are in a geographical bind, because Russia is on one side and the Americans are on the other. We want to assess all the consequences that this program could have for Canada."

The statement sought swift implementation of the 1993 START-2 treaty to cut long-range nuclear weapons, and efforts to clinch a START-3 pact to reduce warhead levels further.

It also stressed the importance of the Conventional Forces in Europe pact, revised last year to take account of Russia's troop deployment on its southern flank, where it has been engaged in a campaign to crush Chechen separatists.

Putin paid tribute to the outgoing Clinton administration's efforts on disarmament issues for clinching an agreement last week on exchanging information on missile launches.

"I want to welcome the active nature of the outgoing administration...Like players in the National Hockey League, they keep going until the final whistle," he said.

Other agreements signed after the two leaders' talks included a Canadian pledge to ease Russia's process of joining the World Trade Organization, a statement on developing Arctic regions, the expansion of commercial air links and an accord boosting links between Russian and Canadian regions.

The two leaders have pledged to boost trade links, expected to climb to C$1 billion ($660 million) this year.

Putin was to meet parliamentary officials and the leader of the opposition and attend a state dinner before leaving on Tuesday for Toronto, where is scheduled to address business leaders.

---

Uphill march for Putin

Montreal Gazette
Tuesday 19 December 2000
http://www.montrealgazette.com/editorial/pages/001219/5040172.html

Russian President Vladimir Putin has come calling with at least two big items on his agenda: to enlist Canada as an opponent of the U.S. national-missile-defence program and to persuade Canadians that Russia is a fine place to do business.

He has his work cut out, on both fronts.

While Canadians would love to see Russia prosper, Mr. Putin will have a hard time coaxing investments out of the business group he is to address in Toronto today - or anyone else - so long as corruption remains a big problem in his country, and so long as businesspeople cannot have much confidence that Russian courts will enforce contracts. Too many Canadian firms have had bad experiences.

Canada's announcement that it would help Russia fulfill some of the legal-reform prerequisites for membership in the World Trade Organization is welcome, but Russia clearly has much of its own work ahead of it (including significant lowerings of its tariffs) before it can expect actually to join.

As for missile defence, the most Mr. Putin could coax out of Canada yesterday was an expression of support for existing nuclear-arms accords and a statement that it is too soon to tell whether Canada would join Russia in opposing the plan.

At issue is a proposed successor to the Reagan-era Star Wars scheme to create a defensive system to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. The new plan is off to a slow start because of unsuccessful tests and the Clinton administration's ambivalence. However, U.S. president-elect George W. Bush seems keener.

The plan has been presented as a response to the threat of missiles launched at the United States by rogue states, but it has stirred vehement opposition from Russia, because it seems to contravene the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Canada, in the middle geographically, so far has found itself in the middle politically as well, appearing to share many of Russia's objections but also aware that membership with the United States in NORAD would make it difficult to take an independent course.

But Canada should indeed join Russia in opposing the plan. While missile defence sounds attractive, a major problem with it is that the obvious military counter-strategy of someone who expects to be faced with such a system is to build more missiles, so as to overwhelm defences. It also appears to be an impractical scheme that would just enrich military contractors with public money better spent elsewhere.

---

Putin seeks Canada's help to fight U.S. missile shield
Chretien sides with Russia, questions plan 'put forward by Americans'

Ottawa Citizen
12/19/00
Mike Trickey The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/001219/5040545.html

Prime Minister Jean Chretien sided decisively with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday in questioning the validity and necessity of a proposed new U.S. missile defence system.

Mr. Chretien, who usually displays little interest in foreign policy issues unrelated to trade, sounded more like his former foreign minister, Lloyd Axworthy, as he responded to questions about Canada's willingness to back the controversial program, which is supported by U.S. president-elect George W. Bush and vigorously opposed by Mr. Putin.

While careful to repeat that arguments about national missile defence were hypothetical because of repeated failures in American tests earlier this year, Mr. Chretien said Canada has many questions about the plan, which involves U.S. missiles intercepting incoming nuclear missiles and blowing them up in space.

"On the one hand, the U.S. often says this has nothing to do with the Russians, that it's more with regard to other states than Russia, but we have a lot of questions. Questions will be raised by the Canadian government," Mr. Chretien said at a news conference following a two-hour meeting with Mr. Putin.

The Russian leader is making his first visit to Canada since becoming president a year ago.

"We want to know all the consequences regarding stability if they put this system in place," said Mr. Chretien. "For every action, there is usually a reaction and we don't know what the nature of the reaction will be ... Our preoccupation and the preoccupation of everybody is to make sure that the stability that exists at the moment is not undermined by this plan that has been put forward by the Americans."

In a joint statement, Mr. Chretien and Mr. Putin underlined the importance of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and an important foundation for international non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament efforts.

Opponents to the national missile defence (NMD) system say the missile shield against attack by "rogue nations" that the U.S. wants to erect over its entire territory violates the ABM Treaty, which stipulates that no country can create a defensive system that provides full coverage.

The thinking behind the ABM Treaty is that if a country knows it will suffer badly in a counter-attack, it is unlikely to launch a first strike against its rival. The concept, known as mutually assured destruction, is credited with keeping the Cold War from becoming hot during the massive nuclear arms race of the 1960s-1980s.

Mr. Putin said Russia's objection to NMD is that if the Americans act unilaterally, it will upset the global balance of power.

"If one of the nuclear club members feels itself totally secure, this would absolutely change the balance of power in the international arena and this itself is a threat," Mr. Putin said, adding that Canada has a legitimate role to play because it is sandwiched between the continental United States, the ostensible target of a "rogue state" attack, and Alaska, which would be the launching pad for the American missile defence.

Mr. Chretien said he agreed with Mr. Putin's assessment that Canada is in a difficult position because "Russia is on one side and on the other side are the Americans."

U.S. military leaders want to operate the missile defence system out of North American Aerospace Defence (Norad) Command headquarters in Colorado. Norad is under joint Canada-U.S. command, and Canadian opposition to the missile plan might mean the end of Norad while the U.S. shifts missile defence to its own space command operation.

Mr. Chretien and Mr. Putin also agreed on the positive developments in Russia's business community, but provided little comfort to Canadian and other foreign investors who have had their enterprises stolen from them by crooked partners and corrupt courts.

Mr. Putin offered a lengthy explanation of the problems facing investors, claiming that most of their losses resulted from the 1998 Russian financial crash that was, he said, fallout from the Asian economic crisis.

He said a new tax code taking effect Jan. 1, new customs duties laws being put in place early next year and plans to strengthen Russia's arbitration and judicial systems will solve foreigners' problems, as well as those of domestic entrepreneurs.

"Those are necessary activities that are aimed at creation of necessary conditions that secure the interests of investors," he said. "This all has been done."

He did not touch on the rampant corruption inside and outside his government that has gone unchecked, nor did he talk about the country's infamous oligarchs, who have used their political connections and the point of a gun to take control of the country's natural resources and profitable businesses.

Mr. Chretien accepted Mr. Putin's assurances that all will soon be well and suggested the Team Canada trade trip scrapped in 1998 could be back on track as early as 2002.

Canada and Russia also signed three minor agreements yesterday.

One was a joint statement on strategic stability reiterating "the broad areas of agreement" between the two countries on many international security issues, including the "human security agenda," which pointedly did not mention Chechnya, which has seen tens of thousands of civilians killed, maimed or displaced in two separate wars over the past six years.

The other was a statement of co-operation in the Arctic and the north, particularly on environmental protection and sustainable development.

The final document reaffirmed Canada's support for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

Mr. Putin will address the leaders of Canadian business today in a speech to the Empire Club in Toronto.

---

Russia, Canada call for stability on missiles

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Tuesday, December 19, 2000
By TOM COHEN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/misl19.shtml
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=canada19&date=20001219
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=121900&ID=s897351
http://www.bergen.com/morenews/putin192000121978.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/12192000/nation_w/55109.htm

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Jean Chretien yesterday agreed with visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin that nuclear arms accords should be supported and strengthened -- but stopped short of joining Putin's opposition to a U.S. missile defense plan.

Speaking at a news conference on the second day of Putin's state visit, Chretien said questions remain about the proposal to build a land-based missile defense program. Russia says the plan would breach the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Chretien and Putin agreed in a joint statement that the treaty was "a cornerstone" of global stability. Asked if Canada joined Russia in opposing the missile defense plan, however, Chretien said it was too soon to tell.

Canada is in a "complicated position," Chretien said, with the United States to the south and Russia across the North Pole.

Questions about whether the missile defense system will work and how President-elect George W. Bush will proceed on the matter must be answered before decisions can be made, Chretien said.

"We don't want anything to happen to destabilize what we have at this moment," he said. "It's a question of wait-and-see."

Putin made his opinion clear: Russia considers the plan a threat to world stability.

"We believe deployment would no doubt damage significantly the established system of international security," Putin said.

The issue dominated a 20-minute news conference that followed the signing of agreements on expanded air services between Russia and Canada. The two countries also issued statements on cooperation in the northern regions they share and on Russia's efforts to join the World Trade Organization.

Canada said it would help Russia develop laws that conform to WTO legislation in other member countries and increase training for Russian officials in WTO-related areas.

With the three-day Canada trip that began Sunday night, Putin achieved his goal of meeting with every other head of state in the G-8 club of leading industrialized nations.

By playing host to Putin and a Canadian summit with the European Union today, Chretien is seeking to position Canada as a facilitator between Europe and the United States. Putin noted that because of its location, Canada is a natural intermediary on the missile defense issue.

---

Canada, Russia Promise Closer Ties

Reuters
December 19, 2000 Filed at 3:43 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Canada-Putin.html
http://www.herald.com/content/tue/news/brknews/docs/110763.htm

OTTAWA (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin got most of what he wanted in Canada -- agreements on closer cooperation and support for a bid to join the World Trade Organization -- but could not persuade Prime Minister Jean Chretien to reject a proposed U.S. missile defense plan.

The two leaders, continuing discussions that began over dinner Sunday night after Putin arrived from Cuba, met for 90 minutes Monday, then got together again for lunch and a state dinner.

With the trip, Putin achieved a goal of his first year in office: He has met one-on-one with each of the other leaders in the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations. It is part of his effort to invigorate a struggling economy and recapture some of Russia's Soviet-era status as a world power.

But the Russian president seemed certain to head home Tuesday with one hand empty after failing to elicit a firm Canadian statement opposing U.S. development of a national missile defense system.

U.S. supporters say such the purpose of the land-based system would be to intercept missiles that might be fired by rogue states. Russia says it would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tip the already lopsided scales of world power toward Washington and prompt a new arms race.

``We believe deployment would no doubt damage significantly the established system of international security,'' Putin said, later adding: ``This would ... absolutely change the balance of power in the international arena, and this itself is a threat.''

In a joint statement, Putin and Chretien did call the ABM treaty ``a cornerstone'' of global stability and nuclear nonproliferation that should be preserved and strengthened. Chretien, however, stopped short of matching Putin's opposition to the U.S. missile defense plan, saying it was too soon to tell.

Canada shares Russia's concern that the U.S. plan could spark a new round of weapons proliferation. But the issue is politically sensitive for Canada -- a NATO ally, northern neighbor and key trading partner of the United States.

Chretien said his country is in a ``geographic bind'' because of its location between the United States to the south and Russia across the North Pole.

Questions about whether the system can work and how the incoming U.S. administration of George W. Bush will proceed on the matter must be answered before final decisions can be made, he said.

``Our preoccupation and the preoccupation of everybody is to make sure that the stability that exists at this moment is not undermined by the plan,'' he said.

The issue dominated a 20-minute news conference that followed the signing of agreements on expanded air services and increased cooperation between administrative regions in both countries.

Canada and Russia also issued joint statements on strategic stability and Russia's efforts to join the World Trade Organization. Canada agreed to help Russia develop laws needed for WTO membership and to broaden training programs for Russian officials.

Another statement promised cooperation in the Arctic and northern regions, including plans for a bilateral ``North-to-North'' conference next year to discuss issues and opportunities in the two nations' vast northern stretches.

By hosting Putin and a Canadian summit with the European Union on Tuesday, Chretien -- in power since 1993 and recently elected to a third straight term -- is seeking to position Canada as a facilitator between his guests and the United States.

Putin touched on that, saying Canada's physical location made it a natural intermediary on the missile defense issue.

Both leaders also discussed trade, with Putin saying a new tax system and customs duties should improve the environment. Canadian exports to Russia, battered by a 1998 economic crisis, fell to $116 million last year from $255 million in 1997.

Putin was to address a business lunch Tuesday in Toronto before returning to Moscow. Chretien was to host French President Jacques Chirac and European Commission President Romano Prodi for the Canada-EU summit.

---

Putin Pays a Visit to Canada, Winning Support on Missile Issue

New York Times
December 19, 2000
By JAMES BROOKE
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/19/world/19PUTI.html

OTTAWA, Dec. 18 - Fresh from a visit to Cuba, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia visited Canada today and lined up its support for strengthening a cold war treaty that the Russians see as blocking an American national missile defense system.

"Canada and the Russian Federation agree that the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty is a cornerstone of strategic stability," read the joint communiqué signed by Mr. Putin and by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of Canada. In a diplomatic offensive directed at American allies this year, the Russians have argued that the treaty rules out the kind of missile defense system advocated by President-elect George W. Bush.

Such a system, directed toward "rogue states" like North Korea or Iraq, could be operated without using Canada's Arctic airspace. But Canada's leader seemed unenthusiastic about the idea.

"Our preoccupation and everyone's preoccupation is to ensure that the stability that exists now is not undermined by this plan put forward by the Americans," Mr. Chrétien said at a joint news conference.

Before flying here on Sunday from Havana, Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. officer, worked to soften his image with Canadians. In an advance interview with Canadian reporters, he recited National Hockey League statistics, mused about working as an environmentalist after serving as president, and disclosed that he is studying English. Today Mr. Putin said Canada could be a "mediator" between Russia and the United States over the missile system issue.

Last month, after Mr. Chrétien won a third term as prime minister, his aides noted that, with President Clinton's retirement in January, Mr. Chrétien will be the longest-serving leader among the world's seven major industrial nations and Russia.

With his Canada trip, Mr. Putin achieves his goal of meeting this year with every head of government of the group, which also includes Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Saving this trip for last, he seemed to be trying to tweak Washington.

Some experts on Russia see a bit of tit for tat for American diplomatic and commercial forays into Russia's "near abroad" - the southern belt of former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

"Putin, by bringing a diplomatic offensive into America's backyard, has played a weak hand very deftly," Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation director for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a self-described "techno-skeptic" on the missile plan, said today from Washington. "The talks with Russians are going to be the way Powell described them on Saturday - tough negotiations," he said, referring to Gen. Colin L. Powell, tapped to be the Bush administration's secretary of state.

Mr. Chrétien said that the United States had not made any formal request for Canadian participation in the missile defense system: "We believe, at the moment, the question is more hypothetical because of the problems the Americans have had on technology.

Two of the most dynamic areas of cooperation between Russia and Canada were highlighted today. They are working to open up their space to send passenger jets over the polar region, which would generate million of dollars in new overflight fees. In the area of Arctic cooperation, Canada has spent $30 million on 45 development and aid projects for Russia's north since the end of the Soviet Union.

---

Putin Asks Canada to Mediate With U.S.

Washington Post
Tuesday, December 19, 2000 ; Page A36
By DeNeen L. Brown Washington Post Foreign Service
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/americas/A24445-2000Dec18.html

TORONTO, Dec. 18 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin pressed Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien today to mediate a dispute between Russia and the United States over a U.S. proposal to build a national missile defense shield.

Putin, making his first official visit to Canada, told Chretien that such a system would damage international security. It would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Putin said, and have the potential to start another arms race.

Chretien was noncommittal on Putin's request, saying at a news conference in Ottawa that it is too soon to discuss the issue. He added, however, that the Canadian government would formally ask the United States about the system -- current proposals for which call for the United States to build a network of anti-ballistic missile bases to protect it from a limited nuclear missile attack.

"We're in a bit of a geographical bind because Russia is on one side and on the other side [are] the Americans," Chretien said. "So we want to explore all the consequences for Canada. We don't want anything to happen to destabilize what is happening at this moment."

Chretien said Canada would take a "wait and see" stance until it learns whether President-elect Bush -- who has advocated such a system -- moves ahead with construction.

Putin condemned the system in strong terms today, saying at the news conference: "We believe the deployment of the national missile defense system will damage significantly the established defense system. This would absolutely change the balance of power in the international arena, and this itself is a threat."

In September, President Clinton left the fate of the system to his successor, citing diplomatic and technical problems. Two costly tests of the proposed system have failed, and many U.S. allies have spoken against the plan.

A Canadian official said today, "Canada has never been asked to participate in a missile defense system, so this is still a hypothetical situation." Nonetheless, the official said, "Canada believes very strongly in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which is the cornerstone for stability."

Putin and Chretien also signed minor agreements to increase trade and the number of commercial flights between the two countries. The two leaders also promised to work together to protect the environment in the Arctic.

---

Canada, EU Plan Defense Talks

Associated Press
December 19, 2000 Filed at 3:29 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Canada-EU-Summit.html

OTTAWA (AP) -- Canada and the European Union agreed Tuesday to meet four times a year to discuss Europe's new defense posture, including the planned creation of a rapid reaction force for crises that NATO declines to enter.

The agreement was one in a series on increased cooperation between Canada and the European Union emerging from a one-day summit, the last of France's EU presidency.

In setting up expert-level consultations on European security and defense policy, Canada and the EU were addressing concerns that the EU's recent decision to mount a 60,000-member rapid reaction force for peacekeeping missions and crisis response amounted to a challenge to NATO influence.

Born out of the inability of Western nations to act quickly during the Bosnian war and other European crises, the EU rapid reaction force would only take on missions turned down by NATO as a whole.

Most of the EU member states also belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which formed after World War II as a Western military alliance.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien and French President Jacques Chirac insisted Tuesday at a joint news conference with European Commission President Romano Prodi that the new European force would be an attribute, not a detriment, to NATO.

``We respect the essential nature of the Atlantic alliance,'' Chirac said, noting that the United States has in the past called for greater European participation in NATO missions. ``We cannot do this ignoring the United States, nor can we do this ignoring Canada.''

Chretien described the proposed European force as similar in concept to the bilateral security arrangement Canada has with the United States.

``We're a member of NATO and they have their own organization in Europe,'' he said of the EU and its proposed new military force. ``We're not part of it but through this document, we're associated with it.''

Canada went into the summit wanting guarantees the European force would only act in consultation with NATO, and would compensate the alliance if it used any NATO equipment or resources. The joint statement on defense and security called for quarterly meetings between Canada and the EU, with intensified consultations ``in times of crisis.''

Canada also volunteered to take part in missions of the proposed EU force, the statement said.

Chirac, Chretien and Prodi met for two hours before announcing agreements on increased cooperation in combatting international crime, programs involving higher education and training, development assistance, satellite navigation and defense and security.

They also discussed Chretien's meeting Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which Putin denounced a proposed new U.S. missile defense plan as a threat to international security.

Chirac also expressed opposition to the plan, which would require changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, considered the cornerstone of global nuclear nonproliferation. He said it could lead to ``a renewed proliferation.''

Chretien reiterated earlier statements that Canada had questions about the plan, but wanted to assess all consequences before making a final decision.

``We are of the same preoccupation that this could lead us to what we call a renewal of the armament race,'' he said.

---

Chretien, Putin talk arms

Chicago Sun-Times
December 19, 2000
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/combo19cx.html

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien agreed Monday with visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin that existing nuclear arms agreements should be supported and strengthened--but he stopped short of joining Putin's opposition to a U.S. missile defense plan. Russia says the plan would breach the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Chretien said he would like to see how U.S. President-elect George W. Bush will proceed on the matter before making a final decision. "We don't want anything to happen to destabilize what we have at this moment," Chretien said.

-------- china

China Congratulates Powell, Wary of Missile Plans

Inside China Today
Dec 19, 2000
http://www.insidechina.com/news.php3?id=231796

BEIJING -- (Reuters) China sent congratulations on Tuesday to future U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, but reiterated opposition to a missile defense system that Powell and President-elect George W. Bush advocate building.

Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan sent a letter of congratulations to Powell, ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue told a regular news conference.

Asked to comment on Powell's support for missile defense, Zhang said: "The general trend of the current world is peace and development. But under such a background, some countries still want to deploy a national missile defense system".

"China is seriously concerned about it," she said. Powell gave his support for a missile defense initiative in a ceremony on Saturday marking his nomination by Bush.

U.S. President Bill Clinton has passed on to his successor the decision on whether to deploy the system, saying the technology was still not sufficiently researched to ensure it could protect U.S. territory from missile attacks.

China bitterly opposes the national system, fearing it could render its relatively small intercontinental nuclear arsenal impotent.

It also takes a dim view of Washington's proposed Theatre Missile Defense System to protect troops and allies in East Asia. They fear it would be used to shelter Taiwan, which Beijing has vowed to reunify with China, by force if necessary.

The defense system could shelter the island from mainland missiles, removing the threat of attack that is China's main means of deterring Taiwan from declaring independence.

NOT YET STRATEGIC PARTNERS

Powell said the United States would work under Bush's leadership to engage countries like Russia and China, which he said were "transforming themselves".

"We will work with them not as potential enemies, and not as adversaries, but not yet as strategic partners -- but as nations that are seeking their way," Powell said.

Bush referred to China during his campaign as a "strategic competitor" rather than a "strategic partner", as Clinton had termed the country.

Despite the change in rhetoric, Chinese scholars do not expect the Bush administration to adopt a confrontational China policy and view Powell as reassuringly moderate.

"He would certainly put American interests as a priority but he would follow the moderate line and he wouldn't go to any extremes," said Mei Renyi, director of American studies at Foreign Studies University in Beijing.

"I don't think that a new president and a new secretary of state would change China and U.S relations very much -- it would be more or less the same."

China would likely welcome another aspect of the new administration's foreign policy: its stated reluctance to use U.S. troops to intervene in humanitarian crises abroad.

China was a strident opponent of U.S. air strikes on Yugoslavia. The intervention struck a nerve in Beijing, where the government is navigating its own ethnic and separatist tensions in its western regions of Tibet and Xinjiang.

"On the whole the Americans are rather reluctant to send troops anywhere, but whether they will drop this idea of humanitarian intervention or not, we will have to wait and see," said Mei.

-------- depleted uranium

Palestinian Hiroshima

Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:08:22 +0100
Jerusalem Post

(December 19) - Minister of Interior Dr. Yusuf Abu-Safieh has confirmed that the occupation authorities have started using radioactive uranium ammunition to suppress the intifada and destroy Palestinian society. Abu-Safieh added that President Yasser Arafat has decided to assemble a special committee to examine the situation. The minister has warned of the dangers of Israel's use of uranium waste and radioactive materials, explaining that their destructive effects only appear at a later stage through genetic deformities affecting several generations, as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. - *(Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, Ramallah, December 15)

*The Jerusalem Post.

--------

Texas says no to DU counterweight disposal
Re Import license IW-010, Import of DU counterweights from UK for disposal in US

Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:47:17 +0100

excerpt from a Texas Bureau of Radiation Control Nov. 29 letter to NRC: (uncorrected OCR text obtained through ADAMS)

The exemption for depleted uranium aircraft counterweights in both U.S. NRC regulations [Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Section 40. 13(c)(5)] and TDH BRC regulations [Title 25 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Section (§) 289.251 (d)(3)(E)] is applicable only to counterweights installed in aircraft or stored or handled in connection with installation or removal of such counterweights; and~ manufactured in accordance with a specific license issued by the NRC. Because the counterweights in question do not meet the conditions specified in regulation for exemption, it is BRC's position that the counterweights are not exempt from regulation and must be disposed in a facility licensed for the disposal of radioactive material. Waste Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas, is not licensed for the disposal of radioactive material and may not accept the counterweights for disposal.

---

Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:45:05 +0100

TV documentary on Kosovo: can you help?
Louis Bertholet (SOVB)

Request for cooperation!

Michel Collon returned from Kosovo where he shot images for a TV documentary (50 minutes or more) about the situation of Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo today.

Please contact Michel Collon. All suggestions are welcome. Thanking you in advance!

Dear friends,

I just come back from Kosovo where I shooted images for a TV documentary (50 minutes or more) about the situation of Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo today. I was helped by very good and courageous profesionals there. We now have 450 minutes of very good interviews in Betacam.

This situation is dramatic and is not improving although there is now another government in Belgrade. On the contrary. Two weeks before, the representative of Belgrade was almost killed by a bomb. Many assistents of Rugova are also targets. Some Albanians I interviewed believe a civil war will occur in the next years. Between Albanians.

I interviewed many ordinary Serbs: old people beaten, expelled from villages or houses, doctors, nuns, journalists, teachers and children in the schools, theatre actors, families of kidnapped or murdered persons...

I also interviewed representative of other national minorities: Goranis, Roms, Moslims, Egyptians, Turks, Jewish. Expelled or living under terror. The situation in the ghettos is really terrible.

1200 Serbs were kidnapped and I received documents showing how KFOR (NATO) does not really investigate to find them neither the perpetrators.

I also interviewed a responsible of the civil Unmik administration whose opinions are very significant.

How can you help?

1. Do you know profesionals - producer and and mounter - who coule help me? We have no money but we believe it is our duty to communicate the truth all over the world about this Nato occupation.

2. Can you help to make translated versions in different languages? The interviews are in Serb (or Albanian and English), and will be translated to French)?

3. Can you help for the circulation of the film (I believe it would be good to present it for the second anniversay of the war)?

Please contact me. All suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance!

-- Michel Collon

Don't hate the media, be the media.

---

GULF WAR DEPLETED URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE REPORT UPDATED

Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:47:17 EST
No. 753-00 (703)695-0192(media)
IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 19, 2000 (703)697-5737(public/industry)

The Department of Defense released today an update to its environmental exposure report, "Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II)," addressing information gained from ongoing investigations and research into the use of depleted uranium as it relates to U.S. servicemembers' exposure to the material during the Gulf War. Based on the scientific evidence developed so far, the report concludes it is unlikely that depleted uranium exposure is a cause of the undiagnosed illnesses some Gulf War veterans are experiencing. This conclusion is supported by a recent Institute of Medicine review of the scientific literature relating to depleted uranium. The first interim report about depleted uranium was published in August 1998. This updated report reviews research conducted by both governmental and non-governmental agencies. It also includes the latest data available from a study the Department of Veterans Affairs is conducting on servicemembers who had the greatest exposure to depleted uranium during the Gulf War. Since 1993, the VA has monitored 33 veterans who were seriously injured in friendly-fire incidents involving depleted uranium. About half of this group still have depleted uranium metal fragments in their bodies. Additionally, this update refines previous Gulf War exposure assessments. The first battlefield use of depleted uranium in tank armor and armor-piercing ammunition took place during the Gulf War. Military experts say that depleted uranium weapons and armor contributed to the overwhelming success of coalition forces during the Gulf War. But after the conflict, some veterans have expressed concern about the chemical toxicity and radiological properties of depleted uranium and possible health risks from its use. Environmental exposure reports contain what is known today about certain events of the Gulf War. They are part of DoD's efforts to inform the public about its investigations into the nature and possible causes of illnesses experienced by some Gulf War veterans. This report is posted on DoD's website GulfLINK at <A HREF="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/"> http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/</A>. Other publications of the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses are also listed at <A HREF="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/">http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/</A>

--------

DoD Updates its Depleted Uranium Environmental Exposure Report

gulflink.osd.mil
December 19, 2000 http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/news/na_du_ii_19dec00.htm

WASHINGTON, (GulfLINK) - Information gained from more recent investigations and research into the use of depleted uranium has prompted the special assistant for Gulf War illnesses to release an updated version of the Department of Defense's environmental exposure report on depleted uranium in the Gulf War. The additional information supports previous assessments that depleted uranium is not the cause of the illnesses some Gulf War veterans are experiencing.

The report originally released in 1998 explains that the first battlefield use of depleted uranium in tank armor and armor-piercing ammunition took place during the Gulf War. Military experts say that depleted uranium weapons and armor contributed to the overwhelming success of coalition forces during the Gulf War. But after the conflict, some veterans expressed concern about the chemical toxicity and radiological properties of depleted uranium and possible health risks from its use.

The report examines the issues regarding depleted uranium exposures during and after the Gulf War and includes an explanation of depleted uranium's properties. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the process for converting natural uranium into the enriched form used in nuclear weapons and reactors. What remains after the process, the depleted uranium, is 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium is a toxic heavy metal. David Case, Ph.D., of the special assistant's environmental and occupational exposure team, says the health risks from its radioactivity are slight compared to the heavy metal toxicity risk.

"Exposure to depleted uranium can cause kidney problems because of its heavy metal toxicity," Case said. "The exposure that could cause radiation-related health problems is thousands of times more than the exposure that could cause heavy metal toxicity symptoms."

The updated environmental exposure report contains references to more recent information as presented in RAND's "Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Depleted Uranium." Other sources have also contributed to a better understanding of depleted uranium's effects.

"We also have a very important document put out by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry," said Case. "The ATSDR is charged with summarizing and informing the public about the health effects of hazardous substances."

Those profiles describe the toxicity of a substance over time. The ATSDR report on uranium focuses on the chemical toxicity of natural uranium, which is the same as that of depleted uranium. It also discusses how common natural uranium is, which is important when examining the effects DU may have on the environment.

"People who hear about the 320 tons of DU fired in the Gulf War have been led to believe that the DU could cause serious environmental problems, but the ATSDR report helps put it into perspective," said Case. "They report there are normally two to four tons of uranium in the top foot of soil per square mile."

The primary hazard associated with uranium is due to its chemical properties, not its radiological properties. ATSDR cites that "no human cancer of any type has ever been seen as a result of exposure to natural or depleted uranium" and further states that because of the low radiation from natural and depleted uranium, "no radiological health hazard is expected from exposure to natural or depleted uranium."

Case says the ATSDR report adds credibility to DoD's environmental exposure report because it provides a thoroughly peer-reviewed evaluation of uranium by an independent agency outside the Defense Department. In addition, the Institute of Medicine recently released a report that supports the environmental exposure report's conclusions. In "Gulf War Health, Volume I: Depleted Uranium, Sarin, Pyridostigmine Bromide, and Vaccines," the IOM reported its comprehensive assessment of the scientific literature available on four potentially harmful agents.

In its review of depleted uranium, the committee concluded "there is limited/suggestive evidence of no association between exposure to uranium and clinically significant [kidney] dysfunction."

The IOM also found inadequate evidence to determine whether an association does, or does not, exist between uranium exposure and other health outcomes. Citing information from studies of uranium processing workers and case reports of workers accidentally exposed to large doses of uranium compounds, the committee wrote, "While the studies did not suggest that uranium has adverse health effects, the studies were of insufficient quality, consistency, or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of an association in humans."

The revised environmental exposure report also updates the findings of the Department of Veterans Affairs study currently under way at its medical center in Baltimore, Md. Since 1993, the VA has monitored 33 Gulf War veterans who were seriously injured in friendly-fire incidents involving depleted uranium. Many of these veterans continue to have medical problems, mostly relating to the injuries they received during friendly-fire incidents. About half of this group still have depleted uranium metal fragments in their bodies. These veterans are being followed very carefully and a variety of medical tests are being done to determine if the depleted uranium fragments are causing any health problems.

So far, published results indicate the veterans who were in friendly-fire incidents have not experienced health problems related to their exposure to depleted uranium. Tests for kidney function have all been normal for veterans in the program. In addition, the reproductive health of this group appears to be normal in that no babies born to these veterans between 1991 and 1997 have exhibited birth defects.

"Overall, the medical news is good news," said Case. "But we're not stopping our work and Veterans Affairs plans to keep its investigations open, and continue to monitor those individuals."

The revised environmental exposure report also updates the Gulf War exposure assessments. Originally, the special assistant's office divided Gulf War exposures into three categories, Level I - involving around 170 servicemembers - being the highest level of exposure. The General Accounting Office criticized the original estimates, prompting the special assistant's office to take a closer look. These were re-examined by the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine staff who reevaluated the DU exposure Gulf War veterans may have received and the possible health risks.

"Modeling is not an exact science," Case continued. "It was difficult to interpret the exposure data because we didn't have a lot of it. The revised exposure estimates are still conservative." We are also sponsoring an expanded test-firing program, which is currently underway, to provide a full understanding of DU's health and safety characteristics in combat vehicles.

The updated estimates indicate that Level II and Level III exposure were far below any applicable safety guidelines. The assessments by CHPPM - together with the results of the medical follow-up program, and the work performed by RAND, the ATSDR and the IOM - form a body of consistent evidence indicating that depleted uranium exposures are not the expected cause of Gulf War veterans' illnesses.

This version of the report is an interim report. The final environmental exposure report on depleted uranium will be published when DoD is satisfied that the health risks involved have been thoroughly evaluated by the results from the live test-fire program. The Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute and the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute are continuing their research on the effects of imbedded depleted uranium fragments. Also, several laboratories are testing uranium levels in the urine of veterans, and common standards are being sought so the results of those tests can be compared. And, the VA will continue their medical surveillance programs for Gulf War veterans.

The entire environmental exposure report can be read on GulfLINK. Case emphasized that this is an interim report. We encourage anyone with information that might impact its findings to contact the office by phone at (800) 497-6261 or by e-mail at brostker.osd.mil.

---

DoD examines vaccine use in the Gulf War
Shortfalls identified, improvements needed

gulflink.osd.mil
12/19/00
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/news/na_vaccine_19dec00.htm

WASHINGTON, December 19, 2000 (GulfLINK) - The Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses released today an information paper detailing vaccine use during the Gulf War. Since the return of approximately 697,000 Gulf War veterans nearly 10 years ago, a number of veterans have expressed concern that vaccines may have adversely affected their health.

The paper complements a recently released report from the Institute of Medicine that evaluates the published scientific research on the health effects of specific vaccines used during the Gulf War. Citing inadequate and insufficient scientific evidence to determine whether biological warfare agent vaccines are associated with long-term adverse health effects, the IOM recommended long-term studies of the recipients of the anthrax and botulinum toxoid vaccine.

Vaccines are commonly used health interventions that serve as critical countermeasures against infectious diseases and biological warfare agents. The military's dynamic nature and the unique and diverse missions also require constant review and updating of vaccine policy to incorporate advances in preventive medicine, as well as responding to changing health threats, analysts said.

"The purpose of this information paper is to provide information to veterans and other interested individuals about vaccines, their use by the military, and issues arising from the administration of biological warfare vaccines in the Gulf War," says Army Col. Frank O'Donnell, M.D., director, medical outreach and issues. "For veterans, we hope this paper provides some context in which vaccines were used and a reasonable explanation for the difficulties surrounding their use."

The information paper was co-authored by Thomas Cardella, M.D., an infectious diseases specialist, and Tom Rupp, a senior health policy analyst. Both are assigned to the special assistant's medical issues team.

The authors reviewed policy guidance, operational and historical documents, and clinical reports as source documents for the information paper. No individual health records were reviewed, says Cardella. He adds the paper cannot provide detailed information on the specific vaccines that individual servicemembers may have received. However, the general information about the individual vaccines used in 1990 and 1991, why they were used and who would have received them may shed light on a subject of significant interest to Gulf War veterans.

During the Gulf War, vaccines - including two non-traditional vaccines, anthrax and botulinum toxoid - were identified for administration in response to the infectious disease and biological warfare agent threat. The decisions to select and use these specific vaccines were based on assessments of the infectious diseases and biological warfare agents that service members were likely to encounter during the deployment.

Military immunization policies then - and today - are developed in consultation with the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board and the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center. Particular emphasis is given to conditions that affect operational readiness, pose a risk in the community or occupational environment or are unique to a particular geographic or cultural setting, explains Rupp. The Defense Department also complies with communicable disease and adverse reaction reporting requirements established by civilian public health authorities.

The report notes that administration of the biological vaccines was characterized by several difficult issues, including a shortage of available quantities of vaccines to protect all servicemembers at risk, prioritizing military units for vaccination based the available vaccines and anticipated threat, and ensuring servicemembers had the information needed about the vaccines.

"Because supplies of the two biological warfare vaccines were limited, the DoD allocated the vaccines only to those personnel believed to be at greatest risk of exposure," Cardella says. "It was anticipated that the relatively long period between exposure and the onset of illness would make anthrax an agent more likely to be used against fixed and rearward units. The guidance called for two doses of vaccine approximately 14 days apart."

U.S. Central Command directed that personnel in units in the vicinity of Riyadh, Dhahran-Damman, King Khalid Military City -"KKMC" - Logistics Bases A, B C, D, and E, Headquarters VII Corps, the XVIII Airborne Corps, the 1st Cavalry Division and Bahrain receive the anthrax vaccine.

The botulinum toxoid vaccination guidelines specified that only personnel in units prioritized by Central Command, VII Corps and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, were to be vaccinated at that time and that limited available quantities of the vaccine would be available in February and March 1991 to vaccinate additional personnel. The guidance called for two doses of vaccine approximately two weeks apart, followed by a third dose 10 weeks after the second dose.

Because of the supply shortage, in some units vaccines were administered as voluntary. Rupp says that a message published after the Gulf War indicates that anthrax vaccinations were not portrayed as mandatory, but as highly recommended. Other reports indicated that the botulinum toxoid vaccine was likely declined by several thousand servicemembers. Informed consent wasn't required for either vaccine.

There is no accurate count of how many servicemembers received these vaccines. Estimates are that 150,000 received at least one dose of anthrax vaccine and 8,000 received at least one dose of botulinum toxoid vaccine. Rupp says that a recent survey of Gulf War veterans suggests that numbers of servicemembers who received these vaccines may be higher. "It is unfortunate that we don't have more accurate records of vaccinations from the Gulf War," says Cardella. "Today, this lack of documentation complicates research on possible connections between vaccines and the unexplained illnesses of some Gulf War veterans."

In addition to problems with lack of accurate recordkeeping, operational security concerns may have prevented many servicemembers from receiving important information about the vaccines they needed.

"During the Gulf War, the policy for informing servicemembers about the biological warfare vaccines was contained in the Central Command guidelines and was classified in order to preserve operational security. Prepared statements were to be read to servicemembers at the time of vaccination, but were not to be distributed," Cardella says. "Vaccine recipients were cautioned not to discuss the vaccinations with anyone."

Based on veterans' accounts, the policy to provide information to all servicemembers appears to have been implemented with varying consistency and success. A medical detachment commander reported that poor communication about the vaccines led to many fears among those potentially receiving the vaccines. There was a great deal of misinformation about the anthrax vaccine, he said. Many thought the vaccine was not FDA approved. Many feared drastic side effects. Other servicemembers reported they were provided no information on why the anthrax and botulinum toxoid vaccines were being given.

"Communicating information about health hazards of war and information about the benefits and risks of medical countermeasures like vaccines is essential. We tell Gulf War veterans they are their own best health advocate. They can't be an advocate unless they have the information needed," says O'Donnell. "This is one lesson of the Gulf War that is crystal clear."

Today, military personnel increasingly face routine deployments overseas and confront exposures to environmentally hazardous battlefields and risks associated with biological warfare agents. Vaccines are an integral part of DoD's new strategy of force health protection. The Gulf War experience has brought to light some shortfalls in vaccine administration.

"We have forwarded the observations in this information paper to the Lessons Learned Implementation Directorate for coordination with applicable offices within the military departments," O'Donnell says. "We intend to help ensure that identified issues are appropriately addressed."

Information papers are reports of what the Defense Department knows today about military, procedures and equipment used during the Gulf War. This release, the tenth information paper published by the special assistant's office, is intended to provide a basic understanding of vaccine administration. Although not an investigative report, the report will be updated if additional information becomes available. Gulf War veterans who have records, photographs, recollections or find errors in the details of the report are asked to contact the office at (800) 497-6261.

-------- germany

53% Increase In Early Childhood Cancers Near Nuke Power Plants

"Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:56:55 -0500
http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/childrencancers.html

Please see list at bottom for other epidemiological studies around the world. If there's no quality study or studies of cancer & other immune suppression related diseases at reactors in your continent, country, area, people might organize to plan just such a study[s]. This is one of the best ways to get these things finally shut down- have accurate study[s] conducted & get this out to the local communitties most effected.

Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants Alfred Körblein, Ph.D., Wolfgang Hoffmann, MD,MPH

Abstract

An epidemiologic study published in 1997 reported no significant rise in childhood cancer rates around West German nuclear power plants. The conclusions of this study were extensively used by politicians and lobbyists as proof of no increased cancer risk around nuclear power plants. A reanalysis of the data, however, reveals a statistically significant increase of childhood cancers (all malignancies) when the evaluation is restricted to commercial power reactors, the vicinities closest to the plants, and children of the youngest age group (0-4 years). The findings remain unchanged when the Krümmel reactor, with its known leukemia cluster, is excluded from the analysis. [M&GS 1999;6:18-23]

In November 1997, the German Minister for the Environment and Nuclear Safety announced to the media the results of a new investigation dealing with the incidence of leukemia and other malignant diseases in children living near nuclear power plants (NPPs) [1]. According to the Minister, the investigation had unequivocally proven that no risk exists. The study's conclusions were quoted extensively in the media and were readily exploited by lobbyists and supporters of nuclear power in the ongoing debate about health risks of NPPs in Germany.

The new study was essentially an update of an earlier study [2, 3] carried out by the Institute of Medical Statistics and Documentation (IMSD) in Mainz, Germany. The first study, covering the years 1980 to 1990, had found a significant increase in early infant leukemias within 5 km of all nuclear installations. The authors of the extended study (1980-1995) concluded that these risks were no longer significant. Furthermore, they claimed that no further research was necessary, since the new study had been based on more than 2,500 cases, and that the hitherto controversial issue was finally resolved.

In several previous studies in Germany and in other countries, however, increased leukemia rates near nuclear installations had been observed. Increased leukemia rates were reported for children living in the town of Seascale [4,5], near nuclear weapon factories in Great Britain [6], in the vicinity of the nuclear installation of Dounreay, Scotland [7], near the French nuclear reprocessing plant of La Hague [8], and for several locations in Germany [9]. Recent results from Japan, though based only on mortality, seem to confirm the general association [10,11]. A comprehensive study around nuclear power plants in England [12,13], again revealed significant increases in cancer mortality rates.

Conflicting Conclusions

The results of the first IMSD report [2,3] were generally in line with the observations referenced above. The negative findings in the updated report prompted a re-evaluation of the evidence and of the IMSD conclusions. To date, the new study has not been published in the scientific literature. The re-evaluation presented here is therefore based on a Technical Report provided by the IMSD [1].

In 1990-91, an unprecedented time-space cluster of childhood leukemia cases was observed in the immediate vicinity of the Krümmel nuclear boiling water reactor (BWR) [14,15]. Clusters in the vicinities of two other German BWRs (Lingen and Würgassen) had been reported earlier [16-18] and were reviewed [9]. These observations raised some concern about possible systematic differences in the emissions of the two reactor types. Unlike pressurized water reactors (PWRs), which have a secondary cooling circuit separating the radioactive primary water from the turbines, BWRs pass the steam in the primary circuit directly through the generating turbine. Due to this technical difference, BWRs are generally considered to release more radiation to the environment than comparable PWRs.

Based on data from the IMSD, the authors investigated whether childhood cancer rates (all malignancies) and in particular, childhood leukemia rates near the 15 sites of German commercial nuclear power reactors show increases compared to the defined control areas [1]. The 15 NPP sites were further subdivided into 7 BWR sites and 8 PWR sites. All sites with both types of reactors were considered BWR sites. To see whether a possible increased risk around NPPs is solely due to the Krümmel site with its known cancer cluster, the analyses were repeated with the Krümmel NPP excluded.

Material and Methods

Since 1980 all incident childhood malignancies are registered in the National Childhood Cancer Registry at the Institute of Medical Statistics and Documentation (IMSD) in Mainz, Germany. The data are used in epidemiologic research projects conducted by the IMSD. They are, however, not released to other scientists. The authors of the IMSD studies on childhood malignancies in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants were contacted, but access to the original data was not granted. The present analyses are therefore based on tables of data published in the appendices of the IMSD Technical Report [1]. Upon special request, site specific data for children below age 5 were also obtained from the IMSD in an aggregate form (i.e. all nuclear facilities, all 15 NPP sites, and all BWR sites, respectively).

In the IMSD report, the study areas around NPPs were compared with matched control areas with similar population densities and social structures. Standardized incidence rates (SIRs) were calculated for the study areas and the control areas. SIRs were defined as the number of observed cancer cases divided by the number of expected cases. Expected cases were calculated based on the population size in each age stratum and the average age-group-specific childhood cancer incidence rate in Germany. The relative risk is defined as the ratio of the SIR in the study group, divided by the SIR in the control group.

In all calculations, the hypothesis H1--that there is an observed increase in childhood cancer rates around the sites of nuclear power plants compared to control areas--is tested against hypothesis H0--that the number of observed cases is less than or equal to the number of expected cases.

The method described in the earlier IMSD study [2,3] was used to test for statistical significance. A statistical test provides a "p-value," which is the probability that the test result occurs by chance. According to a generally accepted convention, a p-value less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant and, hence, sufficiently unlikely to be due to chance. The more recent IMSD report provides two-sided p-values. These p-values correspond to the question whether the cancer rates near NPPs differ from the expected rates, irrespective of the direction of the difference. No mechanism has so far been discovered through which the presence of a nuclear power plant could reduce childhood leukemia risk. The authors believe, therefore, that the hypothesis under study is whether childhood cancers are significantly increased around NPPs; that this hypothesis is a genuine one-sided question; and that, consequently, a one-sided p-value should be provided. This approach is consistent with the earlier IMSD study, which had also calculated one-sided p-values [1].

In addition to sites of commercial nuclear power plants, the authors of this earlier study included sites of two nuclear research facilities (Karlsruhe and Jülich), one small research reactor (Kahl, capacity 16 MW) that was decommissioned in 1985, one prototype high temperature reactor (Hamm-Üntrop, 307 MW) that operated for a total of about 400 days, and a commercial reactor (Mülheim-Kärlich) that operated for several months (Table 1).

Since the radioactive inventory of research reactors is only 0.01-0.001 times that of typical commercial reactors, the authors were reluctant to evaluate both groups together. Power reactors with a very short time period of operation were also excluded, since their contribution to the overall population exposure was small compared to the remaining reactors that were operated on average for more than 15 years. Hence, this analysis was restricted to the 15 sites of commercial reactors.

In all analyses, IMSD's matched 15-km control regions were retained for each of the respective nuclear sites. While the study areas were subdivided into concentric regions of 0-5, 5-10, and 10-15 km radius, these were always compared with the complete 15 km control regions. Results

Both IMSD studies included all 20 sites of nuclear reactors in Germany. Sites were chosen as the unit of observation rather than nuclear reactors since, at a few of the sites, multiple nuclear reactors are, or have been, in operation for various periods of time between 1980 and 1995. All nuclear installations under study are listed in Table 1. At some of the sites, both pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors were operated. These sites are categorized here as BWR sites.

This paper focuses on the 0-5 km regions of the 15 commercial NPP sites. After evaluating the risks for all children below age 15, the authors further restrict the analyses to early childhood cancers (i.e. children less than 5 years of age). The results of these calculations are presented in tables 2-5.

All childhood malignancies (0-14 years): In agreement with [1], no excess risk is yielded when all 20 nuclear facilities are taken together (RR

1.04; p0.345). A significant (22%) increase of childhood cancers (all malignancies), however, was found around the 15 commercial power reactors (p0.047; Table 2). There are 93 observed vs. 74.9 expected cases in the study area and 578 vs. 566.8 in the control area. The increased overall risk around NPPs is essentially attributable to the BWR sites where the RR is 1.40 (p0.021), while the RR is only 1.05 around the PWR sites. The increased RR around the BWR sites remains statistically significant even when the Krümmel BWR is excluded from the analysis (RR1.40, p0.035; Table 2).

Acute childhood leukemias: The increase in acute childhood leukemias is 34% around the commercial NPP sites. Due to small numbers, this increase is not statistically significant (p0.073; Table 3). The incidence rate around all 20 nuclear facilities is considerably smaller (RR1.12; p0.258). Without the Krümmel NPP, the RR around all commercial reactors is 1.13. All BWRs yield an RR of 1.45 (p0.098). After exclusion of the Krümmel BWR, this RR becomes 1.0. Hence in this analysis the statistically nonsignificant (45%) increase of acute leukemia risk near BWRs is entirely attributable to the BWR Krümmel.

Early infant malignancies (0-4 years): Around the 15 commercial reactor sites, a statistically significant (53%) increase of cancer rates (all malignancies) was observed; the corresponding p-value is p0.0034 (Table 4). The increase is more pronounced around BWR sites (RR1.70, p0.008) compared to PWR sites (RR1.40, p0.085). Exclusion of the Krümmel BWR does not substantially change the RR (RR1.53, p0.006).

Around the other nuclear facilities, the risk is significantly reduced compared to the control areas (RR0.48). This explains the nonsignificant overall risk for early infant malignancies around all 20 nuclear facilities provided in the IMSD report (RR1.10, p0.258).

Early infant leukemias (0-4 years): In this age group the increase of acute leukemia incidence (RR1.76, p0.012) around all commercial sites is somewhat more pronounced than the increase for all malignancies (Table 5). There is no substantial difference in risk near BWRs (RR1.86, p0.038) and PWRs (RR1.71, p0.087). Even when evaluating all 20 nuclear facilities, the increase is statistically significant (RR1.49, p0.029). Excluding the Krümmel BWR, the relative risk around commercial reactors is 1.49 (p0.077), and 1.33 around BWRs (p0.276).

All childhood malignancies; dependent on distance: Table 6 gives the numbers of all malignancies in children below age 15 in the three distance rings from the 15 NPP sites. As already pointed out, the increase is 22% in the 5 km zone, while no increase is found in the two outer distance rings (5-10 km: RR1.01; 10-15 km: RR0.92). This analysis reveals a significant direct relationship between RR and the inverse distance from the site (p0.028, one-sided test). The incidence rate in the inner 5 km zone was also compared with the rates in the combined two outer zones (5-15 km); the combined two inner zones (0-10 km) were then compared with the outer zone (10-15 km). Using the binomial test, the incidence rates in the inner zones were found to be significantly higher in both cases than in the outer zones (p0.017 and p0.034 respectively, Table 6).

Discussion

In this reanalysis evidence was observed of significant increases of early childhood cancer incidence and, particularly, leukemia rates near German commercial nuclear power reactors in the time period 1980-1995. The overall increase cannot be accounted for by the known leukemia cluster at the Krümmel BWR since the RR remains high even after exclusion of the Krümmel site. These findings contradict the conclusion of the official IMSD report [1].

Since a beneficial effect of ionizing radiation on childhood cancer is considered impossible, a one-sided significance test was applied throughout these analyses. Nevertheless, the results for early chidhood cancers (p0.007) as well as for acute leukemias (p0.024) would remain statistically significant, even were the two-sided test used. For all malignancies in children below age 15, the two-sided test does not achieve statistical significance around all 15 commercial nuclear reactor sites. For BWR sites alone, however, a significant increase is observed.

The numbers of cases are small: for children below age 15 there are 19 excess cancers in the 16-year study period. The same excess is obtained with children below age 5. It should be understood that due to the ecologic nature of this study, increased relative risks merely represent associations and must not be interpreted as a proof of causality. Nevertheless, the results are consistent with an actual influence by German nuclear power plants on childhood cancers:

a.. The IMSD findings are generally consistent with published results from Germany and other countries.

b.. The increased risks are confined to the immediate vicinity of the plants. This would be expected if NPPs were in fact point sources of any actual risk factor (e.g. radioactive emissions).

c.. Relative risks are higher around BWRs, which are known to release higher quantities of radionuclides than PWRs [19].

d.. Relative risks are higher for acute leukemia for which a radiogenic etiology is firmly establishede.. Relative risks are higher for younger children. This again would be expected since it is known that radiosensitivity is higher in early childhood and even higher prenatally [20-22]. The observed 53% increase of early infant cancer rates in the vicinity of NPPs is much greater than expected based on the estimated radioactive releases by German NPPs. Extrapolation of radiogenic risk from higher doses to the very low dose range under the prevailing assumption of a linear dose-response relation would not result in any detectable excess risk. Radiobiological knowledge about the effects of very low cumulative doses and dose rates (dose per unit time) of ionizing radiation is inconclusive, however, and data is virtually lacking. Instead, there is an ongoing controversy among experts about the quantitative effect of very small doses, especially with respect to incorporated radionuclides. Some experts claim that there might be a highly increased sensitivity of the human organism at very low doses and that the extrapolation from high doses underestimates the low dose effect of radiation [23].

To clarify whether or not low levels of ionizing radiation pose a health risk to the general population, analytical instead of descriptive epidemiology is required. Two recent analytical studies seem to support an actual health risk. In a case control study, Morris and Knorr [24] observed a statistically significant positive association between risk of leukemia (all forms except chronic lymphatic leukemia [CLL]) and individual accumulated exposure to airborne emissions from the Pilgrim BWR (Massachusetts, USA). Another case control study observed an increased leukemia risk around the La Hague reprocessing plant (LaHague, France) [25]. There, the excess leukemia risk was found to be associated with use of local beaches and local shellfish consumption.

Conclusion

The 1997 IMSD report [1] presently provides the most detailed analysis of childhood cancers around nuclear power plants in Germany. Its negative conclusion, however, need to be questioned.

The observed increase in the cancer rate for the most vulnerable (youngest) subgroup near commercial nuclear reactors deserves particular attention. The issue of adverse health effects in the vicinity of NPPs is far from resolved and definitely requires further study.

References

1. Kaletsch U, Meinert R, Miesner A, Hoisl M, Kaatsch P, Michaelis J. Epidemiologische Studien zum Auftreten von Leukämieer-krankungen bei Kindern in Deutschland. Bonn: Der Bundesminister für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, 1997. [Return to text]

2. Keller B, Haaf G, Kaatsch P, Michaelis J. Untersuchungen zur Häufigkeit von Krebser-krankungen im Kindesalter in der Umgebung westdeutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen 1980-1990. IMSD Technischer Bericht. Mainz: Institut für Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation der Universität Mainz, 1992. [Return to text]

3. Michaelis J, Keller B, Haaf G, Kaatsch P. Incidence of childhood malignancies in the vicinity of West German nuclear power plants. Cancer Causes Control 1992;3:255-63. [Return to text]

4. Gardner MJ. Review of reported increases of childhood cancer rates in the vicinity of nuclear installations in the UK. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1989;152:307-25. [Return to text]

5. Gardner MJ, Hall AJ, Downes S, Terrell JD. Follow up of children born to mothers resident in Seascale, West Cumbria (birth cohort). BMJ 1987;295:822-7. [Return to text]

6. Roman E, Beral V, Carpenter L, Watson A, Barton C, Ryder H, et al. Childhood leukemia in the West Berkshire and Basingstoke and North Hampshire District Health Authorities in relation to nuclear establishments in the vicinity. BMJ 1987;294:597-602. [Return to text]

7. Heasman MA, Kemp IW, Urquhart JD, Black R. Childhood leukemia in northern Scotland [letter]. Lancet 1986 Feb 1;1:266. [Return to text]

8. Viel J-F, Pobel D, Carré A. Incidence of leukemia in young people around the La Hague nuclear waste reprocessing plant: A sensitivity analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1995;14:2459-72. [Return to text]

9. Hoffmann W. Review and discussion of epidemiologic evidence for childhood leukemia clusters in Germany. In: Schmitz-Feuerhake I, Schmidt M, editors. Radiation exposures by nuclear facilities. Evidence of the impact on health. Münster: Gesellschaft für Strahlen-schutz (German Society for Radiation Protection), 1998:86-117. [Return to text]

10. Iwasaki T, Nishizawa K, Murata M. Leukemia and lymphoma mortality in the vicinity of nuclear power stations in Japan, 1973-1987. J Radiol Prot 1995;25(4):271-88. [Return to text]

11. Hoffmann W, Kuni H, Ziggel H. Leukemia and lymphoma mortality in the vicinity of nuclear power stations in Japan 1973-1987 (letter). J Radiol Prot 1996;16:213-5. [Return to text]

12. Forman D, Cook-Mozaffari P, Darby S, Davey G, Stratton I, Doll R, et al. Cancer near nuclear installations. Nature 1987;329:499-505. [Return to text]

13. Cook-Mozaffari PJ, Darby SC, Doll R, Forman D, Hermon C, Pike M, et al. Geographical variation in mortality from leukemia and other cancers in England and Wales in relation to proximity to nuclear installations, 1969-78. Br J Cancer 1989;59:476-85. [Return to text]

14. Dieckmann H. Häufung von Leukämieer-krankungen in der Elbmarsch. Gesundheits-wesen 1992;10:592-6. [Return to text]

15. Hoffmann W, Dieckmann H, Schmitz-Feuerhake I. A cluster of childhood leukemia near a nuclear reactor in northern Germany. Arch Environ Health 1997;52(4):275-80. [Return to text]

16. Stein B. Krebsmortalität von Kindern unter 15 Jahren, Säuglingssterblichkeit und Tot-geburtenrate in der Umgebung des AKW Lingen. Berlin: Arbeitsgruppe Umweltschutz Berlin e.V., Eigenverlag, 1988. [Return to text]

17. Prindull G, Demuth M, Wehinger H. Cancer morbidity rates of children from the vicinity of the nuclear power plant of Wurgassen (FRG). Acta Haematol 1993;90:90-3. [Return to text]

18. Demuth M. Leukämieer-krankungen bei Kindern in der Umgebung von Atomanlagen. In: Köhnlein W, Kuni H, Schmitz-Feuerhake I, editors. Niedrigdosisstrahlung und Gesundheit. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1990:127-35. [Return to text]

19. Widermuth H, Kainz M, Haubelt R. Strahlenexposition der Bevölkerung durch mit der Fortluft aus Kernkraftwerken emittierte Radionuklide. In: Jahresbericht 1996. Salzgitter: Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, 1996. [Return to text]

20. Shimizu Y, Kato H, Schull WJ. Studies of the mortality of A-bomb survivors. Mortality 1950-1985: Part 2. Cancer mortality based on the recently revised doses (DS86). Radiat Res 1990;121(2):120-41. [Return to text]

21. Stewart AM, Gilman EA, Kneale GW. Radiation dose effects in relation to obstetric X-ray and childhood cancer. Lancet 1970;2:1185-8. [Return to text]

22. Schmitz-Feuerhake I, v.Boetticher H, Dannheim B, Götz K, Grell-Büchtmann I, Heimers A, et al. Strahlenbelas-tung durch Röntgendiagnostik bei Leukämie-fällen in Sittensen im Landkreis Rotenburg/Wümme. In: Lengfelder E, Wendhausen H, editors. Neue Bewertung des Strahlenrisikos: Niedrigdosis-strahlung und Gesundheit. München: MMV Medizin-Verlag, 1993:93-101. [Return to text]

23. Nussbaum R, Köhnlein W. Inconsistencies and open questions regarding low-dose health effects of ionizing radiation. Environ Health Perspect 1994;102:656-67. [Return to text]

24. Morris MS, Knorr RS. Adult leukemia and proximity-based surrogates for exposure to Pilgrim Plant's nuclear emissions. Arch Environ Health 1996;51(4):266-74. [Return to text]

25. Pobel D, Viel J-F. Case-control study of leukemia among young people near LaHague nuclear reprocessing plant: The environmental hypothesis revisited. BMJ 1997;314:101-6. [Return to text]

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Professor J. Michaelis at the ISDM for providing the data, Hagen Scherb for his help with the statistical treatment, and John Otranto for help with the translation and valuable comments.

Alfred Körblein is Senior Scientist, Umweltinstitut Muenchen (Munich Environmental Institute), Munich, Germany. Wolfgang Hoffmann is an epidemiologist and Scientific Assistant, Bremen Institute for Prevention Research, Social Medicine and Epidemiology. Address correspondence to: Dr. Alfred Körblein, PhD, Schwere-Reiter-Str. 35/1b, D-80797 Muenchen, Germany; email: ak@umweltinstitut.m.shuttle.de

-------- india / pakistan

India, Pakistan Remain U.S. Concern

Associated Press
December 19, 2000 Filed at 4:34 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-India-Bush.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/121900/india_bush.sml

NEW DELHI, India -- A year ago, George W. Bush couldn't name the leader of India or Pakistan when faced with a reporter's pop quiz during the campaign.

Now the two countries, whose bitter rivalry over disputed Kashmir resounds worldwide because both have tested nuclear weapons, are wondering what a Bush presidency will mean for the subcontinent.

Indian leaders, charmed last March when Democrat Bill Clinton became the first U.S. president to visit the country in more than 20 years, are hoping a year of unprecedented warmth in relations will continue under Bush despite U.S. concerns about nuclear arms.

Pakistani officials, meanwhile, hope a Republican administration will be more sympathetic. But the country, run by a military chief after a bloodless coup in 1999, is at odds with Washington over its nuclear effort and over neighboring Afghanistan's Taliban militia.

The hostile relationship between India and Pakistan, who have fought three wars since 1947, is likely to remain a major U.S. foreign policy concern.

Under Clinton, Washington has pushed both countries to sign a global treaty banning nuclear tests. The United States has signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty but not ratified it, and Bush backs the Senate's rejection of the pact -- a position that has won him praise from both India and Pakistan.

``We expect the U.S. will reduce pressure on Pakistan regarding the signing of the CTBT because Republicans themselves are not in favor of this treaty,'' said Shireen Mazari, director of the Pakistan's government-run Institute of Strategic Studies.

Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the treaty, but each has committed to a moratorium on nuclear testing until it comes into force. U.S. sanctions imposed on India after its 1998 tests remain in place.

India's Cold War ties to the Soviet Union turned Pakistan into Washington's natural ally, but that has changed since the Soviet collapse and the United States has grown much closer to India.

Clinton exchanged visits this year with Indian Prime Minister Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and economic relations between the world's most powerful democracy and the world's most populous democracy have been improving.

Indian officials are cautiously optimistic that ties will strengthen under Bush, whose father was president from 1988-92. During the campaign, the younger Bush spoke to Vajpayee on the phone and said in a speech that the new century would see India's arrival as a force in the world.

``I don't see any basic change in the U.S. policy toward India,'' said former Indian foreign secretary Mani Dixit. ``India's relations with the United States were all right during his father's presidency.''

In Pakistan, military chief Gen. Pervez Musharraf said last week that he hoped for friendly ties.

``Under the Republicans we don't expect U.S.-Pakistan relations to deteriorate as they did under the Democrats,'' Mazari said. ``We expect a shift in nuance.''

But the think tank director said Pakistan should distance itself from the United States because the two countries have opposing interests in the region, particularly on China and Afghanistan.

The United States has accused China of helping Pakistan develop its missile and nuclear technology. Pakistan has close ties with Afghanistan's Taliban, which Washington accuses of harboring terrorists.

-------- russia

Russia's Top Spies Speak Out on Secret Police Day

New York Times
December 19, 2000 Filed at 4:22 p.m. ET
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-russia-.html

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's two top spies have emerged from their cloak and dagger world to warn off foreign agents, but also encourage international cooperation.

The heads of Russia's FSB domestic counter-intelligence service and the SVR foreign intelligence agency broke with their usual secrecy in rare interviews to be published on Wednesday to mark the December 20th ``Day of Security Organs.''

The holiday, known in the Soviet era as ``Chekist Day,'' marks the founding of the ruthless Cheka Soviet secret police, later the NKVD and then KGB, which killed, tortured and imprisoned millions of Russians during decades of totalitarian rule.

FSB boss Nikolai Patrushev told the tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda that the former Soviet secret police should take pride in the positive side of their bloody history.

But Patrushev said Russians had nothing to fear from the secret police now, despite the recent return of KGB alumni to the corridors of power under Russian President Vladimir Putin. The president is a former KGB spy and Patrushev's predecessor at the FSB, who has placed some of his former comrades into top jobs.

``The history of the Lubyanka in the last century is our history, no matter how bitter and tragic it was,'' Patrushev said, referring to the KGB's Moscow headquarters, still synonymous with the torture and repression of the Stalinist era.

``We should preserve and multiply everything in that history which worked for the benefit of Russia, Russia's development, prosperity and national interests,'' he said.

Patrushev said foreign intelligence agencies had ''undertaken significant efforts to expand their intelligence positions in Russia,'' requiring more vigilance than ever.

Spies from Western countries were coordinating their operations and acting from bases in former Communist states of Eastern Europe, where they are ``always welcome guests.''

SVR CHIEF SEES COMPETITION, COOPERATION, CASH CRUNCH

The FSB two weeks ago won the first conviction of a Western spy in Russia since the Cold War. The convicted man, retired U.S. Naval Intelligence officer and businessman Edmond Pope, was freed last week after Putin pardoned him.

Despite criticism of ``spy mania,'' Patrushev said the Pope case vindicated the security police.

``Foreign 'businessman-spies' were always comfortable in murky water. For kopeks (Russian pennies) they could acquire know-how accumulated through the work of thousands of people. In the Pope case, Russia showed that this era is over,'' he said.

SVR chief Sergei Lebedev, giving his first interview since his appointment in May, said Russia and the West faced the paradox of working with and against each other.

``In recent years, our partners in the West have been calmer at the idea of us carrying on intelligence work against each other and at the same time developing cooperation,'' he said.

He said both sides have fought international terrorism, drug trafficking and the spread of nuclear weapons technology together.

``We intend in the future to continue such relations of partnership,'' said Lebedev, the SVR's representative in Washington before becoming the service's head.

He said the financing of his service was ``miserly'' compared with that of Western agencies, but that ``where we need to work, we work and we receive financing for it.''

Lebedev also gave his vision of the perfect spy.

``Being an agent means being reliable, it means dedication, dedication to one's homeland, to one's comrades, it means being noble.''

-------- siberia

Washington Calling: Government has gift for those who didn't file 1997 returns

Evansville Courier & Press
12/19/00
This is a weekly size-up by the Washington staff of Scripps Howard News Service.
http://www.courierpress.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?200012/19+calling121900_news.html+20001219

The Energy Department is touting a milestone as the Siberian city of Snezhinsk, a formerly closed and secret weapons production site, has been denuked.

An astonishing 10 metric tons of plutonium and enriched uranium has been consolidated into a secure facility, and a new civilian computer center was set up to employ up to 120 weapons specialists to monitor the stockpile.

-------- tajikistan

Rich Slice of Soviet Asia, Left to a Lonely Despair

New York Times
December 19, 2000
By DOUGLAS FRANTZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/19/world/19TAJI.html

SHURAB, Tajikistan - From the outcroppings above the town, everything looks normal. Buildings appear well kept and children career down a street on sleds. A close observer might wonder why the coal mine is idle at midday, but it is a minor clue.

Drive down the road into Shurab, however, and the reality is immediately apparent. Apartment buildings have been stripped, everything removed, from window glass to wiring. The railroad tracks to the mine are rusted and overgrown with weeds. City hall is padlocked.

Near the center of town, a restaurant looks as if it had been hit by a bomb. The roof is gone and there is no glass in the windows. The floor lies deep in rubble and an ornate column sprawls across the porch. Murals of dancing women in flowing dresses remain startlingly vibrant.

The desolation is ghostly and even the stragglers trying to tough it out add to the sad tableau. The children's sleds turn out to be just pieces of wood.

Conquerors have swept across Central Asia for 1,000 years. From the Huns and the Mongol armies of Genghis Khan to the Muslim potentates of Bokhara and Peter the Great of Russia, outsiders imposed their will and took their toll on the tribesmen in the mountains, valleys and plains known as Turkestan.

Viewed from a distance, the 70 years of Soviet domination here seem to be one of the more peaceful episodes in the struggle for empire. But the landscape of Central Asia is littered with ghost towns and polluted rivers and towns that belie the benign image.

One of those places is Chkalovsk. For nearly half a century, it was a closed city, part of the Soviet military-industrial complex tucked away in the northwest corner of Tajikistan. Lavrenti Beria, the Soviet secret police chief, established a uranium-processing plant near the city in the 1940's, and it brought skilled workers and prosperity.

It was one of many places developed or expanded during the Soviet era to exploit gold, uranium, coal, tungsten and other natural resources.

Vast stretches of arid land in the southern part of the country were turned into collective farms laced with irrigation to grow cotton.

When Communism collapsed, so did the economy and stability of Tajikistan. From 1992 to 1997, the country was embroiled in civil war. Its economic recovery has been slow, leaving it the poorest of the 15 former Soviet republics.

For Chkalovsk, the end of Communism meant piles of uranium waste, buried under a few feet of soil in places where young shepherds now graze flocks of sheep and goats. Traces of radioactivity have been found in meat sold in local markets, say professors at Khujand State University, just northwest of Chkalovsk, and the impact will be felt for decades.

Shurab is to the east on the border with Kyrgyzstan, and life was once much better here, too. The mine churned out large quantities of coal, providing exports to industrialized regions of the Soviet Union and good- paying jobs.

"We had a good life, with jobs and food and houses," Saparbai Abdullaev said as he stood on the high point outside town.

He wore a traditional long quilted coat, a strip of cloth securing it to his thin 77-year-old frame. His face was creased with age and grime and bad memories since the mine closed and his pension was trimmed to about $4 a month.

"No job, no land, no water, no hope," he said, summing up life in Shurab today.

Mr. Abdullaev said he and his wife were not the worst off among the people here. They have a house and family to help them. No, he said with a sad nod, the worst off are the ethnic Russians and Tatars brought to the area by Stalin's forced migrations to work in the mines. They had nowhere to turn for help.

"They stayed and sold everything to survive," he said. "They sold the spoons from their kitchens. They sold pieces of buildings and shops. Now they have nothing to sell."

He paused and peered down the road as if trying to will the town back to life, and said, "I cannot look at them without tears." And the tears began to flow into the creases of his face.

-------- ukraine

EUROPEAN ROUNDUP
Questions Haunt Lazio's Eriksson

New York Times
December 19, 2000
By JACK BELL
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/19/sports/19EURO-ROUNDUP.html?pagewanted=all

Sven Goran Eriksson is caught in a maelstrom of his own making.

Last month the Swedish coach of Lazio in Italy's Serie A last month accepted the job as coach of England's national team -- but only after his current contract with the Roman club expires on July 1.

That immediately set off a cascade of speculation that Eriksson would seek an early exit from his deal with Lazio to assume his duties with England when qualifying matches for the 2002 World Cup resume in a couple of months. Eriksson denied those assertions and now has been forced again and again to repeat those denials as Lazio has struggled in league and Champions League play.

The spotlight was focused on Eriksson even more before and after Sunday's Roman derby against league leaders A.S. Roma, which Roma won, 1-0, at the Olympic Stadium that both teams share.

Before the match, the English news media was rife with speculation that Lazio officials, led by the club president, Sergio Cragnotti, would dismiss Eriksson if Lazio lost the match. Lazio did lose, but Cragnotti's son, Massimo, said after the match that Eriksson would be staying in Rome -- for now.

"There is no need to say anything about Eriksson after this defeat," Cragnotti said. "The Swede will stay with us until the end of the 2001 season we hope with him we will achieve the results we want."

In the wake of Eriksson's announcement that he would take over in England, Lazio has slumped to fifth place in Serie A, 10 points behind Roma. In the past six matches, Lazio (5-3-3 overall) has a 2-2-2 record and has taken only six points of a possible 18. Lazio has a 4-1-1 record at home but is only 1-2-2 in away matches.

Eriksson, too, has deflected speculation that he would leave early for England. By most accounts, the English news media are engaged in wishful thinking, hoping that Eriksson would feel the tug of England and go to the rescue of the struggling national team.

"The season is far from over," Eriksson said. "Besides, I am convinced that this will not be my last derby match. I have not spoken to any English journalists for a good two weeks, so, therefore, I cannot have said anything about leaving Lazio early.

"We are not the same team we were last year; there has also been a little bit of bad luck," Eriksson said. "But I do not think that has anything to do with my decision to become England's coach."

England

The often-vilified chairman of Tottenham Hotspur, Sir Alan Sugar, said over the weekend that he plans to sell his 40 percent stake in the storied north London club.

Sugar, who also runs the Amstrad computer company, has been involved with Spurs since 1991, a period in which the club has won only one major trophy -- the 1999 Worthington Cup -- and has been a middle-of-the-table fixture in the English Premier League. Sugar has been criticized for his unwillingness to spend money on and retain popular players.

This year he let a crowd favorite at White Hart Lane, the Frenchman David Ginola, leave the club. He was replaced by the Ukrainian international Serghii Rebrov, but little else has changed and Spurs is again an also-ran.

"A few people have maybe criticized me for not setting my targets higher," Spurs' manager George Graham said over the weekend, responding to reports that Sugar was about to sell his stake in the club. "But I think when a club as big as Tottenham have slipped into the relegation zone, I don't think it's possible now within two or three years to be in the top three challenging for the championship. That's not only Tottenham, that's also other big clubs like Newcastle, like Everton, big established clubs with great aspirations. It will take time."

The situation at Tottenham has been especially difficult to deal with because the club's local rival, Arsenal, has spent lavishly on foreign players the past couple of years and has been successful both the league and in European competitions.

Corner Kicks

The A.C. Milan striker Andriy Shevchenko, who previously played for Dynamo Kiev in Ukraine, has dedicated his sporting success to the young victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. A reactor at the power plant exploded in 1986 and spread radiation across Europe. Last week, the remaining active reactors at Chernobyl were closed. "I play football for my supporters and for those who love me, but if it helps the world never to forget, I dedicate my victories to the children of Chernobyl," Shevchenko said. ... A match in the Iranian city of Isfahan had to be abandoned late in the second half when a stray dog wandered onto the field and attacked the referee and players from the Karo-o-Technic and Iran-Sport clubs, according to the newspaper "Doran-e Emrouz."

Martin Palermo, one of the top scorers in the Argentine league and an emerging national team star, is being pursued by Napoli of Italy. Napoli is prepared to pay Boca Junior about $20 million for Palermo and have him join the club's three other Argentine players -- Claudio Husain, Mauricio Pineda and Facunda Quiroga. Napoli is also the club that purchased another Boca Juniors star, Diego Maradona, in the mid-1980's. ... The Australian Paul Agostino is the third-leading scorer in the Bundesliga after getting his 11th goal of the season in 1860 Munich's 2-1 victory over Hamburg. ... The American international Claudio Reyna scored Rangers' only goal in a 1-1 draw with last-place Dundee United in the Scottish Premier League. ... To accommodate its huge base of support in Asia, Manchester United has announced that it would soon launch Chinese- and Malay-language Web sites, probably by March. The club's Web site, manutd.com, gets about 8.5 million hits a month, but an estimated 20 million of the club's fans in Hong Kong and China cannot read English. United has nearly 200 supports clubs spread around the world.

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

Hoover Institution Fellows On Bush Tax Cuts, Israeli Election, Colombian Drug War, Trade With Mexico, and National Missile Defense

Yahoo News
Tuesday December 19, 2:39 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001219/ca_hoover_.html

STANFORD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Fellows at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University are available to comment on the following topics. They may be reached directly or through the Office of Public Affairs at 650/723-0603.

BUSH TAX CUTS

Martin Anderson, Senior Fellow. Expertise: The presidency, U.S. political system, U.S. economic and social policy, national security, strategic defense, higher education, campaign financing. Adviser to the Bush campaign. Author: Revolution: The Reagan Legacy (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990). ADVISER TO THE BUSH CAMPAIGN. Contact: 650/723-4742.

Michael Boskin, Senior Fellow. Expertise: Tax and budget theory and policy, U.S. savings and consumption patterns. Member of the panel of advisers to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and the advisory board of the Congressional Budget Office. ADVISER TO THE BUSH CAMPAIGN. Contact: 650/723-6482.

John Cogan, Senior Fellow. Expertise: The federal budget and domestic human resources policy, the role of the congressional budget process in producing federal budget growth and deficits. Author: The Budget Puzzle (with Tom Muris and Alan Schick, Stanford University Press, 1994. ADVISER TO THE BUSH CAMPAIGN. Contact: 650/723-2585.

John Taylor, Senior Fellow. Expertise: Monetary, fiscal, and international economic policy, created formulas for wage and price setting and models for economic policy evaluation. Member of the Congressional Budget Office's Panel of Economic Advisers. ADVISER TO THE BUSH CAMPAIGN. Contact: 650/723-9677.

THE ISRAELI ELECTION/ ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Senior Fellow. Expertise: International conflict, foreign policy formation, trends in political change that influence economic development, political stability. Author: Principles of International Politics (Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000). Contact: 650/725-4202.

Charles Hill, Research Fellow. Expertise: Middle East peace process, international political affairs. Served as special consultant on policy to the secretary-general of the United Nations from 1992-1996. Author: Unvanquished: A U.S.-U.N. Saga (co-authored with Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Random House, 1999). Contact at Yale 203/432-6291.

Abraham D. Sofaer, Senior Fellow. Expertise: International relations, national security affairs, United Nations peacekeeping and nation building. Legal adviser, U.S. Department of State, 1985-1990. 650/725-3763.

DRUG WAR IN COLOMBIA

William Ratliff, Senior Research Fellow. Expertise: U.S. policy toward Latin America, legal reform and economic reform in Latin America, domestic and foreign policies of Latin America. Author: The Civil War in Nicaragua: Inside the Sandinistas (with Roger Miranda, Transaction Publishers, 1993). Contact by e-mail at ratliff@hoover.stanford.edu or by phone at 650/723-2106.

TRADE RELATIONS WITH MEXICO

Stephen H. Haber, Senior Fellow. Expertise: Latin American economic growth, financial markets and industrial development in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States. Author: How Latin America Fell Behind: Essays on the Economic Histories of Brazil and Mexico, 1800-1914 (Stanford University Press, 1997). 650/723-1348.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Bruce Berkowitz, Research Fellow. Expertise: National security affairs, technology policy, defense and intelligence issues. Author: Best Truth: Intelligence in the Information Age (with Allan Goodman, Yale University Press, 2000) and The Need to Know: Covert Action and American Democracy (with Allan Goodman, 20th Century Fund, 1992). Contact by e-mail at bdb@pop.erols.com.

Sidney Drell, Senior Fellow. Expertise: Arms control, national security, theoretical physics. Author: Reducing Nuclear Danger (co-authored with McGeorge Bundy and William J. Crowe, Jr., The Council on Foreign Relations, 1993). Contact by e-mail at drell@slac.stanford.edu.

Abraham D. Sofaer, Senior Fellow. Expertise: International relations, national security affairs, United Nations peacekeeping and nation building. Legal adviser, U.S. Department of State, 1985-1990. 650/725-3763.

Contact:

Hoover Institution Stanford University Caleb Offley, 650/723-1454 Offley@Hoover.Stanford.edu www. Hoover.org

---

Prelude to a Missile Defense

New York Times
December 19, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/19/opinion/19TUE1.html

The incoming Bush administration risks making an early mistake if it rushes to build a national missile defense. A hasty move in this area could quickly deplete the good will generally accorded a new president by foreign leaders, especially those of Russia, China and Washington's main European allies. George W. Bush should instead expand research and testing to determine what kind of defensive shield can best meet America's security needs.

A reliable antimissile system could protect the country against the future threat of nuclear missile attack from unpredictable nations like North Korea, Iraq and Iran. American intelligence agencies predict that North Korea could have the capacity to launch a handful of nuclear-tipped long-range missiles within five years and that Iraq and Iran could reach that point within a decade.

But no workable shield now exists. The prototype interceptor missile developed by the Clinton administration has so far proved highly unreliable in tests. Mr. Bush and his advisers made clear during the presidential campaign that they considered the Clinton system flawed and inadequate. They promised to consider a variety of other technologies, including sea-based and space-based systems as well as the current land-based model.

Any of those alternative approaches would require rigorous study and testing before construction commences. While that evaluation proceeds, Mr. Bush's new foreign policy team should try to persuade skeptical countries that a limited defensive system can be built without wrecking existing arms control treaties or setting off a destructive new arms race.

Their biggest hurdle will be overcoming Russia's current refusal to modify the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty to permit limited national missile defenses. The ABM treaty has been a keystone of the arms control efforts of the last three decades. If America abruptly withdraws from that treaty to build a defensive system, other agreements might begin to unravel, including the two primary nuclear arms reduction treaties signed by Mr. Bush's father at the end of the cold war.

Those two treaties provide for a two-thirds reduction in both sides' nuclear arsenals from their mid-1980's peak and for a total elimination of Russia's land-based, multiple-warhead missiles, Moscow's most dangerous weapons. Already progress in carrying out the second of these treaties has been held up by disputes over missile defense rules.

China fears that even a limited United States missile shield might be able to deflect Beijing's small force of long-range nuclear missiles. In response, China, which is not bound by any nuclear arms limitation agreement with Washington, could be tempted to build hundreds of new intercontinental missiles. America's European allies do not wish to see the revival of a costly arms race.

Mr. Bush's foreign policy advisers have been around Washington long enough to know that few initial steps would be more divisive abroad than a decision to move ahead with installation of a missile defense system. Colin Powell, the prospective secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice, the future national security adviser, also recognize that construction of even a limited system would cost tens of billions of dollars. Until the technology is perfected, there is no point in incurring these diplomatic and financial costs.

---

The Bush foreign policy

Washington Times
EDITORIAL • December 19, 2000
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-20001219201436.htm

Foreign policy will take on a stronger face in the new Bush administration, providing continuity by fulfilling previous commitments and ingenuity by building up a military that is severely overtaxed and which lacks the necessary resources. Former Gen. Colin Powell, George W. Bush's pick for secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser-to-be, have the resources to do it. Miss Rice was the top Russia expert on the National Security Council during the previous Bush administration. Gen. Powell has 35 years of experience in the military and was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Bush and Clinton administrations. Both have been trusted Bush advisers, and their unified new foreign policy platform calls for reassessing peacekeeping missions in collaboration with U.S. allies and bolstering national security.

What the new platform does not spell is isolationism. Rather, it calls for carefully selecting which conflict areas the United States is best equipped to handle. The peacekeeping and military forces will have better resources, and greater ability to enter conflict areas with a defined mission and exit strategy.

Unlike the Clinton administration, which used the reduced threat of the Cold War as an excuse to scale back military funding, the Bush foreign policy platform addresses the realities of terrorism, and the demands continually being placed on the United States to intervene in conflict areas around the globe.

This will mean getting the national missile defense system back up to speed, a job President Clinton decided in September to leave to his successor. This system will be an "essential part of overall strategic force posture, which consists of offensive weapons, command-and-control systems, intelligence systems, and a national missile defense," Mr. Powell said in his acceptance speech.

In keeping with the goal to streamline peacekeeping missions, the two new top picks called for reassessment on the ground in Bosnia and Kosovo, in collaboration with U.S. allies. The United States would "find ways that it is less of a burden on our armed forces," Mr. Powell said. This would include substituting other forces, such as police units, for U.S. troops on the ground.

The Middle East would be a top priority, but the Bush administration is supportive of the Clinton administration's efforts during Mr. Clinton's remaining weeks in office, they said. To that end, Palestinian and Israeli diplomats are starting another round of peace talks today in Washington in the hopes that some framework for a peace agreement can be reached before Mr. Clinton leaves office. Part of maintaining the peace is addressing the risk posed by those who do not keep it. Mr. Powell has not forgotten Iraq, which is developing weapons of mass destruction. In that vain, he wants to "re-energize the sanctions regime" against Saddam Hussein.

Bridge-building with the closest neighbors to the United States, who have been almost forgotten in the Clinton administration, will be a key part of the platform as well. Re-establishing good relations with Latin America, Mexico and Canada would serve as core to the administration's foreign policy, Miss Rice said.

For an administration only finally made legal six days ago, the platform provides quite a formidable start.

---

Europe, Asia praise Powell, Rice choices

Washington Times
December 19, 2000
By Robert H. Reid
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-2000121902045.htm

VIENNA, Austria - Europe and Asia applauded the foreign policy selections made by President-elect George W. Bush yesterday, but cautiously waited for details about missile defense, the Balkans, Taiwan and European defense.

The nominations of retired Gen. Colin Powell as secretary of state and Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser were generally seen as bringing stature and experience to a team whose leader's lack of foreign policy depth has been noted at home and abroad.

"As before with Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush also has no foreign policy experience," Germany's coordinator for U.S. affairs, Karsten Voigt, wrote in the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper. "He has understood the need to surround himself with a highly qualified adviser team."

Moscow's Vremya Novostei newspaper praised Miss Rice, who helped negotiate with the Russians at the end of the Cold War, as "a realist who is capable of gauging the consequences of a careless step."

But positive reactions were tempered by some concerns, including Mr. Powell's strong commitment to a U.S. missile-defense system. Many Europeans and Asians fear such a system would sabotage arms-control agreements with the Russians and trigger an arms race in Asia.

Mr. Bush has said he favors a missile shield because it would protect the United States from attack. In accepting his appointment Saturday, Mr. Powell called missile defense "an essential part of our overall strategic-force posture."

In an editorial titled "Fortress America: Powell's tough new defense plans," the Sydney, Australia, Morning Herald warned that pushing through with a missile-defense system could lead to a crisis with China.

Others feared the plan was a sign that America was placing its own interests ahead of the concerns of a world it aspires to lead.

"Like his boss, General Powell seems to be determined to delimit the U.S. world role, to view international obligations through the prism of narrow national interests," the left-leaning British newspaper, the Guardian, wrote.

Many Europeans are waiting to see how the Bush team will deal with the European Union plan to develop a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force, which would respond when the United States and NATO do not want to get involved.

Both the Clinton administration and that of President George Bush - the president-elect's father -feared such a force would undermine NATO.

"The team that is returning to the White House today still has the same hostility to European defense," the French newspaper Le Monde said.

Some South Korean officials fear such a hard-nosed, America-first style could complicate their own efforts to use American support in pursuing reconciliation with communist North Korea.

"The Clinton administration was idealistic, whereas the Bush administration is realistic," said Yoon Dong-min of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and National Security. "That would affect South Korea's policy of seeking quick rapprochement with the communist North."

In Asia, one of the greatest concerns is the new administration's position on Taiwan. Considered a renegade province by China, Taiwan has enjoyed de facto independence for decades. Some Asians believe a Republican administration would be more supportive of Taiwan.

China's foreign policy establishment remained uneasy. An administration that backs Taiwan and missile defense - which China considers a threat - could find itself in crisis with Beijing.

"There are too many people with a military background" said Yan Xuetong, an international security expert at Beijing's Tsinghua University.

The fact that Miss Rice and Mr. Powell are both black did little to assuage African fears that the continent would be overlooked by the Bush administration.

"Even the appointment of Colin Powell, a black American, as secretary of state, is nothing to cheer about," said Stanley Macebuh, an aide to Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo. He considers Mr. Powell "anti-Africa."

-------- u.s. nuc other

At the Movies: 'Thirteen Days'

Associated Press
December 19, 2000 Filed at 1:29 p.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-WKD-Film-Review-Thirteen-Days.html

``Thirteen Days'' is about a precarious moment in American history: the Cuban missile crisis.

This is a subject that would seem to merit the utmost respect and solemnity. So it's embarrassing -- and, frankly, disheartening -- that the film, which runs an overlong 135 minutes, is such a disappointment.

In the opening scene, Kevin Costner, as Kenny O'Donnell, special assistant to President Kennedy, unwittingly sets the tone of the film -- and undermines its drama -- with his atrocious New England accent.

``This is your report cahd?!'' he says, scolding one of his sons at the breakfast table. ``I'm talkin' tah you lay-tah!''

After about an hour into the movie -- either Costner's accent is more subtle or the audience has accepted it -- viewers can finally become engrossed in the story of that brief period in October 1962 when the United States and the Soviet Union teetered on the edge of nuclear war.

Based on the book ``The Kennedy Tapes -- Inside the White Ho