------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Navy Stonewalling
Sub Incident Erodes Trust in Japan Chief and the U.S.
In Japan, Waiting for the Captain to Appear
Arabs Condemn U.S. Attack on Iraq
Japanese Town Demands Apology for Sub Collision
Civilian Says Submarine Took Precautions
Robots Scan Japanese Ship Wreckage
U.S. and British Jets Strike Air-Defense Centers in Iraq
U.S.-China Ties in the Balance
U.N. Reports Traces of Plutonium in Kosovo
U.N. team: Uranium in Kosovo poses no risk
Swiss find scant plutonium traces in Balkans
Kosovo Bombs Safe, U.N. Says
Air Strikes in Iraq
No Choice but to Strike
Iraq Air Strike Effective
Israel Supports Attack on Iraq
Iraq Threatens Retaliation for Western Attacks
BLAIR POISED TO SAY YES TO MISSILE DEFENCE FEB 23?
Moscow offers missile shield to Europe
MISSILE TESTS
Launches send message:
Russia tests missiles, criticizes U.S. plans
Russian test missiles send warning to Bush
U.S. Faults Russian Nuclear Fuel Shipment
US claims Russia broke atomic proliferation regime
Microbes may be corroding casings of monitor wells
Antelopes Take Over N.M. Range
Auditor Knocks Nuke Security
Long Island Utility Will Seek Surcharge to Cover Fuel Costs
Utah firms take great efforts to avoid Superfund stigma
Toxic Utah: Firms take pains to avoid polluter list
Top Utah polluters on EPA list

MILITARY
Bush Gives Mexico Backing on Drive Against Narcotics
U.S., British Bomb Iraq
U.N. Envoy Fears Palestinian Financial Collapse
U.S. Is Set to Assail China on Rights at U.N.
The World Stage, Act I
Cadet at VMI is pregnant, school says

OTHER
Test Case on Property Rights Challenges Wetland Curbs
Clinton Did Not Consult C.I.A. Chief on Pardon, Official Says
In Spy Hunt, Peru Wants U.S. to Make a Better Effort
Terrorism in Equador Takes Its Toll on Families in Oregon
Six charged in Britain under anti-terrorism act

ACTIVISTS
BACKING FOR EX-OFFICIAL
Psychiatric Abuse by China Reported in Repressing Sect

-
-------- NUCLEAR

Navy Stonewalling

February 17, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/opinion/17SAT4.html

More than a week after an American nuclear attack submarine accidentally sank a Japanese fishing boat near Hawaii, the Navy is still suppressing information about the incident. That is a misguided strategy that ill serves the American people and the Navy itself.

The names of all 16 civilian visitors in the control room of the submarine Greeneville at the time of the accident will eventually come out, as will more information about why a periscope check and sonar soundings by the crew failed to detect the approaching Japanese vessel. But by treating these legitimate public concerns as if they were official secrets, the Navy complicates the challenge of mollifying an understandably aggrieved Japan.

The refusal to provide names and other information about the civilians on board the Greeneville is emblematic of the Navy's clumsy handling of the incident. It was not until several days after the accident that the Navy finally acknowledged that some of these civilians had been working the ship's controls at the time of the rapid ascent. But when the Navy's chief spokesman, Rear Adm. Stephen Pietropaoli, was asked whether the civilians could have contributed to the accident, he curtly replied that "only people who don't understand how submarines work" would suggest such a connection.

Two days later the Navy ordered submarine commanders to keep civilians away from control panels and prohibited practicing rapid climbs to the surface when civilians were on board. The Navy often invites civilians on its vessels during training maneuvers to cultivate public support. President Bush has rightly ordered a review of this practice to make sure that safety is not compromised.

Other questions still need answering. It is not yet clear whether the Greeneville was within a publicly marked training area when it performed the surfacing maneuver. Nor has it been explained why the submarine's periscope failed to detect the Japanese fishing boat or whether using the Greeneville's more sensitive active sonar system might have prevented the accident. Additional information on these issues can help avoid future tragedies.

Separate investigations now being conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Navy will fill in some of the missing data. But that will take time. Meanwhile it is imperative for the Navy to stop dodging legitimate questions and share what it already knows.

---

Sub Incident Erodes Trust in Japan Chief and the U.S.

February 17, 2001
New York Times
By STEPHANIE STROM
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/continuous/18JAPA.html

TOKYO, Feb. 17 - Tempers have flared with the news that civilian visitors were at the controls of the nuclear submarine that caused a Japanese boat to sink last week off Hawaii, leaving nine people missing and presumed dead.

"Although the United States says it is doing its best in the investigation, we cannot trust that claim," said an editorial in Friday's Ehime Shimbun, the local paper in the home region of the four students aboard the vessel.

The Japanese irritation coincides with the faltering standing of Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori, and experts say that because of his political and personal troubles, worsened by the loss of lives, he may not survive another month in the job.

As for the accident at sea, Foreign Minister Yohei Kono called Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to demand more information about precisely what the civilians aboard the submarine Greeneville were doing at the controls last week and to ask why American officials had not told Japan that the civilians were taking part in the maneuvers.

The Japanese press and senior officials have challenged the practice of having civilians aboard a military vessel during an exercise. Interviews in which John M. Hall and Todd Thoman, two of the 16 civilians aboard, said they had been at control positions when the submarine was making its ascent as part of an outing for donors to the Missouri Memorial Association have played repeatedly on Japanese television.

"It's outrageous," Toshitsugu Saito, director general of Japan's Defense Agency, said at a news conference. The American Navy "is slack."

Heated reaction has been slow to emerge here. The news media have covered the American side extensively and matter-of-factly, praising the United States for its prompt apology and President Bush for calling for a silent prayer for its victims.

But Japanese patience has evidently begun to wear thin. Suspicions have been raised among a people who are all too accustomed to bureaucratic stalling and coverups, said Aiji Tanaka, a political science professor at Waseda University.

"In the beginning, the U. S. Navy said the civilians on board had no relationship to the accident," he said. "But then the National Transportation Safety Board started investigating, some slightly different information was released and now, we find out that some of the civilians actually had their hands on the controls. Bit by bit, day after day, revelations are made in a way that is very, very similar to various Japanese political and bureaucratic scandals."

The episode has distracted the press from the fast-mounting woes of gaffe-prone Prime Minister Mori, whose first response to news of the Ehime Maru's fate was apparently to ask his secretary whether it was all right to continue his golf game.

Not only did he continue his game for about two hours after he received word of the collision, but he also apparently did not list his membership at the course where he was playing as one of his assets nor did he report it to tax authorities as a gift, although the membership seemingly qualifies as both.

Mr. Mori and his office have insisted that he does not really "own" the membership and thus need not declare it, but even his political allies have had difficulty accepting those explanations.

On Friday, Makoto Koga, secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, declared the membership "inappropriate," and speculation swirled that the party's largest faction, headed by a former prime minister, Ryutaro Hashimoto, was angling for Mr. Mori's resignation. "It looks like the Hashimoto faction is about to throw out a net to catch Mori like a rabbit," said Takao Toshikawa, a well-known political expert. "I think the possibility of the prime minister's resignation is very high, possibly next month."

The party will hold its annual convention on March 13, and many speculate that Mr. Mori will be forced to resign then. Falling stock prices and two major scandals, coupled with Mr. Mori's plummeting popularity, long ago convinced the party's elders that they cannot risk going into the July election for the Upper House with Mr. Mori still in office.

They had hoped, however, to keep him in office until just before the voting, replacing him at the last minute with someone more popular.

The ruling party's most important coalition partner, the Komei party, has stepped up its demands for Mr. Mori's replacement. But this is a challenge for the ruling party. Burgeoning scandals have tainted Mr. Hashimoto and Mr. Kono, leaving political analysts betting on Junichiro Koizumi, a Mori supporter who has a knack for appearing to buck the status quo while in fact supporting it wholeheartedly. Single, dapper and prone to quixotic ventures with public appeal, he is considered the Liberal Democrats' best weapon against sour public sentiment.

---

In Japan, Waiting for the Captain to Appear

February 17, 2001
New York Times
By SHIN'YA FUJIWARA
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/opinion/17FUJI.html

TOKYO -- Before I began writing this piece, I asked a friend of mine in the United States to send me information about how the collision between an American submarine and a training ship chartered by a Japanese high school was being reported. Based on what my friend sent, I have to admit to a strange feeling. I noticed references to the collision as occurring "off Pearl Harbor." In Japan, the news media described the site as "off Hawaii."

This difference in emphasis may be minor. But it does suggest that in America the injury and loss of life are being placed, by some, in a political, military or historical context that, from a Japanese perspective, is beside the point. The sinking of the Ehime Maru does have great political resonance here, but it is of a different kind.

In my country, the public has become more inward-looking after the collapse of the asset-inflated economy and the subsequent years of economic stagnation. As we look inward at our longstanding institutions, what we see is sordid. We see case after case of bribery involving politicians and bureaucrats, the sale of fraudulent products by big companies, medical mishaps and their concealment at hospitals, improper investigations and subsequent coverups by police departments, and so on. This year, government prosecutors have contributed their own corruption scandals. The distrust felt by ordinary citizens toward the state and toward each other has reached a pinnacle.

Recently we read the tragic story of two young men who lost their lives striving to help a drunken passenger who had fallen onto the tracks of a Tokyo railway station. A Japanese public that has become devoid of emotions reacted excessively to this brave act, as if it were seeking salvation.

The collision between the Greeneville, a nuclear attack submarine, and the Ehime Maru occurred as the Japanese public was thirsting for heroes, perhaps - or for a sense of public honor, of personal, human connection between those in power and those without it. In this respect, the nonappearance of the commander of the Greeneville - his failure to meet the families of the victims to express his feelings of apology and mourning - is shocking, even incomprehensible to a people whose culture stresses decorum and form. Such decorum is not merely "formal" in the American sense; it is the shape in which common humanity finds expression.

Two civilians who were in the control room at the time of the accident were interviewed by an American television network to find out what had happened. They demonstrated their own sense of conscience as individual Americans - a saving grace amid the sense of distrust felt by the Japanese toward the United States. Perhaps there is an American practice of not allowing those directly involved in such military incidents to appear before the public.

As the incident unfolded in Hawaii, the United States Marine Corps in Okinawa refused to turn over a serviceman suspected in several arson attacks last month. (The marine was finally turned over to local authorities yesterday.) These two events may seem unrelated. But from here, they appeared to be intimately linked. The responsible person was unavailable, absent from the public drama.

This is not a question of anti-American feeling, exactly, because the missing persons, so to speak, of greatest concern here are Japanese: the leaders and institutions who seem to have abandoned their ties to the daily lives of our people. In my opinion, the fierce criticism of Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori's decision to continue playing golf even after hearing about the Ehime Maru collision is a result of immense frustration at this abandonment of both decorum and responsibility. Unlike the commander of the Greeneville, Mr. Mori cannot hide. To a degree, he is a scapegoat, since the commander is not available for public admonition, and Mr. Mori is left to do the American's work. At the same time, both men have shown this capacity to go missing when they are needed, leaving us alone again in our grief and frustration.

Shin'ya Fujiwara, a Japanese writer and photographer, is a winner of the Mainichi Arts Award.

---

Arabs Condemn U.S. Attack on Iraq

February 17, 2001
Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq-Reax.html

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- Key U.S. allies in the Middle East and Europe on Saturday fiercely denounced U.S.-British raids on Iraq, with even countries who rallied behind the drive to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait 10 years ago saying it was time Washington reconsider its policies.

Egypt led strong Arab opposition in the wake of Friday's strikes on targets around Baghdad, the most serious allied attack on Iraq in two years, and the assault also drew condemnation from two NATO allies, France and Turkey.

The raid was ``a serious negative step that we cannot accept, nor understand its reasons, which run counter to Iraq's safety and sovereignty,'' Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa said in a statement released by his office Saturday.

Moussa said the strikes risked undermining attempts to resume U.N. inspections of suspected Iraqi weapons sites after a halt of more than two years and to move toward lifting sanctions that are hurting ordinary Iraqis.

Ten years after the Persian Gulf War, he said, it was time to review measures against Iraq -- noting a round of meetings between U.N. and Iraqi leaders, scheduled for Feb. 26-27.

Those talks are to address the stalemate over U.N. sanctions imposed after the Kuwaiti invasion and Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country.

The weapons inspectors left in December 1998, just ahead of allied airstrikes launched to punish Iraq for blocking inspections. U.N. sanctions that have crippled Iraq's economy cannot be lifted until the inspectors certify that the country's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed.

Friday's raids struck air defense sites north and south of Baghdad in what the Pentagon said was an operation to damage Iraq's improving capabilities to target U.S. and British planes patrolling a no-fly zone in southern Iraq. Two people were killed in the raids, Iraqi media said.

But the first military operation ordered by President Bush angered many in the region, even among allies like Egypt that contributed troops to the U.S.-led coalition that ended Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in February 1991.

The Saudi government, which has been criticized at home for allowing its territory to be used as a staging ground for allied attacks on Iraq, had no official comment on the strikes. It was not clear whether the warplanes took off from or flew over Saudi territory, and a senior Saudi official contacted by The Associated Press said his country was not previously informed of the strikes.

But on the Saudi streets, the reaction was angry. Businessman Abdul-Aziz Mohammed al-Rafidi said, ``Bush has uncovered his ugly face and all the hate and spite he has for the Arabs.''

Turkey, a member of NATO that allows its air bases to be used by allied planes patrolling a northern no-fly zone in Iraq, showed dismay over the assault.

``It is sad that a need was felt to resort to such an action against Iraq and that civilians as well as military targets were harmed,'' Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said, calling on Washington to ``review the Iraq problem.''

France, also a NATO member, and Russia have become increasingly critical of attempts to isolate Iraq or use force against it.

In Paris, the Foreign Ministry said it had ``often expressed our incomprehension and our discomfort in regard to the repeated airstrikes carried out by American and British aviation.''

Russian Foreign Ministry official Alexander Sultanov said during a visit to Syria Saturday that the airstrikes ``would never yield any positive results.'' China and Cuba also condemned the raid.

Still, Britain said more strikes could follow if necessary.

``Operations such as the one last night would not be needed if Saddam stopped attacking us,'' Prime Minister Tony Blair said. ``But as long as he does, I will continue to take the steps necessary to protect our forces and to prevent Saddam from once again wreaking havoc, suffering and death.''

In the Arab world, where frustration has been running high over deadlocked Middle East peace talks, popular calls have echoed in support of Iraq.

Under such pressure, Arab governments intensified contacts with Iraq. Iraq was welcomed in Egypt last year at the first full Arab summit in four years -- such gatherings had been impossible earlier because of the divisions created by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Arab governments also have hosted high-ranking Iraqi officials and sent flights to Baghdad. Egypt and Syria recently signed free trade accords with Iraq.

Many Arabs portrayed Friday's missile strike as an attempt to punish their governments for reaching out to Iraq and trying to divert attention from the faltering attempt to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

In the West Bank town of Ramallah, about 200 Palestinians took to the streets late Friday after word of the airstrikes spread. Demonstrators waved Iraqi flags and posters of Saddam while chanting ``Death to America'' and ``Long live Iraq.'' Other small support rallies were staged in the West Bank towns of Bethlehem and Tulkarem.

In the Jordanian capital, Amman, more than 200 political activists demonstrated Saturday outside the Iraqi Embassy in Amman under heavy rain, shouting ``Long Live Saddam'' as they burned the American flag.

Jordan, one of the Arab countries with the closest ties to Iraq, ``never condones the use of military force against Iraq,'' said Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul-Illah Khatib.

---

Japanese Town Demands Apology for Sub Collision

February 17, 2001
Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Japan-Submarine-Collision.html

UWAJIMA, Japan (AP) -- Officials in Uwajima on Saturday demanded a direct apology from the U.S. military and support for the victims of a collision between a U.S. submarine and a fishing boat owned by a local high school.

With the U.S. Navy announcing the wreckage of the Ehime Maru had been found on the ocean floor off Hawaii, relatives of the victims wanted the ship raised, hoping for more information about the accident and the fate of nine people still missing.

Navy officials said Saturday that a remote-controlled deep-diving vehicle had located the wreckage of the 190-foot Japanese vessel under 2,033 feet of water. But it remained unclear whether victims' bodies were trapped within its walls.

``It's the first step toward the raising of the ship, although there will be many other things that have to be taken care of,'' Ehime Governor Moriyuki Kato said.

He said the news would be ``a huge relief'' for bereaved family members.

The USS Greeneville, practicing a quick surfacing maneuver on Feb. 9, smashed into the Ehime Maru, which was carrying high school students on a fisheries training mission, and sent it to the bottom of the sea.

Of the 35 people aboard, 26 were rescued. Four students from the school here remained among the nine people missing Saturday, despite an intense, weeklong search.

``The United States has informed Japan that they have found the ship, in one piece, lying parallel to the ocean floor,'' Kazuhiko Koshikawa, a spokesman for Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori, said late Saturday.

Outside a convenience store in this small town -- the Ehime Maru's home port -- office worker Chiharu Shinoto said of the discovery, ``It's really good news for the families ... I hope the investigation will continue and the cause of the accident is explained clearly.'' Disappointed and exhausted after the unsuccessful search for their loved ones, two family members -- the father of 17-year-old student Takeshi Taniguchi, and an aunt of crew member Toshimichi Furuya -- returned here late Saturday.

Their faces drawn, the two landed in Matsuyama airport -- the nearest airport to the town -- and hurried to a bus, only nodding briefly to local officials who greeted them at the airport.

Another three family members of missing students were scheduled to arrive in Japan Sunday night.

Uwajima's 25-member municipal assembly unanimously adopted a resolution Saturday calling for a direct apology for the accident, full disclosure of its causes, and medical and psychological support for the victims and their families.

It did not specify who should make the apology.

Officials said the resolution was to be passed on to the provincial government and then handed over to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.

Anger over the accident has not waned, and several newspapers published editorials critical of the U.S. military's handling of it.

``It's been already one week and we don't hear even a word of apology from the captain of the submarine,'' said the Mainichi, a major Japanese newspaper.

U.S. regional Consul-General Robert Ludan visited Ehime state Gov. Moriyuki Kato on Friday to apologize -- the first U.S. official to visit the state and issue a public apology.

In a statement Friday, Ludan said, ``The president has apologized to the Japanese people, I have apologized to the Japanese people, the secretary of defense has apologized and also the secretary of state.''

``I don't know how the U.S. government and the people of the United States can more adequately express their regrets and deepest apologies,'' he added.

Anger has been particularly strong in Uwajima, however, over the piecemeal release of information -- particularly over the role of civilian visitors to the sub, some of whom were at controls during the surfacing maneuver.

``With a civilian witness who went on the record, what was going on inside the submarine has been slowly emerging,'' said a commentary in the local Ehime newspaper. ``The U.S. military has denied the direct link between the civilians and the accident, but we refuse to accept it.''

A preliminary report by the U.S. military was expected in the next few days, according to Pentagon officials.

Ludan went Saturday to the local high school in Uwajima and met the school's principal and students, who demanded that the U.S. government recover the ship and make better efforts to disclose information from the search for missing people.

After fierce protests from the victims' families and the government, the U.S. Coast Guard said it would continue the search indefinitely, reversing an earlier decision to end it.

---

Civilian Says Submarine Took Precautions

February 17, 2001
New York Times
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/national/17HAWA.html?pagewanted=all

A Texas oilman who was aboard the submarine Greeneville said yesterday that its officers made six sweeps with the periscope at two slightly different depths but saw no other ships less than 10 minutes before it surfaced and slammed into a Japanese fishing trawler.

The businessman, John M. Hall, was one of two civilians who handled some of the submarine's controls at the start of the surfacing rill that caused the accident on Feb. 9. The Greeneville shot to the surface, crashing into and sinking the Ehime Maru, a 190-foot Japanese fishing trawler. Nine people on the trawler, including four Japanese students, are missing and presumed dead.

Mr. Hall's comments, made during a telephone interview, show that the Greeneville's captain, Lt. Cmdr. Scott Waddle, did more to check the area for other ships than had been known. But as Navy and other safety investigators search for what went wrong, submarine experts said the comments left them even more baffled how the crew could have failed to detect a trawler so close by.

As soon as the periscope was raised, Mr. Hall said, a submarine officer made two 360-degree rotations and indicated that the area was clear. Commander Waddle then rotated the scope twice before giving orders to raise the submarine, and thus the height of the periscope, by two feet, Mr. Hall said. He said the commander looked through the twirling scope two more times.

Retired submarine officers say that a scope provides greater visibility - and the ability to see greater distances - the higher it is raised.

The height of the periscope is key because the Navy has said the seas were choppy, with swells as tall as six feet. Mr. Hall said he did not now how far the scope rose above the sea.

Retired submarine officers say that in training exercises, a periscope would normally be raised about four to six feet above the seas. But some say that in choppy conditions and when visibility was difficult, it would be more prudent to extend the scope as high as 20 to 30 feet above the seas.

Mr. Hall said that he and some of the 15 other civilians watched a black-and-white monitor that displayed the periscope's view. Asked what he saw during the six searches, he responded: "Nothing but gray."

Mr. Hall, who first discussed the accident on NBC's "Today" show on Thursday, said that 10 minutes later, when the submarine shuddered with the force of the collision, Commander Waddle was so surprised that he asked, "What the hell was that?"

In yesterday's interview, Mr. Hall also provided more details about how the civilians had arranged the submarine ride and about the haunting confusion following the accident.

Mr. Hall said that as the trawler's passengers spilled into the sea in life rafts, the submarine officers did not know at first if they were Japanese or Chinese and asked if any civilian spoke either language and could help the crews communicate.

Later, he said, an officer announced over the submarine's intercom that all 35 people on the trawler had been saved, promoting cheers among the civilians, who had been sent to wait in the torpedo room.

About 10 minutes later, Mr. Hall said, the officer took back that assessment, saying that "we have only 26 accounted for." Then, Mr. Hall said, some women in his group "began crying, and the despair set in."

Mr. Hall also said he disagreed with criticism in Japan that the submarine crew did not do enough to try to save the trawler's passengers. He said a diver was prepared to exit a hatch toward the rear of the submarine, but that the sea swells made it too dangerous to open the hatch.

At that point, the submarine's crew did not realize anyone from the trawler was missing, Mr. Hall said. The Greeneville officers, he said, also feared that if the hatch was opened, so much water could flood in that it would harm the submarine.

Mr. Hall, 52, has said he was the civilian who pulled a switch that set off the emergency surfacing operation. He said a crew member put his hands over Mr. Hall's to make sure the switch was engaged.

Navy officials have said that a second civilian, also under close supervision, held a wheel that helped guide the submarine's ascent.

In Tokyo, Japan's defense minister, Toshitsugu Saito, said it was "outrageous" that civilians were at the controls of the submarine.

Japan's foreign minister, Yohei Kono, called Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to demand more information about what the civilians were doing at the time of the incident. And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld met yesterday at the Pentagon with a Japanese envoy to discuss Japan's concerns about the accident.

Navy officials have insisted that the civilians did nothing to contribute to the accident. The Navy has long taken civilians, as well as government officials and journalists, on such outings to build support. But Navy officials said yesterday they would no longer conduct emergency surfacing drills with civilians on board or let them sit at controls.

Mr. Hall said he did not see any sign that the visitors distracted the officers from their jobs. He said the sub had been at sea for more than six hours before the accident, and most civilians had already taken turns operating the levers that control the submarine's depth and direction.

When he passed through the sonar room earlier in the day, he said, the operators were tracking five vessels. But Mr. Hall said he did not know if they ever detected the trawler.

Mr. Hall, an energy-industry consultant, served as a Marine in Vietnam. He said he had lobbied for nearly a year to get a ride on a submarine, which, he said, he viewed as the "opportunity of a lifetime."

He said he met retired Admiral Richard C. Macke, who suggested the civilians for the Greeneville cruise, last spring while they were both involved in a golf tournament to raise money for restoration work on the U.S.S. Missouri, the World War II battleship on which the Japanese surrendered in 1945.

Mr. Hall was then the chief executive of Fossil Bay Resources Ltd., an oil and gas company in Texas that paid $7,500 to the U.S.S. Missouri Memorial Association in Honolulu to be a sponsor of the golf tournament.

Earlier this week, Admiral Thomas Fargo, the commander of the Pacific Fleet, told several congressmen that most civilians on the Greeneville were donors to the Missouri restoration fund. But Mr. Hall said that was incorrect. He said he believed only one couple on board, Michael and Susan Nolan of Honolulu, had given money to the memorial.

He said the others were "just a social group that we put together."

Mr. Hall's wife, Leigh Ann, was on board, as was another former Fossil Bay executive, Todd Thoman and his wife, Deanda. Mr. Hall would not identify any others in the group.

He said that none of the civilians were politically active or had any business ties to Admiral Macke.

"When a hell of an opportunity like this comes up to go on a submarine, you get a group together," he said. "It's just that simple."

---

Robots Scan Japanese Ship Wreckage

February 17, 2001
New York Times
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/17WIRE-SUB.html

HONOLULU (AP) -- The wreckage of the Japanese ship Ehime Maru sits ``almost upright'' on the ocean floor 2,033 feet below the surface where it was struck by a U.S. submarine more than a week ago, the Navy said Saturday.

The 190-foot fishing vessel was located by a deep-sea robot late Friday night. None of the nine people still missing was seen in the wreckage.

Whether the Ehime Maru is in a condition that would allow it to be raised intact could not be determined, said Jon Yoshishige, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Anguished family members and the Japanese government have called for the the ship's recovery, an operation experts say would be difficult and expensive.

Shizuko Kimura, younger sister of crew member Toshimichi Furuya, said all she wants is for the United States to recover the bodies of the four high school boys, two teachers and three crewmen still missing.

``My brother is at the bottom with the Ehime Maru,'' she cried loudly at a news conference held Friday by family members. ``I'm not asking you to bring him back alive. So please bring back my brother's body to us.

``Promise us. Give us hope!''

``It's your responsibility as human beings,'' said Masumi Terata, mother of 17-year-old Yusuke Terata. ``If your blood is red, you'll understand our pain and sorrow.''

The USS Greeneville, a 360-foot nuclear-powered submarine, was on a one-day mission Feb. 9 with 16 civilians aboard as part of a community relations program. Two civilians at key control positions were supervised by Greeneville crew when the submarine performed an emergency surfacing drill, the Navy has said.

As the 6,900-ton submarine surfaced, its rudder superstructure knifed through the hull of the 500-ton Ehime Maru, which sank within minutes.

The Navy's preliminary report on the accident said the maneuver was performed only because the civilians were on board, Honolulu television station KITV reported, quoting unnamed sources.

The report is being reviewed by Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Thomas Fargo and was expected to be released in the next few days after consultation with the Japanese government, Pentagon officials said.

The Navy barred civilians from submarines during such drills until the investigation is completed.

The relatives who spoke Saturday in Honolulu released a list of 31 questions they want the United States to answer, including who was steering the submarine and why the Greeneville crew did not ``do their best'' to assist survivors immediately after the sinking.

Navy officials have said rough seas prevented the submarine from taking the 26 survivors onboard. Within an hour, the Coast Guard rescued the surviving students, teachers and crew.

The Coast Guard extended its search for bodies at least through the holiday weekend. On Friday it added two cutters, a helicopter and a avy plane to the sole Navy cruiser that had been searching the day before.

The remote-controlled, deep-diving vehicle, the Super Scorpio II, began searching Friday, using sonar and two video cameras to view the wreckage.

The cameras are scanning the Ehime Maru to determine its condition, Yoshshige said. A larger remote submersible, Deep Drone, was to be lowered later Saturday from the Navy salvage vessel, USS Salvor.

The Navy does not plan to release the underwater video, Yoshishige said.

Relatives of the missing said it's not enough.

In Uwajima, the southwest Japanese town where the fisheries school was located, its municipal assembly called for a direct apology for the accident, full disclosure of its causes, and medical and psychological support for the victims and their families.

Anger over the accident has not waned, and several newspapers published editorials critical of the U.S. military's handling of it.

``It's been already one week and we don't hear even a word of apology from the captain of the submarine,'' said the Mainichi, a major Japanese newspaper.

U.S. regional Consul-General Robert Ludan visited Ehime state on Friday to apologize -- the first U.S. official to visit the state and issue a public apology.

Seishiro Eto, Japan's senior vice minister for foreign affairs, was to arrive in Honolulu Saturday afternoon en route back to Tokyo after meeting with U.S. officials in Washington. Eto was to meet with the families of the missing and take a helicopter tour of the crash site.

---

U.S. and British Jets Strike Air-Defense Centers in Iraq

February 17, 2001
New York Times
By JAMES DAO with STEVEN LEE MYERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/world/17IRAQ.html?pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 - The United States and Britain staged air strikes against radar stations and air defense command centers in Iraq today, including targets around Baghdad, in what President Bush called a necessary response to Iraqi provocation.

The raid - carried out by more than three dozen aircraft shortly after night fell in Baghdad - represented an escalation of the long-running, low-level skirmishes between American and British jets and Iraqi forces. The strikes were the first in two years against Iraqi targets north of the no-flight zone over southern Iraq, which American andBritish planes have patrolled since 1992.

American military commanders in the region requested the strikes - which Mr. Bush approved on Thursday - because Iraqi air defense stations had become increasingly aggressive and effective in targeting the patrols over the zone, officials said.

"We will continue to enforce the no-fly zones," Mr. Bush said today during an appearance with President Vicente Fox in San Cristóbal, Mexico. "The no-fly zones are enforced on a daily basis. It is a part of a strategy, and until that strategy is changed, if it is changed at all, we will continue to enforce the no-fly zones."

The strike aircraft had as their targets five separate sites that included as many as 20 radars and command centers.

Mr. Bush and his aides described the raid as routine, saying the United States and Britain were simply responding to Iraqi provocations, as they have repeatedly in the last two years. Since Mr. Bush took office on Jan. 20, American and British jets have struck argets in the southern zone three other times, most recently on Tuesday. They also attacked one in the smaller zone over northern Iraq.

Striking outside the declared zones, however, required commanders to seek explicit approval from Mr. Bush, forcing him to decide whether to authorize a more aggressive military action only weeks into his term. Administration and defense officials said the strikes came before Mr. Bush's national security team had been able to formulate its own comprehensive policy toward Iraq.

But with the Iraqi actions intensifying, they had little choice, they said, underscoring the extent to which President Saddam Hussein can still dictate the agenda of American presidents, a decade after Mr. Bush's father organized the coalition that drove Iraqi occupying forces out of Kuwait.

President Clinton was also confronted by aggressive Iraqi air defenses, and beginning on his second day in office, he oversaw repeated military strikes against Iraq.

In the last six weeks, Iraqi forces have fired antiaircraft artillery at American and British aircraft 51 times and, more significantly, launched more dangerous surface- to-air missiles on 14 occasions, according to the Pentagon. Although none of those attacks succeeded in hitting any of the allied jets, commanders were concerned enough to seek permission to widen their retaliation. Officials said they believed that the firings were a deliberate attempt by Mr. Hussein to test the new administration's resolve.

Officials said today's attack was not the beginning of a sustained assault against the Iraqis, but they left the door open to additional strikes if Iraq continued aggressive behavior.

Air Force F-15's and F-16's, joined by British Tornadoes, carried out the attack from air fields in Kuwait, while Navy F-18's attacked from the American aircraft carrier the Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf. American officials said all of the aircraft had returned safely. In all, there were 24 strike jets - 18 American and 6 British - as well as support aircraft.

Iraqi television said numerous civilians had been wounded in the attacks, which began shortly after 12:30 p.m. Eastern time. But Pentagon officials said they had no evidence of civilian casualties, asserting that the five targets were all in relatively secluded areas - and had been chosen for that reason.

The strikes were far below the scale of the last major attack against Iraq, which occurred in December 1998. In that case, American and British forces carried out four nights of air and missile strikes against more than 100 targets to punish Mr. Hussein's government for ending cooperation with international weapons inspectors. Those targets included missile and chemical production installations, as well as military headquarters and air defenses.

Since then, Iraqi air defense forces have routinely fired on the American and British patrols over the zones in what has amounted at times to a low- grade war, though an entirely one- sided one. The strikes today were comparable in scale to the larger of those periodic strikes, but were significant because the targets were outside the declared no-flight zones.

Pentagon officials said the American and British jets had attacked five sets of targets in all, including four outside the zone and a fifth inside it. The targets included radar installations within a few miles of the heart of Baghdad, as well as radar or command centers at Taji, Suwaira and Taqaddum, the officials said. The fifth target, in the southern zone, was a command center near Numaniya.

All of the installations, the officials said, were involved in the recent escalation. "They thought they were tucked just over the 33nd and were safe," a defense official said, referring to those targets north of the parallel. "They thought they could act with impunity."

While Mr. Bush played down the significance of the strikes, he also suggested that, so far, his policy toward Iraq would remain largely unchanged from President Clinton's.

"Saddam Hussein has got to understand we expect him to conform to the agreement that he signed after Desert Storm," Mr. Bush said. He referred to the cease-fire agreements negotiated by his father's administration at the end of the Persian Gulf war, which required Iraq to recognize Kuwait, make reparations and abandon its programs to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as long-range missiles.

He also made it clear that under his administration, the United States and Britain would continue to enforce the no-flight zones over the north and south. Those zones - and the repeated strikes on Iraqi targets - have come under increasing diplomatic criticism.

"We will continue to enforce the no-fly zone until the world is told otherwise," Mr. Bush said.

Within an hour of leaving their bases, the warplanes dropped precision-guided bombs and other weapons that were aimed at the five locations of Iraqi radars and command centers. Though Pentagon officials declined to offer more specifics about the weapons, they said no cruise missiles had been used in the attack.

Pentagon officials said they would not be able to determine whether the bombs had hit their targets at least until after sunrise in Iraq. But they said early indications were that all the weapons had worked "properly," maintaining their signals with guidance systems until impact.

"All the initial looks say it looks pretty good," said Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman.

United States commanders requested the attack because the pilots who patrol the southern no-flight zone had reported increasing evidence that the Iraqis had become more sophisticated and accurate in detecting and targeting American and British warplanes, Pentagon officials said.

"Three months ago, they weren't seeing us," a senior Pentagon official said. "But suddenly, they were. Something was different."

The improvements in the Iraqi air defenses are not the result of new radar systems; they continue to use equipment that is 30 to 40 years old, Pentagon officials said. But the Iraqis seem to have acquired better communications equipment and software to link their radar sites, and also appear to have employed more sophisticated strategies for using that equipment, the officials said.

Given those improvements, they said, it would have just been a matter of time before a United States or British plane was shot out of the sky.

"It reached the point where it was obvious to our forces that they had to conduct operations to safeguard those pilots and aircraft," Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold of the Marine Corps, director of operations for the Joint Staff, said during a briefing at the Pentagon today. "As a matter of fact, it's essentially a self-defense measure in conducting the operation."

American military officials said the Iraqis also appeared to have improved their air defenses along a northern no-flight zone above the 36th parallel that is also patrolled by American and British planes. But the officials said the Iraqis had been less provocative in those northern regions.

The attack was generally well received by members of Congress. "This was a very important signal to Iraq that we won't stand for violations at the no-fly zone, putting our pilots at risk," said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Republican from Texas. "I approve of the president's action in standing up for America."

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "Today's action implementing this policy was an appropriate response to the increased threat from the Iraqi air defense system reported by our pilots."

But one Congressional aide said there was surprise that some senior Congressional leaders had not been informed of the attack before it was staged.

-------- china

U.S.-China Ties in the Balance

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17378-2001Feb16?language=printer

The State Department is likely to recommend that the United States sponsor a United Nations resolution condemning China's human rights record, a State Department official said yesterday, offering the first glimpse of the administration's stance toward China.

Though Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has not yet sent a recommendation to President Bush, administration officials said there is broad "consensus" within the State Department on supporting the resolution at the annual meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva next month.

It remains unclear how vigorously the administration will push the human rights measure. Despite the sponsorship of the United States in the past, such resolutions have failed after vigorous Chinese lobbying. Many human rights organizations believe the Clinton administration did not throw its full weight behind the resolutions.

Coupled with the selection of key national security policymakers in the past two weeks, forceful support for the resolution would send an early signal that the Bush administration will take a harder line toward China than either the Clinton or first Bush White House did.

Bush has tapped for senior posts at the State Department, Defense Department and National Security Council people who want to reorient U.S. policy by voicing stronger support for Taiwan, pushing ahead with theater and national missile defenses over Beijing's vehement objections, and stressing relations with Japan as a counterbalance to China's influence in Asia. Some have described China as a potential military threat to the United States in Asia and have called for tighter limits on the sale of technology to Beijing.

"This is a group that on balance would feel that one should be fairly muscular or tough in dealing with China," said Kenneth Lieberthal, senior director for Asia in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council.

Experts on China said it is unclear whether the new appointees will prevail over another wing in the Republican Party -- long symbolized by former president George Bush -- that favors free trade and political engagement with Beijing and pays greater heed to Chinese political sensitivities.

But with a U.S. decision looming on arms sales to Taiwan, officials in Beijing are concerned enough about a possible shift in U.S. policy that they dispatched three former Chinese ambassadors to Washington this week for talks. The three stopped first in San Francisco to see former secretary of state George Shultz and then in Houston to see the elder Bush. In addition, a senior Chinese leader, former foreign minister Qian Qichen, has "invited himself" to Washington for talks in March, one U.S. official said.

The new administration includes a military planner who has focused on conflicts in Asia, three people who signed a letter backing unambiguous support for Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack, and two people who served on the Cox Committee, which in 1999 alleged that espionage and technology transfers had aided China's military and threatened American interests.

In April, the administration will decide whether to approve Taiwan's request to buy Aegis destroyers, a potential link to U.S. theater missile defense systems. Chinese officials have repeatedly warned that the Aegis sale to Taiwan would be "disastrous" for U.S.-China relations and would violate agreements made in the 1970s barring military ties between Taiwan and the United States.

More broadly, the administration must decide how to deal with China while pushing ahead with theater and national missile defense systems that Beijing opposes.

Elements of U.S. policy toward China have remained constant since relations were reestablished in the 1970s. The United States has recognized the Communist government in Beijing, has accepted that Taiwan and the mainland are part of an ill-defined "one China," has sold Taiwan enough military equipment to defend itself, has drawn Beijing into international organizations and treaties, and has promoted trade and investment in China.

"The basics of U.S. policy toward China are pretty well established. It's a matter of degree and individual decisions, not overall policy reviews," said one defense official.

But key Bush administration officials have a markedly tougher tone on China.

"I tend to think relations with China are better served when we put them in the proper perspective," one Bush policymaker said in an interview about a year ago. "It is not yet a democracy, it is not yet stable, and its entire people are repressed by those with their faces in the trough." He accused China's military of "undergoing an enormous buildup similar to the Soviets' in the 1950s."

The new roster includes Vice President Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was general counsel to the Cox Committee, a panel chaired by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.).

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has assigned the Pentagon's strategic review to Andrew Marshall, who believes that the United States must be better prepared for a possible war in Asia and has drawn up hypothetical scenarios for war with China.

Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary-designate, and Richard Armitage, the nominee for deputy secretary of state, joined 21 other conservatives in 1999 in recommending that the United States "declare unambiguously that it will come to Taiwan's defense in the event of an attack or a blockade." Earlier, a "strategic ambiguity" policy was designed to leave both sides guessing about any U.S. intervention and thus deter Beijing from attacking and self-governing Taipei from declaring formal independence.

"Taiwan has become a democracy, and that's inconvenient for some," Armitage said at an Asia Society meeting last year. "We look at Taiwan not as a problem but as an opportunity to show that democracy counts."

One possible goal for U.S. policymakers is getting China to move away the M9 and M11 missiles that are stationed within range of Taiwan. A senior Defense Department official said that if China learns how to make the missiles more accurate, it would alter the strategic balance and justify new arms for Taiwan.

Two question marks in the new Bush team are Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, neither of whom has much experience dealing with China.

"A strategic partner China is not, but neither is China our inevitable and implacable foe," Powell said in his Senate confirmation hearing. "China is a competitor, a potential regional rival, but also a trading partner willing to cooperate in areas where our strategic interests overlap." He advocated "enmeshing" China "in the rule of law, by exposing them to the powerful forces of a free enterprise system and democracy, so they can see that this is the proper direction in which to move."

Trade is another area that might soon roil relations with China. Though the Clinton administration signed a market access agreement that paved the way for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, China has yet to join the WTO and bring the agreement into force.

National missile defense plans also loom large. Some administration officials want to include China in negotiations on arms control and missile defense. But others see China, which has been modernizing its two dozen nuclear weapons, as a rogue state, not a cooperative power.

"I tend to believe that it is not a good thing for a country to seek to destroy 20 percent of America," one newly appointed official said a year ago. "Do I have some understanding of why they do it? Yeah, but I don't have to like it."


-------- depleted uranium

U.N. Reports Traces of Plutonium in Kosovo

February 17, 2001
New York Times
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/17KOSO.html

GENEVA, Feb. 16 - The United Nations Environment Program said today that researchers had found minute traces of plutonium at several sites in Kosovo but said they posed no health risk.

"This is so small that there is no additional health risk," said Max Keller, who led research at the A. C. Laboratory for Nuclear and Chemical Warfare in Spiez, Switzerland. He compared the traces found to a couple of pounds of sugar dissolved in a mountain lake.

The report follows an outcry over the possible risks to soldiers and civilians from possibly contaminated armor-piercing ammunition that was used by NATO in the Balkans.

The agency inspected sites in Kosovo in November together with the International Atomic Energy Agency, collecting 340 samples from soil, water and vegetation and from buildings and Yugoslav Army vehicles.

The report said both the Spiez laboratory and the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute had found traces of plutonium 239/240 in four of the samples. In January the agency announced that it had also found traces of enriched uranium, U-236.

"These newest findings about the composition of the depleted uranium only lead to a minor change in the overall radiological situation and should therefore not cause any immediate alarm," said the agency's executive director, Klaus Töpfler.

--------

U.N. team: Uranium in Kosovo poses no risk

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Philadelphia Inquirer
News in Brief
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/02/17/national/BITS17.htm

Rounds of depleted uranium fired by NATO warplanes in Kosovo two years ago contained deadly plutonium, but at "very low" levels that pose no health risks, the U.N. Environment Program said yesterday in Geneva, Switzerland. The U.N. team is trying to determine whether any danger could be associated with the leftovers from the 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serb forces.

-------

Swiss find scant plutonium traces in Balkans

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Environmental News Network
http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/02/02172001/reu_du_41998.asp

A Swiss laboratory has found only minute traces of plutonium in NATO depleted uranium weapons used by NATO-led forces in the Balkans, Swiss radio reported this week.

"It is already clear that only extremely small, if any, traces of plutonium were found in the shells and shell fragments that were checked, and these in no way pose a potential health risk, according to scientists," the radio reported.

The possible danger of contamination from armour and other targets hit by cheap and highly-effective shells tipped with depleted uranium during the Gulf War - and more recently in southern Serbia - has caused an outcry in some Western states. Britain and the United have insisted the risks are minimal.

Swiss defence ministry spokesman Oswald Sigg told the radio: "We will release the detailed findings of the Spiez (weapons lab) plutonium investigation this week, but we can already confirm the same trend that the German investigation found."

He was referring to reports that Germany's GSF research lab had also found no traces of highly toxic plutonium in NATO ammunition used in the Balkans.

Last month Switzerland ordered the lab to check DU weapons samples from Kosovo for plutonium amid concern - played down by defence experts - that the munitions may have posed health risks to peacekeepers, aid workers and civilians in areas of the Balkans where NATO used them to blast Serb tanks. The United Nations' Environmental Programme sent a mission to Kosovo earlier this month as the storm broke in Europe over reports that foreign troops who served in the Balkans and the Gulf over the past decade may have been exposed to contaminated sites that could cause cancer.

The 14 experts collected 340 samples of soil, water and vegetation, conducted smear tests on buildings and destroyed Yugoslav army vehicles, and found remnants of DU ammunition at eight of the 11 sites they visited.

UNEP is working with the World Health Organisation and the International Agency for Research on Cancer to try to determine exactly what risks soldiers and civilians run from DU weapons.

UNEP had asked the Spiez lab to check the samples for enriched uranium, and it found traces of uranium 236, created during processing in nuclear power plants.

But UNEP has said the traces were so small that the weapons containing it would have been no more dangerous than purely DU arms.

-------

Kosovo Bombs Safe, U.N. Says

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17704-2001Feb16?language=printer

GENEVA -- Rounds of depleted uranium fired by NATO warplanes in Kosovo two years ago contained deadly plutonium, but at "very low" levels that posed no health risks, U.N. officials said yesterday.

Laboratories in Switzerland and Sweden found "traces" of plutonium on four spent rounds of ammunition collected by a U.N. team in November, the U.N. Environment Program said.

"The amount of plutonium found in the depleted uranium penetrators is very low and does not have any significant impact on their overall radioactivity," the U.N. statement said. The U.N. team is trying to determine whether any danger is associated with the munitions left over from the 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serb-led Yugoslav forces.

Earlier yesterday, the Swiss Defense Ministry released results showing the findings of about one part plutonium per billion parts of depleted uranium. "The plutonium found so far thus poses no additional risk," the ministry said.

Depleted-uranium ammunition has come under intense scrutiny because of fears it caused leukemia in some NATO peacekeepers who served in the Balkans. Depleted uranium, a heavy, dense metal usually left over from making fuel for nuclear reactors, is used for some ammunition because it can penetrate tanks and other armored vehicles.

-------- iraq

Air Strikes in Iraq

February 17, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/opinion/17SAT1.html

The first American military operation authorized by George W. Bush unfolded yesterday in the skies near Baghdad, the same arena where his father's last actions as commander in chief took place eight years ago. Yesterday's attack by two dozen American and British warplanes on five air defense installations near the Iraqi capital was justified as a response to intensified targeting of allied planes patrolling the "no-flight" zone over southern Iraq.

It also sent a timely signal to Saddam Hussein that the Bush administration, which includes several of the men who commanded the Persian Gulf war, will not shy away from using force to contain any new Iraqi military threat. But air strikes are no substitute for the coherent new policy the administration must soon come up with to rescue crumbling United Nations sanctions and revitalize efforts to halt Iraq's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The United States and Britain imposed the southern "no-flight" zone a decade ago to protect local Shiites and to make it harder for Mr. Hussein to send troops toward the Kuwait border again. Throughout the intervening years, Washington and London have periodically used air strikes against radar, antiaircraft and command sites to protect the pilots patrolling the zones. Those strikes had tapered off somewhat last year, as the American election campaign led the Clinton administration to try to avoid new military confrontations with Iraq.

Yesterday's raids, the first to hit the Baghdad area in more than two years, show that this lull is now over.The strikes were carefully planned, and approved by President Bush. The attacks overshadowed Mr. Bush's inaugural trip out of the country, a one-day visit to Mexico, where he met with Vicente Fox, the new president.

But the more important Iraq challenge awaiting the Bush administration is to rebuild a regional and international coalition for enforcing a strict arms embargo against Baghdad. When Secretary of State Colin Powell travels to Middle East capitals next week, he will be trying to convince Arab and Muslim leaders there that America's main interest is to deny weapons to Saddam Hussein, not to inflict further economic and military punishment on the Iraqi people.

---

No Choice but to Strike

February 17, 2001
New York Times
By ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/opinion/17CORD.html

WASHINGTON -- Yesterday's air strikes against Iraq were a necessary, if not vital, part of United States strategy in dealing with Iraq and the Persian Gulf. It was not American saber rattling. It was Saddam Hussein who had stepped up Iraqi air defense activity, and who had tried to create a new kind of trap for American and British aircraft. President Bush may have chosen to react with an unambiguous message, but it was Mr. Hussein who provoked the strikes.

America cannot afford to show any weakness in dealing with Mr. Hussein, and it will almost certainly have to follow these strikes with strikes in the future. This is not simply a matter of enforcing the no-fly zones or protecting the United States and British aircraft that enforce them. It is part of a broader strategy of military containment that ensures that Iraq remains militarily weak, does not actively threaten its neighbors and understands it cannot openly manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.

There are many reasons why such military containment is necessary. The most important reasons are strategic. The Persian Gulf has two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves and is the key source of oil exports. We cannot be indecisive in dealing with the region's most threatening dictator.

Furthermore, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are just as vulnerable to Iraqi aggression as they were in 1990, and Mr. Hussein's sons are still claiming that Kuwait should be a province of Iraq. If it were not for the American presence in the Gulf, Iraq could invade Kuwait just as quickly as it did a decade earlier.

There are tactical reasons for containment as well. Mr. Hussein is doing his best to convince the Arab world that he can be the military champion of the Palestinian cause, that he is the leader of the one government that openly challenges Israel's closest ally. At the same time, he, his sons and his closest associates continue to try to intimidate friendly regimes like King Abdullah's in Jordan and to heap verbal abuse on the leaders of important moderate states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

If Mr. Hussein created a successful military sanctuary in the no-fly zones, this would be seen as a symbol of his growing strength. If he then succeeded in shooting down an American or British plane, it would be seen as an Iraqi triumph.

Unfortunately, we have no real alternatives to military containment. America can talk about backing Iraqi opposition groups outside the country, but most such groups are hopelessly weak and divided and have little support in Iraq. Nor do they have Saudi, Kuwaiti or Turkish support. The groups that do conduct some military operations inside Iraq are Iranian- backed Shiite groups whose goals scarcely coincide with American interests. Covert operations to help create or support an internal Iraqi opposition may be an option, but is one that will take years to put in place.

Sanctions against Iraqi military forces can be made more effective. We have broad support in the Arab world. Iraq has not had any significant arms imports for more than a decade. Economic and energy sanctions, however, are playing out their course. We cannot hope to get broad support to strengthen them, and Mr. Hussein already has all of the revenues he needs to pay off his military and security forces and Iraq's elite. Economic sanctions now largely hurt the average Iraqi, not the regime.

More broadly, we have no real hope of conducting serious inspections for weapons of mass destruction. There have been no such inspections in nearly three years, and Iraq has almost certainly created many cell-like operations to develop and make missiles, as well as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Even a strong inspection program could only partially constrain Iraq's efforts. A strong military shield is the only way to keep Iraq from rebuilding large-scale capabilities to develop such weapons.

Is military containment a frustrating strategy? Of course. So, however, was four decades of containment of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. They are gone, and without a massive war or any invasions. If we are strong and persevere, Saddam Hussein's regime will inevitably face the same fate.

Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "Iraq and the War of Sanctions."

---

Iraq Air Strike Effective

February 17, 2001
Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-US-Iraq.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The joint U.S.-British air strike against Iraq, described by President Bush as routine, was the biggest blow against Saddam Hussein's military in more than two years and involved two dozen attack planes armed with precision-guided missiles, Pentagon officials say.

``A routine mission was conducted to enforce the 'no-fly' zone'' over southern Iraq, Bush said Friday. ``It was a mission about which I was informed and I authorized. But I repeat, it's a routine mission.''

It was the first military action ordered by the new president, who inherited an Iraq policy that has evolved from the 1991 Persian Gulf War that his father carried out to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait. A key part of that policy is enforcement of no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq -- a mission that has taxed the U.S. military while also taking a heavy toll on Iraq's extensive air defenses.

Iraq does not accept the legitimacy of the no-fly zones. The official Iraqi News Agency said two people died and 20 were injured in Friday's attack.

Bush was in Mexico meeting with President Vicente Fox at the time the missiles were launched at about 12:30 p.m. EST. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush gave the go-ahead on Thursday.

At the Pentagon, Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the strike a ``self-defense measure'' initiated by the commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. The number of U.S. and British attack planes involved -- 24 -- was much larger than in previous missions over northern and southern Iraq in recent years.

Dozens of support aircraft also were involved, including electronic jamming and radar control planes.

Bush's approval was required, Newbold said, because the mission was not the usual small-scale attack that U.S. and British pilots have carried out almost routinely inside the no-fly zones. It was the first strike at targets outside the southern flight-restriction zone since December 1998, officials said.

The Pentagon said five targets were struck, including long-range surveillance radars and associated facilities that Iraq has used more frequently over the past six weeks to coordinate its defenses against U.S. and British patrols. The radars allow Iraq to make better use of its surface-to-air missiles.

The U.S. Central Command said Iraq recently increased its use of anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles, with more than 60 incidents since Jan. 1. It gave no figures for previous periods.

Asked whether the attack was a signal to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the new administration would take more frequent and more forceful military action, Bush said, ``Saddam Hussein has got to understand that we expect him to conform to the agreement that he signed'' after the 1991 Gulf War.

Iraq has not followed the requirements set down in cease-fire resolutions that were designed to ensure it not develop long-range ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons.

Bush said Saddam and his nation must not try to acquire or build weapons of mass destruction. ``If we catch him doing so, we'll take appropriate action,'' the president said. Friday's attack, however, appeared largely unrelated to Iraq's bomb-building ambitions but rather a new chapter in the long-running battle over no-fly zones.

The United States, with British and French support, established the southern zone as a means of preventing Iraqi forces from attacking Shiite rebels. The northern zone was meant to protect minority Kurds, whose uprising after the Gulf War was crushed by the Iraqi army.

``We will enforce the no-fly zone, both south and north,'' Bush said. ``Our intention is to make sure the world is as peaceful as possible.''

Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, told reporters traveling with Bush in Mexico that the administration was continuing the Clinton administration's policy of striking at Iraqi air defenses.

``There isn't any change in policy,'' she said.

In addition to land-based Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and Navy F/A-18 Hornets from the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf, there were many other command, control and other support planes involved in Friday's action, Pentagon officials said. They declined to provide full details.

In London, Defense Secretary Geoffrey Hoon called the attacks a ``proportionate response'' to an increased threat to patrolling aircraft and said Saturday that Britain and the United States were prepared to strike again if necessary.

``We have been involved in the past because of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait -- a perfectly lawful neighbor -- and obviously we must always have regard to the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime poses to the region,'' he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

---

Israel Supports Attack on Iraq

February 17, 2001
Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Israel-Palestinians-Iraq.html

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel said it had no security worries from U.S.-British air raids against Iraq. Palestinians, meanwhile, burned American flags Saturday in solidarity with Baghdad, and the militant group Hamas called for an Arab stand against the West.

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said there was no worry of a flare-up in violence in the Persian Gulf after the allied warplanes struck Iraqi air defense sites around Baghdad on Friday.

``We don't need to be concerned about the events overnight,'' Sneh told Israel radio. ``This doesn't mean that we should disregard Iraq, which is a growing threat.''

Hussein is exploiting the absence of international inspections to build chemical, biological and probably nuclear weapons, Sneh said. He said Israel had had no advance notification of the raids.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld updated outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak about the situation in Iraq by telephone Saturday, Barak's office said. The two officials agreed to be in contact regarding any developments.

The attack on Baghdad sparked demonstrations of support for Iraq in the Palestinian areas. In the West Bank town of Ramallah, about 200 Palestinians took to the streets late Friday after word of the U.S. airstrike spread.

Demonstrators waved Iraqi flags and posters of Saddam Hussein and chanted ``Death to America'' and ``Long live Iraq.''

In the West Bank city of Nablus, about 1,500 protesters burned American and Israeli flags, as well as pictures of President Bush.

Muawia al-Masri, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, urged Arab leaders not to welcome Secretary of State Colin Powell in his visit to the Middle East later this month.

``Once again, the United States showed its real face as an enemy not only of the Iraqi people but all the Arab nations,'' al-Masri told the crowd.

The anti-Israeli group Hamas urged Arab nations to unite against the United States and Britain.

``We call upon our Arab and Islamic nations to move forward in order to put an end to these aggressions,'' a leaflet issued by Hamas said.

About a dozen Palestinians demonstrated outside the U.S. consulate in east Jerusalem, holding signs accusing the United States and Britain of murder.

Other rallies were staged in the West Bank towns of Bethlehem and Tulkarem.

---

Iraq Threatens Retaliation for Western Attacks

February 17, 2001
Reuters
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iraq-le.html?pagewanted=all

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq vowed revenge on Saturday for U.S. and British air strikes near Baghdad it said killed two civilians, while Russia and China led a chorus of international concern over raids seen as threatening Middle East stability.

Western planes were back over Iraq on Saturday morning within hours of their attack near the capital on Friday, according to Baghdad's official news agency, in what appeared to be their first resumption of air patrols in a no-fly zone in southern Iraq.

``At 9:53 local time on February 17, 2001, enemy warplanes violated our space coming from Kuwait and flew over the provinces of Basra, Dhiqar and Meisan,'' the Iraqi News Agency (INA) quoted a military spokesman as saying.

A British Defense Ministry spokesman in London could not immediately confirm the report.

President Saddam Hussein and his top aides discussed plans for military retaliation in the event of a repeat of Friday's Western air attack, the first major raid against Iraq by new U.S. President George W. Bush.

INA said Saddam discussed the ``American aggression and the military measures and plans that should be taken to retaliate against America and those who render facilities to it in case the aggression is repeated.''

The agency said Saddam ordered the formation of 21 military divisions consisting of Iraqis who volunteered to fight with Palestinians in their uprising against the Israelis that began last September.

France, a member of the Gulf War coalition that ended Iraq's 1990-91 occupation of Kuwait, said it wanted an explanation for the first Western air strike near Baghdad in over two years, adding such assaults hindered efforts to solve the Iraq problem.

The Arab League said the assault had broken international law and would stoke anger across the Arab world.

Turkey reproached NATO-ally Washington for not informing it beforehand and said it hoped the raids would not be repeated. Syria and radical Palestinian groups also condemned the attacks and Gulf Arab Qatar said they were regrettable.

A Spanish foreign affairs spokesman said that at no stage had Spain and other European allies been informed of the raid.

U.S. ally Israel expressed understanding of the strike, saying the country that fired dozens of Scud missiles at the Jewish state in the Gulf War still posed a threat.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain was ready to authorize further action against Iraq if Baghdad continued to attack British aircrews patrolling no-fly zones.

Baghdad's official press reacted furiously to the attacks.

``The Americans' and Britons' new, savage crime will not pass unpunished and without decisive retaliation,'' the official Qadissiya newspaper said in a front-page editorial.

``We will teach the new American administration and the Zionist entity (Israel) lessons on Jihad (holy war) and steadfastness,'' it said.

Several hundred Iraqis and Palestinians living in Iraq marched in Baghdad streets protesting against the raids.

``We will fight them in the air, on land and sea and their aggression will achieve nothing but failure,'' said an official statement after a meeting of Iraqi leaders chaired by Saddam.

IRAQ ALSO BLAMES KUWAIT, SAUDI ARABIA

The statement also blamed Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for providing bases for coalition forces in the region.

The demonstrators cursed the United States, Britain and Israel and burned an Israeli flag.

``We are here to say to all the world we are ready to fight the enemy everywhere,'' Fadhil Mahmoud, a shopkeeper, said. ``The attack is unjustifiable and their justification was very silly,'' said Ali Hawi, a soldier at Baghdad's Bab al-Sharji flea market.

The Iraqi Health Ministry announced that two Iraqi civilians had been killed and more than 20 others wounded in the raids.

The United States said its planes attacked Iraqi radar systems. U.S. officials said 24 U.S. and British planes struck five Iraqi military targets five to 20 milesfrom Baghdad using various long-range precision-guided weapons.

Bush said he would take ``appropriate action'' if Saddam made weapons of mass destruction.

One of the reported victims was an 18-year-old woman and television pictures showed a man, apparently in his 30s, who was reported to have died in the attack. The Iraqi news agency named the dead as Aliah Atshan Abdullah and Khalil Hameed Alwash.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said the attacks proved that Washington and London relied on force in a policy that ``worsens an already explosive situation in the Middle East and the Gulf.''

President Vladimir Putin said air strikes did nothing to settle the situation around Iraq and urged any action taken against it to be sanctioned by the United Nations.

China urged the United States and Britain to stop attacks on Iraq immediately. India said the raids hurt only innocents. Iranian radio slammed the strikes, accusing Bush of trying to pick up where his father left off and overthrow Saddam.

HOUSES, SHOPS DAMAGED

The French Foreign Ministry said it had often expressed its incomprehension and disquiet at previous U.S.-British raids and Friday's strike would cause more damaging tensions.

France fought with its Western allies in the Gulf War and afterwards helped impose no-fly zones to protect opposition groups in the north and south of Iraq. But France has increasingly distanced itself from U.S.-British policy on Baghdad and its planes no longer help enforce the zones.

Iraqi television showed houses and shops in an area in Baghdad it said was damaged by the strikes. Reporters for Western media based in Baghdad have not yet been allowed to visit the targeted locations.

U.S. and British warplanes patrolling the zones have often attacked targets in the south and north since Baghdad started to challenge the aircraft in December 1998.

The United States and Britain launched four days of bombing in 1998 to punish Iraq for not cooperating with U.N. inspectors charged with eliminating its weapons of mass destruction.

-------- missile defense

BLAIR POISED TO SAY YES TO MISSILE DEFENCE FEB 23? - WRITE NO TO HIM NOW

Sat, 17 Feb 2001

From: "FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign" <nonukes@foesyd.org.au> To: <abolition-caucus@egroups.com>; <NucNews@egroups.com>; <abolition-europe@vlberlin.comlink.de>; <abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com>; <ozpeace@egroups.com>; <ausinuke@egroups.com>; <active-list@lists.urg.org.au>; <leftlink@vicnet.net.au>; <globenet@egroups.com> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 9:19 PM Subject: BLAIR POISED TO SAY YES TO MISSILE DEFENCE FEB 23? - WRITE NO TO HIM NOW

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE - Urgent action required.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair Poised to say 'YES' to National Missile defence: Only 4/5 days left to tell him 'NO'.

Dear All,

The article below speaks for itself. Your urgent action would be helpful.

If you want to make a point to Blair concerning Missile Defence you have 4/5 days to do it in.

A sample letter is enclosed below, (after the short newsitem) with Blair's fax number at the top. (+44-207-925-0918)

A letter prepared by yhe British-American Security Information Council (BASIC) to all European MPs, MEP, and governments is also included. You may want to use that too.

You may wish to copy your letter by email to the whole of the British Parliament. If you want to do that the list of emails is below, right at the end. (Some of them do bounce, so be prepared for that)

Do please take action on this it is urgent.

AMERICAN MISSILES HEADING BACK TO BRITAIN Daily Mail Friday, February 16th EXCLUSIVE By David Hughes Political Editor

Blair backs Son of Star Wars

IN a move bound to provoke massive controversy, Tony Blair is set to allow American missiles back on to British soil. The decision will ignite the most savage row within the Labour Party and cause deep anger in Europe. It is expected to be agreed in principle when the Prime Minister meets the new President, George W Bush, in Washington next week.

Mr Blair is ready to defy critics and tell Mr Bush the U.S. can count on British support for the controversial 'Son of Star Wars' anti-missile strategy.

1) SUGGESTED LETTER TO TONY BLAIR

Send this if you are outside the US, especially if you are in the UK - Please customise it creatively

To: Prime Minister Tony Blair, +44-207-925-0918

Re: Please Convey Opposition to Missile Defence Scheme

Dear Tony Blair,

I am writing to you in view of your forthcoming visit to President Bush on Feb 23-24.

I am appalled to hear that you may actually be considering agreeing to the use of UK facilities for the NMD/'Star Wars' program.

Your government should not be considering any such thing.

I urge you to express as strongly as possible the opposition of the UK to any NMD system, and to refuse use of the Menwith Hill and Fylingdales facilities and any other UK facilities for this purpose.

The deployment of NMD and TMD (Theater Missile defence) will have serious implications for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Russia and China have made it clear that they will increase their own nuclear offensive capabilities in order to counter NMD. This will set back attempts to reduce nuclear weapons severely and may lead to another nuclear arms race. Serious developments in this direction are already taking place. China has additional concerns over the possible use of theatre missile defence in Taiwan.

In addition, the deployment of NMD will either completely destroy or fundamentally weaken the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, seen internationally as the cornerstone of international arms control. This will have serious consequences for maintaining and strengthening other international agreements such as Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

NMD has been opposed by a wide range of organisations and groups, ranging from 354 major NGOs representing millions of people worldwide, to 50 of the US Nobel prize-winners in physics, to generals and church congregations. It has also been opposed by every major international grouping represented in the UN General Assembly.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to use all the diplomatic influence at your disposal, particularly in your forthcoming visit, to impress upon the incoming Bush administration the UK's opposition to the NMD system.

I also urge you to make clear to the Bush administration that your government will refuse to cooperate in any way with the NMD scheme, and that the use of The SBIRS facility at Menwith Hill,Fylingdales, and other UK facilities will not be permitted for it.

NMD is a scheme that is unlikely ever to work, against a threat that may never materialize and that, in any case, is better dealt with in other ways. It will cost billions better spent elsewhere, and will make further progress toward the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear weapons - an objective to which the United States as well as all other governments are committed - much more difficult, if not impossible.

I therefore urge you to impress on the US government the importance of not proceeding with NMD, but rather of proceeding with the Bush administrations other major committments in nuclear arms control , namely deep cuts in warhead numbers, and of reductions in alert status of strategic weapons systems.

(Signed)

(Your name)

2)Letter Local MPs, Councillors and Representatives

(From Mark Bromley of BASIC)

This letter is designed to be sent to your local MP, Councillor or Senator, asking them to demand that your national government expresses its opposition to NMD to the Bush administration. It is only designed as a template so please alter it as much as you want (I apologize for only providing an English version). To: MP, Councillor, Senator,

Re: Pressure Government to Convey Opposition to Missile Defence Scheme

Dear MP, Councillor, Senator:

I am writing to express my dismay at US President George W. Bush's desire to proceed with the development of an enlarged version of the Pentagon's proposed National Missile Defence (NMD) network. NMD is an ill-conceived and highly destabilising response to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. Its development will undermine not only the security of the United States, but that of Europe and the world as a whole.

I therefore urge you to insist that the UK Government make clear to the Bush administration that it is opposed to NMD, and will not participate in the scheme.

Washington claims the proposed NMD system is designed to protect the United States against a possible nuclear attack by a 'state of concern' or an accidental launch by either China or Russia. The threat of accidental missile launch, and the proliferation of nuclear technology, are real dangers which the United States, along with the rest of the world, is right to be concerned about. However, the only way these threats can be effectively countered is through the pursuit of multilateral disarmament and internationally applied arms control agreements. The development of an NMD system will seriously destabilise these efforts.

Russia and China have made it clear that they will increase their own nuclear offensive capabilities, and maintain or raise their alert status in order to counter NMD and ensure strategic parity with the United States. This will increase the risk of accidental launch, undermine attempts to reduce nuclear weapons, and possibly lead to a new global nuclear arms race. As the United States has acknowledged, if China increases its arsenal, it could well lead to nuclear build-ups in India and then Pakistan.

The deployment of NMD will either completely destroy or fundamentally weaken the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, seen internationally as the cornerstone of international arms control. This would have serious consequences for maintaining and strengthening other international agreements such as Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Without these agreements in place, the number of nuclear capable countries could increase dramatically.

Even the most ambitious NMD advocate acknowledges that there will be no deployable system for at least six years, yet the detrimental effects of the US desire to build a system are being felt already. The Conference on Disarmament is paralysed over the issue of NMD, while plans to export missile technology, as part of the various Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) programmes under proposal, could well signal the death knell of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

The United States is attempting to project an air of inevitability over the question of NMD deployment, and to further coerce allied governments with the promise of a European Missile Defence system. But the immaturity of the necessary technology means that deployment of any kind of system is many years away. In addition, the cost of European participation in a missile defence system would be astronomical, a burden which the United States is unlikely to want to share.

With deployment so far away, and active participation a politically unlikely prospect, the truth is that European governments have an excellent opportunity to sway the US decision-making process.

For the United Kingdom:

The United States has made it clear that participation by the United Kingdom is crucial for plans for NMD system currently under consideration. Two sites on UK territory, the US bases at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, would be required for NMD to work. If the United Kingdom were to make clear that it would oppose the use of these sites in an NMD system, it would have a sizeable diplomatic fallout. However, it might well lead the United States to seriously reconsider its plans.

For Denmark and Greenland:

The support Denmark and Greenland is essential the current US NMD proposals. The US Air Force Base in Thule, Greenland, is currently part of the network of early warning radars the Pentagon wishes to upgrade for use in the NMD system. Thule is also named as a location for one of the future NMD X-Band radars, designed to track incoming missiles and guide interceptors to their targets. Without the use of Thule, the currently planned NMD architecture would not work, as the United States would be unable to intercept missile attacks from Iraq and the Middle East.

The support of the people and governments of Europe is vitally important to US plans to develop a NMD system. Aside from the diplomatic need to maintain good relations with its European allies, the United States also needs to maintain unity within NATO. If sustained opposition to NMD is voiced across Europe, the United States will be forced to listen.

NMD is a scheme that is unlikely ever to work against a threat which is better dealt with in other ways. It will cost billions better spent elsewhere, and will make further progress toward the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear weapons - an objective to which the United States as well as all other governments are committed - much more difficult, if not impossible.

It is vital that the new administration in Washington is made to understand that Europe is opposed to NMD and will not allow its territory to be a part of the system. I therefore urge you to demand that the Government oppose NMD, and helps to persuade the Bush administration to focus its efforts on the vital objectives of deep reductions in warhead numbers, and reductions in the alert status of weapons, to which it is committed.

(Signed)

(Your name)

You may wish to send your letter by email to the entire British parliament.

If you do, here is the list of UK parliamentary emails.

ainsworthr@parliament.uk, allanr@parliament.co.uk, alleng@parliament.uk, andersonj@parliament.uk, arbuthnotj@parliament.uk, armstrongh@parliament.uk, armstrongh@parliament.uk, paddyashdown@cix.compulink.co.uk, athertonc@parliament.uk, atkinsc@parliament.uk, bayleyh@parliament.co.uk, bellm@parliament.uk, bells@parliament.uk, bercowj@parliament.uk, berryr@parliament.co.uk, blairt@parliament.uk, boatengp@parliament.co.uk, borrowd@parliament.uk, bottomleyp@parliament.uk, bottomleyv@parliament.uk, braket@parliament.uk, brazierj@parliament.uk, browng@parliament.uk, buckk@parliament.co.uk, burdenr@parliament.uk, campbella@parliament.uk, nefifelibdem@cix.compulink.co.uk, anne.campbell.mp@dial.pipex.com, catonm@parliament.uk, chaytord@parliament.uk, eastleighldp@cix.co.uk, churchj@parliament.uk, michael.clapham@geo2.poptel.org.uk, clarkd@parliament.uk, clarkm@parliament.uk, clarket@parliament.uk, clellandd@parliament.uk, collinst@parliament.uk, connartym@parliament.uk, cookf@parliament.uk, coopery@parliament.uk, corbettr@parliament.uk, corstonj@parliament.uk, westonlibdems@cix.co.uk, crausbyd@parliament.uk, cunninghamj@parliament.uk, rcmp.perth@snp.org.uk, daveye@parliament.uk, daviesg@parliament.uk, dawsonh@parliament.uk, denhamj@parliament.uk, drewd@parliament.uk, eaglea@parliament.uk, eaglem@parliament.uk, ribblevalley@dial.pipex.com, faberd@parliament.uk, fallonm@parliament.uk, flintc@parliament.uk, flynnp@parliament.uk, follettb@parliament.uk, forsythec@parliament.uk, donfostermp@cix.co.uk, fraserc@parliament.uk, galbraiths@parliament.uk, garniere@parliament.uk, georgeb@parliament.uk, gerrardn@parliament.uk, goldingl@parliament.uk, greenwayj@parliament.uk, griffithsj@parliament.uk, ngriffithsmp@dial.pipex.com, John gummerj@parliament.uk, gunnellj@parliament.uk, hallp@parliament.uk, hamiltonf@parliament.uk, harmanh@parliament.uk, healeyj@parliament.uk, david@wells.tory.org.uk, hewittp@parliament.uk, hoeyk@parliament.uk, hoodj@parliament.uk, hopep@parliament.uk, hopkinsk@parliament.uk, howellsk@parliament.uk, hughesb@parliament.uk, hughesk@parliament.uk, huttonj@parliament.uk, iddonb@parliament.uk, ingrama@parliament.uk, bernard.jenkin@northessex.tory.org.uk, jonesl@parliament.uk, nigeljonesmp@cix.co.uk, keebles@parliament.uk, alank@patrol.iway.co.uk, kellyr@parliament.uk, kennedyj@parliament.uk, kidneyd@parliament.uk, rthontomking@msn.com, kinghamt@parliament.uk, archykirkwood@cix.compulink.co.uk, ladymans@parliament.uk, 105277.3653@compuserve.com, lawrencej@parliament.uk, levittt@parliament.uk, lewisj@parliament.uk, lidingtond@parliament.uk, lilleyp@parliament.uk, lockd@parliament.uk, loughtont@parliament.uk, lovea@parliament.uk, mccaffertyc@parliament.uk, macdonaldc@parliament.uk, mcfallj@parliament.uk, bobmaclennan@cix.compulink.co.uk, mcnultyt@parliament.uk, macshaned@parliament.uk, mactaggartf@parliament.uk, mcwaltert@parliament.uk, mahona@parliament.uk, mallaberj@parliament.uk, maplesj@parliament.uk, matesm@parliament.uk, maxtonj@parliament.uk, arlene.mccarthy@geo2.poptel.org.uk, alan.meale@geo2.poptel.org.uk, michaela@parliament.uk, andrew.miller@geo2.poptel.org.uk, moffattl@parliament.uk, moranm@parliament.uk, morgana@parliament.uk, morleye@parliament.uk, morleye@parliament.uk, mudieg@parliament.uk, murphyj@parliament.uk, murphyj@parliament.uk, normana@parliament.uk, organd@parliament.uk, paisleyi@parliament.uk, paisleyi@parliament.uk, pendryt@parliament.uk, popeg@parliament.uk, prenticeb@parliament.uk, primarolod@parliament.uk, quinnl@parliament.uk, seabeckaj@parliament.uk, newburyldp@cix.compulink.co.uk, rowea@parliament.uk, royf@parliament.uk, russellb@parliament.uk, asmp.peterhead@snp.org.uk, salterm@parliament.uk, savidgem@parliament.uk, sawfordp@parliament.uk, sayeedj@parliament.uk, sheermanb@parliament.uk, sheldonr@parliament.uk, simpsona@parliament.uk, simpsonk@parliament.uk, smithr@parliament.uk, spellarj@parliament.uk, starkeyp@parliament.uk, pcrrn@bigfoot.com, stewartd@parliament.uk, stewarti@parliament.uk, stoateh@parliament.uk, swayned@parliament.uk, agent@poole.tory.org.uk, taylorjm@parliament.uk, taylorm@parliament.uk, thomasgr@parliament.uk, 100746.2456@compuserve.com, toddm@parliament.uk, tredinnickd@parliament.uk, trimbled@parliament.uk, truswellp@parliament.uk, turnerg@parliament.uk, paultylermp@cix.compulink.co.uk, vazk@parliament.uk, paultylermp@cix.compulink.co.uk, walterr@parliament.uk, wardc@parliament.uk, welsha@parliament.uk, whiteb@parliament.uk, whitneyr@parliament.uk, williamsb@parliament.uk, wilshired@parliament.uk, wintertonr@parliament.uk, wisea@parliament.uk, woodm@parliament.uk, wyattd@parliament.uk

Websites where you can get more information on letters to send to world leaders:

The abolition 2000 website is: http://www.abolition2000.org/action/saynotostarwars.html

The letter on the BASIC website is: <http://www.basicint.org/NMDpage.htm#Debate in European Governments>

An online petition to stop star- wars is to be found at: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Jules/

John Hallam Friends of the Earth Sydney, 17 Lord Street, Newtown, NSW, Australia, 2042 Fax (61)(2)9517-3902 ph (61)(2)9517-3903 nonukes@foesyd.org.au http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd

--------

Moscow offers missile shield to Europe

Saturday, February 17, 2001
The Hindu
By Vladimir Radyuhin
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/02/17/stories/03170002.htm

MOSCOW, FEB. 16. Russia will try to convince NATO that its non- strategic missile defence proposal can protect Europe better than the U.S. plan of building a strategic national missile shield.

Gen. Leonid Ivashov, head of the Russian Defence Ministry's international cooperation department, told a press conference in Moscow that details of the Russian plan for a compact and inexpensive missile shield for Europe would be handed over to the NATO Secretary-General, Mr. George Robertson, when he visits Russia next week.

Gen. Ivashov said the Russian plan calls for ``a special mobile, non-strategic missile-defence force'' that can be deployed near a potential aggressor. Such a force would be far cheaper and simpler to build than Washington's ``Star Wars'' shield, he said. Deploying a mobile anti-missile force near a potential aggressor would be a move of last resort, if political and diplomatic efforts failed to defuse the threat.

The NATO chief has already said he will be seeking details of the Russian proposal during his forthcoming visit to Moscow on Feb. 19-21.

Gen. Ivashov dismissed as ``fairy tales'' Washington's protestations that its National Missile Defence (NMD) was to protect the U.S. against a missile threat from ``rogue states'', such as North Korea or Iran.

``If the U.S. builds an NMD this will be above all against the strategic arsenals of Russia and China,'' the Russian General said.

He claimed the U.S. offer of deploying its missile umbrella over Europe was aimed draining European states financially so that they cannot pursue their own defence programmes such as setting up an armed force separate from NATO.

Gen. Ivashov denied reports that Russia had moved its tactical nuclear missiles to its Western border in Kaliningrad, but did not rule out this option if NATO grants membership to the former Soviet Baltic states.

``We regard the further Eastward advance of NATO as a threat to our security,'' he said. ``In this case, even NATO's tactical weapons will become strategic as far as we are concerned. We reserve the right to take adequate steps to protect our national security if NATO pushes further to the East,'' Gen. Ivashov said.

-------- russia

MISSILE TESTS

February 17, 2001
New York Times
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/world/17BRIE.html?pagewanted=all

RUSSIA: Russia test-fired two intercontinental ballistic missiles with dummy warheads, one from a submarine in the Barents Sea and the other from the Plesetsk testing grounds. Both landed on the Kamchatka Peninsula, a military spokesman said. The spokesmen said the tests were intended to prove the continuing reliability and accuracy of Russia's nuclear deterrent forces, but some political analysts suggested that the tests also sent a political message that Moscow intends to oppose any deployment of an American missile shield. Patrick E. Tyler (NYT)

-------

Launches send message:
Russian strategic arsenal is in shape

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
THE BOSTON GLOBE
By DAVID FILIPOV
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/miss171.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/17/MN145630.DTL

MOSCOW -- Russia yesterday test-fired land, air and sea-launched nuclear-capable missiles, adding some Cold War-style punch to an increasingly heated verbal battle between Moscow and Washington over nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The rare, near-simultaneous launches from a land-based silo in northwest Russia, a nuclear-powered submarine in the Barents Sea and a bomber were probably part of a coordinated exercise, military and diplomatic analysts said, and almost certainly were planned well in advance.

The Russian Navy and the Strategic Rocket Forces announced launches within minutes of each other. Two hours later, the Russian Air Force said a TU-95 bomber had also fired a strategic missile.

The message the exercises conveyed -- that Russia is keeping its strategic arsenal in shape -- came just after the Bush administration stepped up its rhetoric in its dispute with Moscow over missile defense and hours before Washington launched an attack on Iraqi radar installations.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that Russia was "part of the problem" by helping "rogue states" such as Libya, Iran and North Korea acquire missile technology.

Washington hopes to meet the potential threat of missile attacks from so-called rogue states with a $60 billion National Missile Defense shield.

Moscow angrily responded that it was meeting its obligations under international treaties to prevent the transfer of weapons technology. A senior Russian general accused the United States of "anti-Russian propaganda" to justify the deployment of a missile-defense system.

The general, Leonty Ivashov, dismissed U.S. claims that a defense system would be intended to stop only small numbers of missiles fired from Iran or North Korea. Instead, Ivashov told reporters, the U.S. initiative was aimed at giving the United States a strategic advantage over China and Russia, something he said would lead to "a new arms race."

A significant part of that race could involve the Topol, the advanced, highly mobile land-based missile Russia fired from a launch pad in Plesetsk, in northwest Russia, to a target the military said it successfully hit on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Pacific, 4,200 miles to the east.

The Russian military has said it could respond to the deployment of NMD by refitting the single-warhead Topol with multiple warheads, making it harder for a missile defense to defeat.

Most of Russia's other long-range missiles have either passed their service lifetimes or are set to be dismantled under the START-II strategic arms reduction treaty, which both Russia and the United States have ratified but which has not gone into effect.

Moscow says missile defense would wreck the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which it sees as the basis for all subsequent nuclear disarmament deals, including START-II. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, due to meet Secretary of State Colin Powell next week in Cairo for the first high-level talks between Moscow and the Bush administration, has said he hopes for "constructive dialogue" on the issue of missile defense.

But the Bush administration has repeatedly said it is prepared to deploy the National Missile Defense shield regardless of Russia's views.

This has led Russian politicians of all stripes to suspect the United States of building support for missile defense in its allegations that Moscow is violating proliferation treaties.

"If the U.S. suspects Russia of violations they should raise the question, and not destroy the cornerstone of arms control," said Alexei Arbatov, a Russian legislator from the liberal Yabloko party.

Russia's protests have been accompanied by some actions that have raised tensions abroad.

On Wednesday, nuclear-capable Russian bombers conducted exercises near Norway and Japan, forcing those countries' air forces to scramble. Japan later said Russian warplanes had briefly entered Japanese air space, but Moscow denied that.

---

Russia tests missiles, criticizes U.S. plans

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Philadelphia Inquirer
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/02/17/national/RUSSIA17.htm

MOSCOW - Firing from the sea, air and land, Russia launched an array of missile tests yesterday that underlined the strength of its armed forces amid increased tension with the United States over missile defense.

The tests came as a top Defense Ministry official accused the Bush administration of engaging in anti-Russian rhetoric and basing its proposal for a missile-defense system on "pure fantasy."

The Russian armed forces launched a Topol intercontinental ballistic missile from the Plesetsk base in northwestern Russia and a ballistic missile of unspecified type from a submarine in the Barents Sea, off Russia's north coast. Both hit their targets in a test range on the Kamchatka peninsula, about 4,200 miles away in Russia's far east, officials said.

Later yesterday, news reports said air force bombers had test-fired one strategic and two tactical missiles in southern Russia.

The Topol, which has been in service since the mid-1980s, and an advanced version called the Topol-M are expected to be the backbone of Russia's missile forces in the coming years. Many of Russia's other missiles are either past their service dates or will have to be dismantled under the START II treaty, which Russia and the United States have ratified but which has not taken effect.

The Topol-class missile currently carries just a single warhead, but the Strategic Missile Force commander, Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, has said the missiles could be fitted with multiple warheads if the United States goes ahead with a proposal to create a national missile-defense system.

The tests demonstrate that "Russian strategic forces are capable of overcoming any antimissile defense, be it a currently existing one or a potential one," the military's first deputy chief of staff, Gen. Valery Manilov, said yesterday, according to the Interfax news agency.

Fitting the Topol with multiple warheads would increase its effectiveness against the proposed U.S. missile-defense system. The Bush administration says such a system is necessary to protect against potential attacks by small countries believed to be developing nuclear missiles.

Russia vehemently opposes the plan, which would require amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bans national missile-defense systems.

Yesterday, Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, head of the Defense Ministry's international cooperation department, denounced the U.S. proposal and said its enactment would touch off a new arms race. He said talk of the necessity to develop a national missile-defense system was "pure fantasy."

Ivashov also said Russia would present specific proposals for an alternative to the U.S. system when NATO's secretary-general, Lord Robertson, visited Russia next week.

---

Russian test missiles send warning to Bush

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Nation & World :
Seattle Times
Los Angeles Times
By Robyn Dixon
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=russmissile17&date=20010217

MOSCOW - Russia test-launched two ballistic missiles yesterday, sending a warning to the Bush administration even as Moscow and Washington are feeling out their new relationship.

The tests came amid bitter Russian opposition to U.S. plans for a national missile-defense system and rhetoric from both nations' top military and security officials.

The strident tone has at times recalled the Cold War, and Russian officials warn the missile shield may trigger a new arms race - including missiles in space. Analysts agree, however, that Russia can't afford such a race.

Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has sought a speedy reduction in nuclear missiles, mainly because of its difficulties in paying for its decaying military machine.

Putin has called for a U.S.-Russia agreement to reduce each side's nuclear warheads from 6,000 to less than 1,500. Under the START II arms-control agreement, which has been ratified but not implemented, each side has to cut back to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads by 2007.

Yesterday's missile launches came as officials on both sides gear up for the nations' first top-level meeting since President Bush took office. Secretary of State Colin Powell will meet Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in Cairo next weekend.

The test launches - from a silo in Plesetsk in northern Russia and a nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea - underscored Russian opposition to the missile shield.

Col. Gen. Valery Manilov, first deputy chief of the armed forces' general staff, said the tests proved that Russia was capable of thwarting any missile shield.

Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the chief of the Defense Ministry's international cooperation department, warned yesterday that if the U.S. builds a missile shield, "we shall find an adequate reply."

Tensions grew Wednesday after Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accused Moscow of being "part of the problem" of weapons proliferation.

He claimed the Russian government ignored companies selling military technology to Iran, North Korea and India that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Russian generals denied the claims.

Dmitri Trenin, a military analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank, said Russia launched the missiles to show the Bush administration it could not ignore Russian concerns.

"A lot of people in Russia - especially among the top brass and in state security bodies - feel angry and embittered over the fact that people in the new U.S. administration act and talk as if they have already discarded Russia. There are things that are even worse than enmity and hostility. There is oblivion, and there is being ignored," Trenin said.

-------

U.S. Faults Russian Nuclear Fuel Shipment

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Reuters
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17722-2001Feb16?language=printer

Russia has shipped nuclear fuel to the Tarapur power reactors in India in violation of its obligations as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the United States said yesterday.

The shipment raises serious questions about Russia's commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation, the State Department said in a statement. The department added that this will be an important item on the Bush administration's agenda for talks with Russia.

The United States regrets the shipment and calls on Russia to cancel its supply arrangement with India, the statement added.

The statement said that as a member of the 39-nation supply group, Russia is committed not to cooperate with the nuclear program of any country where the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does not supervise comprehensive safeguards on all the country's nuclear facilities. The Tarapur reactors near Bombay are under IAEA safeguards. But some other Indian nuclear facilities are not, and the country is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The statement said that at a meeting in December, an overwhelming majority of the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group said they were concerned about Russian plans to ship the nuclear fuel to India.

"We join other nuclear suppliers in calling on Russia to cancel this supply arrangement and live up to its nonproliferation obligations," it said.

"Russia's disregard of its Nuclear Suppliers Group commitments, together with its sensitive nuclear assistance to Iran, raises serious questions about Russia's support for the goal of preventing nuclear proliferation," it added.

"Russia's provision of sensitive technologies will be an important item on the U.S.-Russian agenda of the Bush administration," the statement said.

-------- treaties

US claims Russia broke atomic proliferation regime

Sat, 17 Feb 2001
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/weekly/newsnat-17feb2001-48.htm

The United States has accused Russia of breaking an international regime designed to limit atomic proliferation by shipping nuclear fuels to India.

State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said it was regrettable that Russia had shipped nuclear fuel to the Tarapur power reactors in India in violation of Russia's non-proliferation commitments.

He said Russia had shipped low enriched uranium fuel to India in violation of an agreement among the 39-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group which requires countries to have International Atomic Energy Agency standards on nuclear facilities.

Mr. Reeker said India did not have such safeguards on all of its facilities and was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

He said Russia's help to India and what he said was its "sensitive nuclear assistance" to Iran, raised "serious questions" about Russia's support for the goal of preventing nuclear proliferation.

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

-------- kentucky

Microbes may be corroding casings of monitor wells
Stations check water outside Paducah plant

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Louisville Courier-Journal
By JAMES MALONE,
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2001/02/17/ky_well.html

PADUCAH, Ky. -- A new report suggests that "microbial agents" are responsible for severe corrosion that has eaten through stainless-steel casings on wells that monitor water quality around the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

The corrosion on the 1/16th-inch casings at 19 groundwater-monitoring wells around landfills outside the plant's north fence was found near where radioactive "black ooze" was seen seeping up from the ground about 16 months ago.

Energy Department officials dismissed the ooze as "roofing materials." And officials say the corrosion is not related to groundwater contamination from decades of secret work with nuclear and other hazardous materials at the 1,800-acre nuclear fuel production complex.

Instead, they say the bacteria create enzymes which, combined with a mild chemical reaction, eats away the metal.

At various times in its history, the Paducah plant has used powerful acids to recover and dissolve metals. But no studies have linked acids to the corrosion.

In a report sent to the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection this week, Bechtel Jacobs, the cleanup contractor at Paducah, said the wells should be abandoned and replaced.

The contractor also recommended that "further use of metal casings" in monitoring wells be discontinued in favor of plastic. Last fall, the Energy Department abandoned three of the wells due to the corrosion.

Water drawn from the pipes of the 19 compliance wells is sampled to assure that permit limits aren't exceeded. Consultants said the corrosion found was severe enough to "compromise the validity of the data gathered from them."

Primarily, the wells monitored the spread of an underground plume of trichlorethylene, a toxic solvent, and radioactive technetium 99, an isotope. Both substances leaked from the site for decades.

State officials last summer were skeptical of the microbe theory and asked for further study, which resulted in the report sent this week.

State environmental regulators said yesterday that they had just received the 150-page report and would study it. "We've concerns with the results from the casings that were affected," said Mark York, a department spokesman.

Greg Cook, a spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs, said the corrosion "could occur in anybody's well." He attributed the problem to "soil conditions we have here in Paducah."

There does not appear to be a health concern involved with the corrosion. Since 1988, when solvents and radioactive isotopes were found during sampling, residents around the plant have been provided free municipal water service by the government.

The 19 wells are 50 to 100 feet deep and were installed by an Energy Department contractor in the early 1990s. Cook said there was no suggestion of "an installation error."

But the report said that corrosion seen in one well casing "is probably a consequence of stagnant water being trapped alongside the well casing during installation" and that a seal apparently was not intact.

The type of steel used in some of the well casings at Paducah is called 316 stainless, one of the metal's more durable alloys with a blend of iron, chromium and nickel.

Harold Smith, a Louisville metallurgist, said microbial corrosion and pitting, though unusual, can occur in certain environments, such as sewers or swampy areas. "It is possible to have an environment that will attack" steel, he said. "It is not totally impervious."

Cook said the government will have to pay to have replacement wells installed, with the total cost possibly reaching $1.5 million.

-------- new mexico

Antelopes Take Over N.M. Range

February 17, 2001
Associated Press
By CHRIS ROBERTS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Prolific-Oryx.html

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. (AP) -- Game managers were simply looking for a good trophy animal for hunters in this empty quarter of southern New Mexico. What they got was an exotic ntelope from Africa so at home in the desert that it is multiplying like rabbits.

The original handful of oryx, a native of Africa's Kalahari desert, introduced to the Chihuahuan desert in 1969 has grown to roughly 3,000 animals, even though hunters are allowed to kill more and more each year.

And although the missile test range sprawls across 2 million acres, the oryx are migrating beyond its boundaries, crossing highways and grazing on private land where they compete with cattle for forage. They have been spotted on the runways at Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, where F-117 stealth fighters are based.

Early studies grossly underestimated the oryx's ability to thrive, and assumed they would stay concentrated in an area considered ``empty.''

But now, researchers say that if the animals were left undisturbed, they would spread throughout southern New Mexico.

``And in Texas and Mexico,'' added Steve Henry, wildlife administrator for the New Mexico Game and Fish Department.

``We know so very little about oryx,'' acknowledged Patrick Morrow, a missile range wildlife biologist.

To find the best formula for controlling the burgeoning population, missile range researchers have begun a $350,000, four-year study of the animals' haunts and habits.

The state Game and Fish Department first issued hunting permits for oryx in 1974. Hunters took more than 700 animals in the 1999-2000 season and about 1,000 will be culled this season.

But increasing the number of permits is costly for the department because wildlife managers must spend time with each hunting party. The weapons tested at White Sands make it a dangerous place, and at least one visitor has been killed by picking up unexploded ordnance. Public access is highly restricted, and hunters must follow safety rules and stay within strict boundaries.

The oryx have thrived because much of the Chihuahuan vegetation is similar to what grows in the Kalahari.

And while mule deer and desert bighorn sheep populations dwindled because of drought from 1992 to 1996, oryx thrived.

Oryx use nearly every molecule of water stored in the plants they eat, meaning they don't require streams or springs. And they have a capillary system above their palate that acts like a radiator to keep their brains from baking in the heat.

They also have few natural predators in New Mexico. Although a mountain lion occasionally will kill an oryx, their ranges rarely overlap since the cats prowl the peaks and the oryx graze in the grasslands below.

And since they weigh an average of 400 pounds and have horns more than 3 1/2 feet long, oryx can ably defend themselves. Morrow said the oryx is reputed to be the only hoofed animal ever to kill an African lion.

On top of all that, females reach sexual maturity at 1 1/2 and the are nearly always pregnant. The White Sands environment is so suited to the oryx that twin births have been observed, which is unusual in their native Kalahari, said Doug Burkett, a wildlife range specialist with Mevatec, a missile range contractor.

The new study aims to find a strategy that will maintain the population at 800 to 1,200 and keep it within the boundaries of the missile range. It also will examine the animals' effect on other species -- including those that are threatened or endangered.

Experts said hunting will continue to be the main tool to control the oryx population, and there is no shortage of hunters willing to help.

Morrow said the wildlife department receives up to 30 applicants for every oryx permit it issues, at a cost of $1,500 for a nonresident and $100 for a resident.

-------

Auditor Knocks Nuke Security

Saturday, February 17, 2001
Albuquerque Journal
By Jennifer McKee
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/254438news02-17-01.htm

SANTA FE - The nation's plutonium is far from secure, according to a fiery letter sent to the U.S. Department of Energy and many in Congress this week from a firm hired to double-check security at Los Alamos National Laboratory and other nuclear sites.

Officials at both the Department of Energy and its Los Alamos lab decried the letter and questioned the credibility of its author - Ronald Timm, president of RETA Security of Lemont, Ill., a company that also sells security systems.

Timm's letter, sent Monday, said that accidental "nuclear detonation or explosion" or the possible theft of "special nuclear materials" is possible and has been outlined in several earlier studies. The special nuclear materials are principally the radioactive ingredients needed to make a nuclear bomb, such as plutonium. The letter also says the DOE has minimized similar warnings and has failed to fix problems for years.

"The tone of Mr. Timm's letter speaks volumes about its credibility," said James Rickman, a lab spokesman. "The laboratory has multiple, robust security measures in place that are more than adequate to protect special nuclear materials from all credible threats."

Joe Davis, a DOE spokesman in Washington, D.C., said Timm earlier sent a similar letter to the department's investigative arm and that all his concerns were checked out.

"We're going to conduct a review of the letter to make sure there's nothing new," Davis said. "We believe most of these matters have been addressed."

The letter was addressed to new Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and forwarded to 19 members of Congress, an official with the General Accounting Office, two high-ranking DOE officials and a government watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight. U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., was among those the letter was addressed to while Sen. Pete