------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Navy near proposal to raise boat
China halts Iraq helpers
Hibakusha Wins in Nagasaki A-Bomb Matsuya Lawsuit
Powell may expand N. Korean agenda
Defense to shift blame on sub wreck
SUB COMMANDER TEARFUL, APOLOGIZES
CIA documents reveal differences over Cuba crisis
Document says CIA overstated Soviet threat
Ask More From N. Korea
Bush's N. Korea Stance Signals a Shift Policy:
U.S. Urged To Resume N. Korea Talks
Admiral Says Sub Captain Did Not Act Criminally
Sub's Sonar Probe Too Short, Expert Testifies
Powell wants North Korea to reduce million-man army
Anger at China
International Humanitarian Law in a World of Global Processes
Ditching Finn nuclear plans would raise bills
German activists occupy nuclear waste loading site
U.S. to Revisit North Korea Pact
U.S. Questioned on N. Korea Stance
Macho on North Korea
North Korea's Failures
The visitor from South Korea
Weapons sales concern Seoul, United States
Day 'warm' to missile system
USA Allies keep balking at US missile defense
Losing Momentum on Korea
Bush administration to review USEC-Russian deal
South by High-Tech
The Domenici Deception:
Senator seeks more US reliance on nuclear power
TVA mulls reviving Ala. nuclear power plant
Investigators question government uranium deal
Group seeks home for N-waste

MILITARY
Ranchers organize vigilante groups
China Reassures Powell on Iraq Dealings
G.I.'s Based in Kosovo Won't Help in Serbia
Mixed signals sent on evolving Bush foreign policy
Taiwan appeals for U.S. arms sales
Colombia talks attracting support
Colombia in New Dispute With Venezuela Over a Missing Rebel
The Trajectory of a Painkiller
Land mine heartland
Polishing Public Profile of U.N.
VOW TO U.N.
Sanctions imposed on diamond exports
U.S. SHIP NAMED FOR CHURCHILL:
3 Midshipmen Resign in Deal in Rape Case
Osprey Victims' Families Testify
Army gives China the order for berets

OTHER
ANTI-BEETLE PLAN
Ducks of Manhattan
Our Dependence on Oil
Tycoon to president
Norton's deputy
Unapproved corn found in veggie dogs
IMF reforms lacking
The banana wars
An Inquiry Into Claims That Motorists Were Ordered to Undress
Ticket-writing double standard
Guilty plea in Australian spy case
12 HELD AS SPIES
Embassy worker ID's defendant
Man in bomb plot case pleads guilty
REBEL EXHUMATION
Truck Pieces and Testimony Show Embassy Blast's Force

ACTIVISTS
Peter, Paul & Mary:
China's Leadership Pushes for Unity


-------- NUCLEAR

Navy near proposal to raise boat

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
Associated Press
By SUSANNE M. SCHAFER
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351436

WASHINGTON (AP) - Navy engineers are expected to present a formal proposal to the Japanese early next week for lifting the fishing vessel sunk by a U.S. submarine, officials said Thursday.

A final decision on how to proceed is not expected until several days after that.

A Japanese delegation has been in Washington since Monday meeting with experts at the Naval Sea Systems Command, the Navy's technical division.

A Dutch salvage company that may take up the bulk of the recovery effort presented its contract proposal for dealing with the 500-ton vessel to the Navy on Thursday, said Navy spokesman Cmdr. Greg Smith.

``The Navy has received the proposal and will evaluate it over the next several days,'' he said.

The Ehime Maru, a training ship for fishing students, sank within minutes of being hit on Feb. 9 by the USS Greeneville. Four Japanese students, two teachers and three crewmen were lost. The 190-foot trawler lies in 2,000 feet of water nine miles off Waikiki Beach in Hawaii.

The recovery effort is expected to be a difficult one, given the depth of the wreckage and the damage sustained by the trawler.

The Naval Seas Systems Command is expected to take about four days to evaluate the contract proposal and then make a formal recommendation to Navy leaders, said one Navy official.

Once there is a decision about a course of action, there will have to be discussions with the Japanese, the official said, and the state of Hawaii, the Environmental Protection Agency and other segments of government will have to be dealt with.

For example, the vessel is expected to contain fuel or other oils that could have an impact on surrounding waters if spilled.

A second official, queried about a report from Japan that the method suggested involves wrapping steel plates around the Ehime Maru before it is lifted, said the exact method will depend on the condition of the boat's hull.

In 1999, the Navy contracted with the Dutch firm Smit-International to help retrieve wreckage from the EgyptAir Flight 990. The Boeing 767 crashed south of the Massachusetts island of Nantucket, killing all 217 aboard.

------

China halts Iraq helpers

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351215

WASHINGTON (AP) - China has ordered Chinese companies helping Iraq to modernize its air defense systems to halt their activities, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.

Powell disclosed the Chinese action during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

``China has now said they have told the companies that were in the area doing fiber optics work to cease and desist,'' Powell said.

He said the United States has made no decision on whether the activities of the companies were a violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iraq.

Powell added that the United States will present a complaint to the U.N. sanctions committee if Washington concludes there was a violation.

Washington protested to Beijing after intelligence reports indicated that Chinese workers were in Iraq laying fiber-optic cables to improve communications for air defense networks.

Three weeks ago, U.S. and British forces bombed radar sites in what their governments said was an effort to prevent Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from building an effective air defense.

-------- japan

Hibakusha Wins in Nagasaki A-Bomb Matsuya Lawsuit:
Claims of Thousands of Nuclear Victims of the World Justified

March 9, 2001
Gensuikyo
http://www.twics.com/~antiatom/ab/ehibaku/eh-menu.htm

On July 18, 2000, the Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the final appeal of the defendant, the Minister of Health and Welfare, on the Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit. The court reconfirmed the Nagasaki District Court and the Fukuoka High Court rulings that Hideko Matsuya's disability was caused by radiation from the atomic bomb and ordered the Ministry to withdraw its rejection of Matsuya's application for official recognition of her disabilities as A-bomb induced. Matsuya's victory was made possible by the nationwide support she has received.

As the first ruling of the Supreme Court, this judgment holds great international significance. It gives strong impact supporting the claims of not only A-bomb victims, but also nuclear victims all over the world on their deaths and suffering caused by nuclear tests, weapons development/production and accidents at nuclear-related facilities. With this decision addressing properly the reality of long-distance A-bomb victims and pointing out the unreasonableness of the process by which official recognition was granted, the very ground for governments' denial to providing compensation to these nuclear victims has now been lost.

We express our heartfelt gratitude to the people of the entire world who have given support to this Hibakusha lawsuit, and hope that the information in this web-site will be of use and help to support the struggles of the world nuclear victims.

Summary of the Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit

Text of the Supreme Court Judgement

Statement by Hideko Matsuya and the General Secretary of the Plaintiff Counsel at 2000 World Conference against A & H Bombs

History of the Matsuya Case

Summary of the Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit

The Ministry of Health and Welfare rejected Ms. Hideko Matsuya's application for official recognition of her disabilities based on Article 8 of the Law on Medical Measures for the Victims of the Atomic Bomb (the A-bomb Medical Law). This Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit was a case which sought to have this rejection dismissed. In short, in order for Matsuya to receive 'medical care (Article 7)' based on the A-bomb Medical Law, it was necessary that the Ministry 'recognize' that her disabilities were 'caused by the effect of the atomic bomb' or 'recognize' that she was 'currently in need of medical care because her healing ability had been affected by radiation from the bomb (Article 7 and 8)'.

However, the Ministry rejected Matsuya's request on the ground that 'the possibility that applicant's disabilities were caused by A-bomb radiation can be denied'. Matsuya decided to file a suit against the Ministry based on the argument that the Ministry's interpretation and application of Articles 7 and 8 of the A-bomb Medical Law were erroneous, and that therefore the rejection must be dismissed.

In its counterargument, the Ministry reiterated the reasoning it made when it rejected Matsuya's application in the first place, namely that Matsuya's disabilities could not be understood as having been caused by A-bomb radiation, and that consequently its decision to reject the application was lawful.

Therefore, the immediate focus of the case was on whether or not Matsuya's disabilities satisfied the above requirements. So it was necessary for the plaintiff counsel a) to identify the meaning of the requirements and medically explain the disabilities' relation to A-bomb radiation and b) to clarify the burden of proof. The latter refers to whether it was Matsuya who should explain how her disability was related to radiation or whether it was the Ministry who should demonstrate that the disorder was not related to radiation. Additional to these 2 points, the counsel elaborated on c) the reality of the A-bomb destruction and d) the government's responsibility for state compensation for the Hibakusha, because clear understanding of these two arguments were essential in the consideration of the burden of proof.

1. Requirement of Proving Causability Dr. Shuntaro Hida (was an army surgeon and in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. Since the very day of the bombing he has engaged himself in providing medical care for the Hibakusha and for the abolition of nuclear weapons) and Dr. Kanehiko Yamashita (who has been in charge of Ms. Matsuya since 1985) testified before the court to medically demonstrate how Matsuya's disorder is related to radiation.

Hida's testimony can be summarized into 4 points. 1) The effect of radiation, as generally understood, does not necessarily diminish according to the distance from the hypocenter, and even at the same distance from the hypocenter, there were people who were severely affected by radiation and people who were not. 2) He witnessed boys who were at 2.5 km and a farmer who was at 4.0 km from the hypocenter die after showing radiation injuries. 3) There is an increasing understanding in radiological studies of the serious effect of low dose irradiation on the human body. And 4) medical science is still in its infancy in fully grasping the effect of radiation on the human body, so there are plenty of areas in this field which need to be explored.

Yamashita testified with concrete evidence that the relation between Matsuya's brain injury and radiation could not be denied. By showing X-ray photographs of Matsuya's CT scanned brain, Yamashita explained to the judges the large extent of the damage on her brain cells, which, he asserted, was unlikely to have been caused by mere external injury, but rather by multiple effects of radiation. Given that his patient had contracted a polyp in her stomach as well as hysteromyoma, he concluded that the possibility that Matsuya's entire body had been affected by radiation could not be ruled out.

In concluding his remarks, Yamashita expressed his indignation at the Ministry's inflexible attitude in rejecting Matsuya's application without showing any scientific facts.

When combined with the testimony of Professor Ikuro Anzai, the above evidence showed that the defendant's argument that 'there cannot be any effect of radiation because Matsuya was 2.45 kilometers from the hypocenter' was without rational basis.

Prof. Anzai (Ritsumeikan University, specialized in radiation protection) explained in his testimony that the DS 86 (Dosimetry System of 1986) was not based on estimation of all kinds of radiation emitted from the atomic bombs, and that there was no way to carry out such a thorough estimation since data on which the bombs' structures and calculations were based is still a military secret. The most important point of Anzai's testimony was that up to now, only ionizing radiation of the A-bombs, such as gamma and neutron rays, had been considered as having caused damage to the human body, but factors such as nuclear electromagnetic pulse and huge amounts of non-ionizing radiation (radio waves) radiated from the fire ball also must be taken into consideration in estimating the real effect of the bombs.

In short, the argument of the Health and Welfare Ministry had been that 'the amount of radiation Matsuya absorbed at 2.45 km from the epicenter was a mere 6.1 rad, and it is unthinkable that this amount could have any effect on the human body'. Such a conclusion, however, goes against our common knowledge on the real effect of the bombs. A number of Hibakusha, who ought to have been exposed to a small amount of radiation according to the current dose estimate (DS 86), showed symptoms of radiation injuries, such as loss of hair. Scientifically speaking, these could not have happened.

Then what is wrong with the Ministry's argument? It's wrong because it stands on the ground that the radiation dose computed by the DS 86 is capable of explaining every kind of effect of the bombs. Anzai's statement had great significance in the understanding of relief measures for the Hibakusha. He argued that such measures should be based on the reality of the Hibakusha's sufferings themselves and not on contemporary scientific knowledge, whose application would lead to certain A-bomb damages that fall outside its understanding being neglected. He stressed that such a practice should absolutely be avoided.

2. Effect of the Atomic Bombs For the sake of convenience, Matsuya's plaintiff counsel discussed the damage of the atomic bombing under different categories: physical, mental, property and social damage. At the same time, the counsel pointed out the insufficiency of such analytical consideration of the effect of the bombing and emphasized the need of a comprehensive understanding.

Ms. Chieko Watanabe (in 1959 officially recognized as having A-bomb induced injuries, hypochromemia and paralysis of lower side of the body) who was exposed to the bomb in Nagasaki at a slightly further distance than and in the same direction as Matsuya, also testified. She explained that she not only suffered from various acute radiation injuries, but also that she was still unable to fully recover from the wounds, which continued to suppurate at the time of her testimony. She also testified about other tragedies inflicted upon her by the bombing. Watanabe's physical symptoms were similar to Matsuya's, which are caused by degradation of the immune system due to the radiation. (On March 13, 1993, three months after giving the testimony, Chieko passed away as a result of heart failure. She was 64 years old.)

Mr. Mitsunori Kusumoto, who lived next door to Matsuya and suffered burns from the bombing while playing by the riverside, gave evidence of seeing his friends, who were with him, and a schoolgirl, who lived in the neighborhood of Matsuya, suffer from loss of hair after the bombing.

Mr. Senji Yamaguchi testified about his hell-like experience in Nagasaki. He also showed data prepared by the Japan Confederation of A and H Bomb Suffers Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo) and demonstrated the existence of a number of cases of acute radiation injuries among long distance Hibakusha as well as the incidence of various symptoms called A-bomb disease among them.

These testimonies by the Hibakusha refuted the Ministry's distorted view that 'Matsuya's radiation dose estimated by the DS 86 is a mere 6.1 rad, and that cannot have any effect on human body'.

3. Government's Responsibility for State Compensation The plaintiff's counsel elaborated on 5 points as to why the A-bomb Medical Law should be interpreted as having the nature of a state compensation law. One reason, which is central to this issue, is that the state is responsible for state compensation for A-bomb damage in the first place because the atomic bombs are peculiar in 'leaving perpetual physical disability due to late effects of radiation unique to the atomic bomb, and for this reason the Hibakusha have been gravely afflicted with physical, mental, economical and social damages not comparable to those of war victims in general (Ishida case)'.

The government is responsible for a state compensation also for a) initiating and waging the war which led to the atomic bombings, b) with the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, relinquishing its right to claim damages which it could have otherwise claimed from the Unites States and c) having continued to neglect the Hibakusha in the post-war period, thus aggravating their suffering.

4. Burden of Proof Given that the government is responsible for state compensation for the Hibakusha for the above reasons, the counsel stressed that, to the greatest degree possible, the A-bomb Medical Law must be interpreted and put into practice for the benefit of the Hibakusha. It was from this viewpoint that the counsel argued that the burden of proof lay with the defendant, the Ministry of Health and Welfare. That is, unless the defendant could verify the existence of no relation between a Hibakusha's injuries or diseases and A-bomb radiation, they should be recognized as having been caused by radiation.

Provided the burden of proof lay with the plaintiff, the counsel argued that a Hibakusha's injuries or diseases, which were the subject of the recognition, should be considered as having been caused by the radiation if they had been diagnosed as such and unless the diagnosis was medically unconvincing.

--

Text of the Supreme Court Judgement

(Unofficial Translation; * - inserted by the Editor for clarification)

July 18, 2000

Appellant: Minister of Health and Welfare Yuji Tsushima Appellee: Hideko Matsuya

Concerning the case between the above two parties examined by the Fukuoka High Court as Case Number Gyo-ko No. 17 of 1993, in which a repeal of the decision (*by the Ministry of Health) that turned down the application (*of Hideko Matsuya) for medical allowance for the A-bomb victims was claimed, the High Court issued a ruling on November 7, 1997, and the Appellant appealed the case (*to the Supreme Court). Hence, this court rules as follows:

Main Text

The appeal shall be dismissed. The cost of the appeal shall be born by the Appellant.

Reasons

I. The case under examination concerns the claim of the Appellee, a victim of the atomic bomb used at Nagasaki, seeking withdrawal of a decision by the Appellant reached on September 24, 1987 that turned down the request of the Appellee having been submitted on the basis of Item 1, Article 8 of the Law Concerning Medical Care for the Victims of the Atomic Bombs (Law No. 41 in 1957, annulled in 1994 due to Law No.117, hereinafter referred to as "the Law") to have the hemiplegia and paralysis of the right side of her body and the external injury on her head certified as having been caused by the injuring effect of the A-bomb.

II. Item 1, Article 7 of the Law provides that "the Minister of Health and Welfare confers an allowance on the Hibakusha (A-Bomb victims) who were injured or contracted an illness due to the damaging effect of the atomic bombs and that who actually need medical care. However, in case the injury or illness in question is not caused by the radioactivity of the atomic bomb, this allowance is applicable only when he or she actually needs medical treatment because of his or her healing ability being affected by the radioactivity of the atomic bombs." Item 1, Article 8 of the Law further provides that "those who seek to receive a medical allowance provided by Item 1 of the preceding article need to be certified in advance by the Minister of Health and Welfare that the injury or illness in question has been caused by the damaging effect of the atomic bombs." According to these provisions, in order to achieve this certification based on Item 1, Article 8 of the Law, it is understood that the Hibakusha need to be in a condition actually requiring medical care ("medical care requirement"). In addition to this requirement, the Hibakusha's current wound/illness, which actually requires medical care should be one caused by the A-bomb radiation, or, the above wound/illness should be caused by the damaging effect of the A-bomb other than the radiation but the Hibakusha's healing ability has been affected by the A-bomb radiation, causing him/her to remain in the above condition ("causability of radiation"). The original court ruled as follows: The above certification is made possible only when the applicant has proved that his/her injury or illness has been caused by the A-bomb radiation. However, in light of the severity of damage from the A-bombs, the special nature of the post-A-bomb diseases as well as the purpose and nature of the Law, the degree of proof on the causability of radiation should be interpreted as being sufficient if a "considerable degree of probability" is proved on the causality of applicant's injury or illness by the damaging effect of the A-bomb. Even if the degree of "high probability" is not proved from a physical and scientific point of view, the certification should be done by taking into consideration the situation at the time of the bombing, clinical history afterwards and the present condition of the Hibakusha.

However, when the existence of a causal relationship is required for a certain administrative disposition, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the rejection of the disposition, the degree of proof on the causal relationship to be given by the person whose application was rejected should not be different from that in any other civil suit, as long as there has been no specific condition set beforehand. And the proof of causal relationship in a suit should be to demonstrate a high degree of probability that can confirm the relation in which a specific fact has brought about a specific result, through a comprehensive examination of all the evidence in light of empirical rule, if not through natural science allowing absolutely no doubts. The disposition on the proof should be understood as requiring the certainty of the truth to the degree where ordinary persons do not raise any doubts about it. Therefore, with regard to the causability of radiation, one of the requirements for certification set in Item 1 of Article 8 of the Law, proving the "considerable degree of probability" on the facts requiring proof cannot be judged as being sufficient. And it is needless to say that, in proving the influence of the bomb radiation on the healing ability of a person who is in need of medical treatment to his/her injury or illness not caused by the radiation, the fact that the person is affected by the above "influence" with high degree of probability must be proved. It follows that, if the original court had made a contradictory decision from the above principle based on the purpose of existing laws regarding the degree of proof on the causal relationship, which should have been dealt with as an issue of the law on civil suits, it cannot but be considered as making a wrong interpretation of the Law and the Code of Civil Procedure.

However, there are cases in which existing laws provide that the facts to be proven do not require strict existence of causal relationship. For example, Item 1 of Article 5 of the Law Concerning Special Measures for the A-Bomb Victims (Law No. 53 of 1968, hereinafter referred to as "Special Measures Law"; annulled by the enactment of the Law 117 of 1994), which was examined by the original court in the process of reaching the above ruling, provides as a requirement for eligibility of the health management allowance that disorder in hematopoietic function or others suffered by the Hibakusha "is not clearly established as not having been caused by the effects of the A-bomb radiation". So, this provision can be interpreted as having set as requirements "the inability of showing clear absence of causal relations" between the radiation and disorder in hematopoietic function or others, instead of proving the relationship. The above ruling of the original court may lead to the understanding that the requirement on the causality of radiation as provided for in Item 1 of Article 8 of the Law, which is an associated law of the Special Measures Law, should be interpreted in a similar manner. However, the Special Measures Law clearly sets separate requirements for the granting of each specific allowance. In contrast to the explicit provision in Item 1 of Article 5 of the law concerning the Health Management Allowance that requires only weak causal relationship as stated above, there should be no other interpretation for the provision in Article 2 of the law regarding the payment of the Special Medical Allowance than that the presence of ordinary causal relationship, not a weak one, is required. And, compared with these provisions in the Special Measures Law, Item 1 of Article 7 of the Law should be interpreted as setting the requirement of proving a general causal relationship between the radiation and a given injury, illness or healing ability. This should not change even if there lies consideration for the victims at the bottom of the Law or the Special Measures Law, which is similar to State compensation. Therefore, the above judgement of the original court should be regarded as a wrong interpretation of the law, even if it involves the requirements of substance.

III. The original court judged that the Appellee is in an actual situation requiring medical care and that the situation has the causality of radiation, after making comprehensive examination of all evidence in this case, and ruled that the administrative disposition in question was illegal. So, as set below, this court discusses the judgement made by the original court, which affirmed the stated causality of radiation.

1. The outline of facts lawfully confirmed by the original court as the precondition of the above judgement is as follows:

(1) At 11:02 on August 9, 1945, when the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, the Appellee (then 3 years and 5 months old) was on the verandah of her home, located 2.45 km from the center of the blast at 1-15 Inasa-machi, Nagasaki City (Present address: 415-2 Asahi-machi, Nagasaki City). A roofing tile blown by the bomb blast hit her directly in the left top of the head, and she suffered a serious injury of a depressed fracture and partial loss in the left parietal region of the skull. Due to the above injury, the Appellee temporarily fell into unconsciousness and the loss of motor function of her superior and inferior limbs, but was able to receive only an application of mercurochrome as treatment. For several days that followed, the Appellee stayed home showing the symptoms of diarrhea, and started to lose the hair on her head.

(2) On August 16, the Appellee was taken from home by her parents on foot, past a place 1.7 km from the blast center to Nagasaki Station. They took a train, which passed an area in close proximity to ground zero, to take refuge in Aino-cho, Minami-Takaki-gun, Nagasaki, and spent about 10 days there before going home. During her stay there, the Appellee was bed-ridden and did not have a chance to get any medical treatment, which made her wound in the head fester and produce pus.

(3) Around early October the same year, the Appellee evacuated with her parents to Tomie-cho, Matsuura-gun of Nagasaki. There, too, she was bed-ridden, and lost even more hair. The wound in her head did not close, heavily oozing pus or a watery secretion with strong stench of something rotting. With a diagnosis of a doctor that her wound could heal in a short while, she received treatment, but when part of the wound was about to close, another part started to ooze pus. Such a situation occurred repeatedly and the treatment was hardly effective. It was about 2 years and a half after the atomic bombing that the wound finally managed to close. Such a process of the Appellee's condition and the delay in healing was something that could not be explained fully only by the insufficient or improper treatment she received. During the treatment in this town, a small piece of a roof-tile was extracted from the wound in the Appellee's head.

(4) From December 31, 1945 to January 1, 1946, the Appellee was attacked by serious continuous fits of convulsions accompanying fainting, but was brought around by cardiac compression. The frequency of similar fits gradually declined, but she fell into unconsciousness once or twice a year during her school years, which continued until around 1967. Around 1959, she had a high fever of about 39 degrees Celsius, which continued for a week. At that time, her condition was not diagnosed clearly as an infection disease, and the cause was not found.

(5) The Appellee, both at the time of the administrative disposition and at present, has been diagnosed as having dextro-hemiplegia (brain atrophy) with head injury and has such disabilities as incomplete paralysis on the right side of her body and a flexion contracture of the right elbow joint. The left parietal region of her skull suffered a depressed fracture and some brain tissue was lost in the part of the fracture. This defect part is connected with the lateral ventricle, which is diagnosed as medullary porencephaly, and she has a variety of other indefinite complaints. It is difficult to fundamentally treat them, but for easing these conditions, drug therapy and physiotherapy are actually necessary.

(6) In general, in the case of head injury caused by a small object flying at high speed, the effect on the brain tissue is usually limited only to the injured area and does not cause much effect on the whole of the brain. However, the Appellee's injury was beyond such general explanation and extensive damage was inflicted on the parenchyma of the brain. Such an extensive medullary porencephaly is a rare condition and cannot be explained as just a complication of the head injury. This strongly suggests that there have been additional elements other than the blow by the roofing tile.

(7) According to the result of a survey conducted by a Japan-US joint investigation team in 1945 in Nagasaki, loss of hair was observed in 18% of the people within 1.5 km of the blast center and 10 % within 2 km. In Hiroshima, it was 19% within 1.5 km, and 7.5% within 2 km. In both cities, it is said that as the distance from the blast center got larger, the frequency of hair-loss grew less. Also, the survey conducted by the Ministry of Health in 1965 suggested that among those who were beyond 2 km radius of the blast center, there were significant number of people who had acute symptoms such as loss of hair, and even among the people who were outside a 4 km radius, 11% of those having entered the city in an early period, and 3.1% of others showed the loss of hair. Further, according to a Ministry of Health survey of 1985, among the deaths caused within 2 or 3 km radius of the blast center, 3.2% in Nagasaki and 5.4% in Hiroshima were from acute diseases.

Also, Chieko Watanabe, hit by the A-bomb at 2.9 km from the Nagasaki blast center , which was in the same direction of the area where the Appellee was located, had her spine fractured under a steel beam of a collapsed factory. She developed high fever immediately after the bombing, and after some time, it was followed by loss of hair. She did not have menstruation for a year after the bombing. The wound did not heal easily, which festered and let off a stench. As of June 29, 1959, she received recognition that Item 1 of Article 8 of the Law was applicable to her.

Mitsunori Kusumoto, who was at 2.4 km from the ground zero of Nagasaki, experienced some loss of hair about one month after the A-bombing, but a friend of his who was with him at the time of the bombing lost all his hair.

Masako Kajiwara, who was 2.5 km away from the center of the blast of Nagasaki City, developed a fever right after the bombing. Loss of hair was observed about one month later, and after two months, she suffered from nose bleeding, vomiting and diarrhea.

2. On the other hand, in addition to the above facts, the original judgment lawfully confirmed the following facts:

(1) There are stochastic effects and deterministic effects among the effects of radiation exposure on human body, and only the induction of cancer and genetic effects belong to the former, while all others belong to the latter. Therefore, the point in question in this case should be the deterministic effects. However, it is argued that there is a threshold dose of radiation exposure for deterministic effects, under which effects of radiation should not occur. It is said that the threshold for each symptom is 1000 rad for damage on cerebral nerve cells; 100 rad for leukopenia; 300 to 500 rad for epilation; a little over 10 rad for lowering of immunocompetence due to damaged lymphatic corpuscles and so forth.

(2) DS86, a dosimetry system for radiation from the atomic bombing, was adopted in March 1986 by a Japan-US joint committee set up to reevaluate the A-bomb radiation dose, and has been treated around the world as a superior systematic dosimetry system. According to DS86, a total radiation dose of gamma rays and neutrons in the air in Nagasaki was 2.963 rad at 2.4 km from the blast center, and 2.092 rad at 2.5 km, and the dose from residual radiation was insignificant. It is said that the assessed value of uncertainty on the above dose was 13% in the air, and organ dose was 25-35%.

3. Indeed, a mechanical application of the above threshold theory and DS86 would lead to the conclusion that the present condition of the Appellee was not due to the effects of radiation, and it is difficult to deny that a significant doubt would be raised in leading to the recognition that there was a causality from radiation in this case.

However, the fact that DS86 produces assessed values still containing undetermined parts and a review on this dosimetry system is going on at present was lawfully confirmed by the original judgment. And by mechanically applying DS86 and the threshold theory, it seems that the facts as stated in (7) of 1 of III cannot necessarily be explained fully. For example, regarding epilation, a typical acute symptom caused by radiation, the court cannot but hesitate to judge that most cases of epilation, having occurred in the areas where, as long as DS86 and the threshold theory were applied mechanically epilation could not have happened, were caused by factors other than the bomb radiation, such as malnutrition or psychogenic reasons. While taking this into consideration, if the case is examined based on the facts stated in 1 of III, especially the extensive damage inflicted on the brain of the Appellee inexplicable by the physical impact only, and the loss of hair appearing on her, the following conclusion can be drawn: The brain damage of the Appellee was inflicted by the hit of a roofing tile blown by the blast of the atomic bomb as a direct cause, but it became serious because she was exposed to a significant level of the A-bomb radiation, or because her healing ability was lowered by the radiation. As a result, she has been in the present condition requiring medical treatment, i.e., her condition can be judged as having causability from radiation, and it is not possible to conclude that this judgment cannot be accepted based on empirical rules.

IV. If such is the case, the original judgment of this case, which confirmed the radiation causability, is not something that cannot be upheld, and thus the stated violation of the Law (*Code of the Civil Procedure) by the original court regarding the degree of proof in court cannot be definitively considered as something that would influence the conclusion of the ruling. Therefore, after all, the claim (*of the Appellant) cannot be accepted.

Thus, this court renders decision as set forth in the main text, with the unanimous opinion of all of the justices.

The Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court Presiding Judge: Justice Toshihiro Kanatani Justice Hideo Chigusa Justice Toshifumi Motohara Justice Masamichi Okuda

Statements by Hideko Matsuya and the General Secretary of the Plaintiff Counsel at 2000 World Conference against A and H Bombs

Nagasaki, Aug. 9, 2000

Hideko Matsuya Plaintiff of the Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit

It is a great pleasure to be able to report to you, who have came from across Japan and the world, of the victory of the Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya case in the Supreme Court. Please look. This is the official certificate that recognizes my disease as caused by the atomic bombing. I want to thank all of you with all my heart for your longtime support.

My dream of the final victory has finally come true. I have no words other than to say "happy" to explain my present feeling. This victory is not only mine, but also the victory of all the Hibakusha and people who aspire to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Twelve years had passed since I filed the lawsuit against the government in 1988. I never imagined the ordeal would be so long. As the case went through the Nagasaki District Court and the Fukuoka High Court, it gathered more and more support from people across the country. While the case was being heard at the High Court, petitions supporting my case had reached 530,000. Such a number of petitions was unprecedented in the history of the Court and had a great influence on the ruling, which ended up in favor of my case. However, the government was persistent in refusing to recognize my illness as A-bomb disease and appealed the case to the Supreme Court. How cruel they can be! I was exasperated by their attitude. I was agonized by the unforeseen struggle before me, but I always knew that there are people like you out there across the country who support my case to inspire and encourage me.

Yesterday, this certificate was issued. But I have received no word of apology from the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The Ministry owes a load of responsibility for taking a long 23 years to have this issued. Now our next work is to hold the Ministry responsible to make the best use of this judicial decision for the Hibakusha administration. Until then our struggle is not over.

Now 3 similar Hibakusha cases are pending in court. All three Hibakusha are forcing themselves in pursuit of the state recognition despite their illness. I am determined to exert my utmost effort for their earliest victory. I want to ask you to give your support to each of the Hibakusha.

On August of 55 years ago nuclear weapons were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today we stand at the dawn of the 21st century. I, as a Hibakusha, am determined to do my best, however small it may be, to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Naotatsu Nakamura General Secretary of the Plaintiff Counsel Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit

I am General Secretary of the Plaintiff Counsel of Matsuya Lawsuit. First, I want to thank all of you for your support to the Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit, which greatly contributed to the final victory of the case.

On July 18 this year, the Supreme Court ruled to reject a final appeal of the Minister of Health and Welfare against lower courts' decisions that ordered the Ministry to provide special medical coverage to Ms. Hideko Matsuya for her illness caused by the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Based on the ruling, the Ministry finally approved Matsuya's illness was related to the bombing. It took 12 years since she first filed suit with a district court against the Ministry for its refusal to recognize her claim. This victory was made possible when Matsuya's struggle with an indomitable spirit was joined with forces of the Plaintiff Counsel of 150 lawyers, a networking support activities of 10,000 people, a petition campaign, which succeeded in collecting more than 1 million signatures and backups of a number of scientists. I want to convey our wholehearted gratitude for your tireless and affectionate support.

In filing the lawsuit, we had identified significance that the lawsuit would have, if resulted in favor of our case, in government's recognition criteria, according to which state-covered medical care is provided to the Hibakusha.

Firstly, the lawsuit could work for removing a condition of distance from the Ministry criteria. Under the present criteria, to qualify for medical support as having A-bomb symptoms, a person must have been within 2-km-radius of the hypocenter. Matsuya was at 2.45 km from the hypocenter at the time of the bombing. The Ministry's "within 2-km-criteria" is based on a system called the DS 86 (Dosimetry System of 1986). The DS 86, established mostly by American scientists, is a computation system used in nuclear weapons development for estimating amounts of radiation generated by a nuclear explosion. This computation system is used to derive an amount of radiation at a certain distance from the hypocenter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Supreme Court confirmed that mechanical application of the DS 86 is a fault. We think that the court ruling will effectively widen the door for state-covered medical care given to the Hibakusha, who do not fall in the category of "2-km-range."

Secondly, we wanted to remove a condition on the types of diseases and disorders from the ministry criteria. Hitherto, to qualify for the Sate-covered medical care, a Hibakusha has to have an illness, such as cancer or leukemia, which has a clear link with radiation in view of medical science. In Matsuya's case, her motor function disorder was caused by damage to the brain. Since the ruling recognized Matsuya's symptom as linked with radiation exposure, we believe that many more Hibakusha in similar situation as Matsuya will be able to receive the state medical care.

We had also identified two goals to achieve through the lawsuit. One is to hold the government responsible for state compensation for the Hibakusha, and accordingly have it thoroughly examine and revise its Hibakusha administration. We have won the case. But, if we stopped our march here, the government's Hibakusha administration will stay the same. The ruling of the top court is a first tool we have achieved through our struggle. With this, our campaign needs to be further developed.

To hold the government responsible for state compensation is to have it support and work towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. This lawsuit has been a struggle for the abolition of nuclear weapons. That is why the case won support of such a great number of people and the victory. Let us remind ourselves that our struggle continues until the day the world is finally set free of nuclear weapons.

--

History of Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit

1988 Sep. 26: Hideko Matsuya filed a lawsuit with the Nagasaki District Court against the Ministry of Health and Welfare for retraction of its decision dismissing her application for official recognition of her as an A-bomb disease patient.

Dec. 10: The Association of Supporters for the Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit was formed.

Dec. 16: First oral proceeding: Plaintiff Hideko Matsuya made a statement; the defendant, the Minister of Health and Welfare, insisted that the ruling should be transferred to the Tokyo District Court.

1989 Oct. 26: The 5th oral proceeding: the defendant withdrew the statement seeking the transfer of the case and it was decided the suit could be handled at the Nagasaki District Court.

1990 Apr. 20: The 7th oral proceeding: the Matsuya side argued that the principle of interpretation of the present law should be that in case there is doubt, it should be to the advantage of the Hibakusha.

1991 Jan. 9: Shima Matsuya, Hideko's mother, died at age 85.

Jul. 3: The 12th oral proceeding: From the plaintiff's side, Ikuro Anzai, professor of Ritsumeikan University, testified that the A-bomb damage could not be explained only by ionized radiation.

Sep. 26: The 13th oral proceeding: From the plaintiff's side, Anzai testified that damage beyond the explanation of the present science should not be ignored.

1992 Apr. 3: The 16th oral proceeding: Shuntaro Hida, director of the Central Counseling Office of Nihon Hidankyo, entered the witness box for the plaintiff and refuted with evidence the position of the state that there was no effect of radiation at more than 2 km from the A-bomb explosion center.

Jun. 4: The 17th oral proceeding: From the plaintiff's side, Kanehiko Yamashita, Hideko's doctor, testified that the relationship between the plaintiff's injuries and effects of radiation could not be denied.

Dec. 18: Clinical examination of Chieko Watanabe, A-bomb survivor and witness for the Matsuya side, was conducted.

1993 Jan. 13: The 21st oral proceeding: Questioning of Mitsunori Kusumoto and Senji Yamaguchi, A-bomb survivors and witnesses for the plaintiff's side.

Feb. 9: The 22nd oral proceeding: Questioning of Matsuya; presentation of the closing statement of the Matsuya side; the trial was concluded.

Mar. 13: Chieko Watanabe died at age 64.

May 26: A ruling in favor of Hideko Matsuya was handed down by the Nagasaki District Court.

Jun. 7: The Ministry of Health and Welfare appealed to the Fukuoka High Court.

Oct. 14: The first oral proceeding: the State side presented a written statement of reasons for appeal and the Matsuya's side made a statement.

1994 Jan. 21: The 2nd oral proceeding: the Matsuya side refuted the State's statement of reasons for appeal; the Fukuoka Center of the Supporters' Association was formed.

Apr. 15: The 3rd oral proceeding: The Matsuya side again refuted the State's statement of reasons for appeal.

1995 Jun. 23: The 7th oral proceeding: From the plaintiff side, Kanehiko Yamashita, Hideko's doctor, again testified that the relationship between the plaintiff's injuries and effects of radiation could not be denied.

Oct. 13: The 8th oral proceeding: From the plaintiff side, Masaharu Hamatani, professor of Hitotsubashi University, refuted the logic of the State with data from a survey of Hibakusha, testifying that acute symptoms of radiation appeared among those who were exposed to the A-bombing at more than 2 km from the epicenter.

1996 Apr. 19: The 10th oral proceeding: the State side submitted its closing preparatory statement.

1997 Jun. 27: The Matsuya side made its closing statement; the trial of the Fukuoka High Court was concluded.

Nov. 7: The Fukuoka High Court rendered a ruling that was a victory for Matsuya, the plaintiff.

Nov. 20: The Ministry of Health and Welfare appealed to the Supreme Court.

1998 Jan. 14: The state side presented a written statement of reasons for its appeal.

May 1: A signature campaign for requesting the Supreme Court to turn down the appeal was begun.

May 14: The Nagasaki A-bomb Matsuya Lawsuit Network (national organization) was formed.

Jul. 23: The first petition action to the Supreme Court was carried out (presentation of signatures)

Dec. 11: A Kyoto lawsuit for recognition as an A-bomb disease patient resulted in a victorious ruling; the Ministry of Health and Welfare appealed to the Osaka High Court.

1999 May 6: Matsuya's counsel submitted a written statement to refute the State's written statement of reasons for appeal.

May 11: Matsuya made a speech at the "Global Hibakusha" session of the Hague Appeal Conference for Peace held in the Netherlands.

Jun. 29: Kazuo Azuma, A-bomb survivor, filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court for official recognition as an A-bomb disease patient.

Oct. 1: Koichi Yasui, A-bomb survivor, filed a lawsuit with the Sapporo District Court for official recognition as an A-bomb disease patient.

2000 Mar. 22: The 10th round of petition actions to the Supreme Court was carried out; the signatures so far presented exceeded 500,000.

Jul. 18: The Supreme Court handed down a ruling completely in favor of Matsuya.

Jul. 31: The Ministry of Health and Welfare recognized Matsuya as having A-bomb diseases.

Matsuya's speech at the 1998 World Conference against A & H Bombs

--------

Powell may expand N. Korean agenda

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
Associated Press
By GEORGE GEDDA
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351067

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday he may try to enlarge prospective missile negotiations with North Korea to include U.S. misgivings about the million-man military force Pyongyang maintains near the South Korean border.

Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the deployment is ``probably as great a threat to South Korea and Seoul and regional stability as are weapons of mass destruction.''

Clinton-era talks with North Korea were aimed largely at persuading the communist government to curb its missile development and missile export programs in exchange for economic benefits.

President Bush told visiting South Korean President Kim Dae-jung on Wednesday that the United States will not resume talks until after it finishes a review of policy toward North Korea.

It was in the context of the policy review that Powell suggested Pyongyang's ``huge army'' might be a suitable topic for negotiation.

Using rhetoric more provocative than that used during President Clinton's final months in office, Bush said he was ``skeptical'' about North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and expressed doubt that a missile deal could be verified, given North Korea's penchant for secrecy.

But the South Korean president, who met with Kim Jong Il last June, told a luncheon gathering Thursday he believes North Korea is eager for good relations with the United States.

``It seems to be well aware that for assurance of its security and economic assistance, improved relations with the United States are essential,'' he said. ``For North Korea, change is not a matter of choice but of survival.''

He said it would be difficult for South-North relations to improve without progress between Washington and Pyongyang.

Later, Kim Dae-Jung met with senators and House members. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. said Kim told senators he believes the North Koreans have decided on a Chinese-Vietnamese model in which ``they will maintain the communist system and the dictatorship, but will considerably lessen their hold on the economy'' and other matters.

``They don't need these weapons of mass destruction in order to successfully negotiate that route if, in giving them up, they get enough of a boost to get their economy back in shape and to survive,'' Biden said, citing what he called the essence of Kim's rationale.

Speaking for himself, Biden said: ``I don't think we should count on that. But I think it would be absolutely irresponsible not to pursue to find out whether or not he is right.''

In his testimony, Powell said the United States supports the 1994 agreement under which North Korea agreed to freeze a nuclear weapons program in exchange for light-water nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

The replacement reactors would be used as alternatives for the country's plutonium-producing reactors, whose fuel can be converted into weaponry. Powell hinted he is dissatisfied with that arrangement, however, but is open to different types of ``energy-generating capacity'' for the North.

One advocate of an alternate approach is Henry Sokolski, of the Non-Proliferation Education Center, who says nonnuclear methods are safer, quicker and less dangerous.

They include upgrading the North Korean electric grid, refurbishing existing power plants, building new, smaller power plants and integrating North Korea's grid with that of South Korea, he says.

President Kim Dae-jung told the luncheon gathering he does not believe Kim Jong Il is interested in revising the 1994 agreement.

On other subjects, Powell told the Senate committee:

_All Arab countries he visited on his recent trip are willing to work with the United States to curb development of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. To allay Arab worries with the impact of U.N. sanctions on the Iraqi people, he wants to eliminate sanctions on material used by civilians and focus on keeping forbidden weapons out of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's hands.

_China has ordered Chinese companies helping Iraq to modernize its air defense systems to halt their activities. Also on China, Powell said it will be ``very tough'' for the United States to gain passage of an anti-China resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Commission because of lack of support. The commission convenes this month.

_He will weigh the possibility of recommending an international tribunal to investigate abuses committed by Indonesian forces against the people of East Timor in 1999. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Indonesian authorities have yet to hand down a single indictment in response to the violence.

---

Defense to shift blame on sub wreck

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
Associated Press
By PAULINE ARRILLAGA
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351246

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii (AP) - Lawyers for submarine officers under investigation for the sinking of a Japanese fishing boat sought to shift the blame Thursday to a crewman who failed to report that the ship was nearby.

As testimony at a rare Navy court of inquiry entered its fourth day, criticism mounted of a fire control technician. The crewman neglected to tell officers another boat was in close range of the USS Greeneville minutes before the submarine surfaced and smashed through the Ehime Maru, killing nine people.

Friday marks one month since the accident. The court will help determine the fate of Cmdr. Scott Waddle; Lt. j.g. Michael Coen, the officer of the deck; and Lt. Cmdr. Gerald Pfeifer, the second in command. They could face no disciplinary action or anything froto court-martial and imprisonment.

Waddle's attorney asked the chief Navy investigator whether the commander was criminally negligent in the operation of his submarine.

``In my opinion,'' Rear Adm. Charles Griffiths Jr. said, ``he was not criminally negligent.''

After the court session, the commander offered a long-awaited apology to the families of some of the nine victims who are in Hawaii to watch the inquiry.

``I can't ask for forgiveness. This is a burden I will carry to the grave,'' he told them tearfully, according to a Japanese official who was present.

Ryosuke Terata, whose 17-year-old son died, said later, ``Now I feel kind of sorry for Waddle, too.''

Some family members had complained that Waddle refused to make eye contact with them during the inquiry. Last month, he issued a statement expressing ``sincere regret'' for the crash.

During the court session, Waddle cried while Griffiths described rescue efforts. One of his attorneys passed him a tissue. Waddle's wife, sitting in the front row, also wept, as did the father of one of the Japanese victims.

Griffiths praised the Greeneville crew for their response to the accident, calling their efforts ``remarkably professional.'' A brief video showed the choppy waves at the time of the rescue.

Terata leaned forward and stared at the video monitor looking for any sign of his son.

About six minutes before the collision, the fire control technician obtained data showing a boat 4,000 yards from the Greeneville. This happened as Coen and Waddle were conducting periscope scans for surface vessels.

Another admiral suggested Waddle may have thought he was acting properly based upon the information he had.

``Would it be fair to say that it's a two-way street _ the CO backs up his crew, and the crew backs up the CO?'' asked Rear Adm. Paul Sullivan.

``You need your crew to back you up,'' Griffiths agreed.

---

SUB COMMANDER TEARFUL, APOLOGIZES

MARCH 9-11, 2001
THE MORROCK NEWS DIGEST
Fast, free and independent http://morrock.com

The commander of the USS Greeneville nuclear submarine offered a tearful apology Thursday to the families of nine Japanese who were killed when the submarine surfaced and sliced through a Japanese fishing boat. Lawyers for three of the sub's officers are blaming a crewman for failing to warn his superiors that the boat was in the area before the Feb. 9 disaster off the coast of Hawaii.

---

CIA documents reveal differences over Cuba crisis

March 9, 2001
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/09/cia.russia.usa.reut/index.html

PRINCETON, New Jersey (Reuters) -- The CIA released secret Cold War documents Friday showing how U.S. analysts overestimated Soviet power and disagreed over how close the world came to a nuclear war over the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

The 859 documents, declassified to coincide with a Central Intelligence Agency conference at Princeton University on U.S. analysis of the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1991, included a conclusion that the Soviet Union, which broke up in 1991, had backed revolutionary groups that used "terrorism."

A 1981 intelligence report said there was "conclusive evidence" that the Soviet Union supported revolutionary groups that used "terrorism," specifically mentioning El Salvador.

Lloyd Salvetti, director of the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence, described the release as "a treasure trove of great material." The documents will be available on the CIA's Web site www.foia.ucia.gov.

An August 27, 1963, CIA paper revealed a deep disagreement between CIA analysts and those of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which draws on several security sources, over how close to the brink Moscow and Washington came over Cuba.

The CIA document refers to an NIC paper that "implies that the Soviet Union was willing to confront the U.S. militarily when the deployment of strategic missiles in Cuba was discovered" in 1962.

"This position cannot be logically supported if one holds, as is almost universally done, that the Soviets were trying to partially correct a grave imbalance in long-range strike capabilities in order to give them a better bargaining position at a later date," the CIA document said.

Soviet actions showed they clearly realized the only response to U.S. military pressure was a nuclear one, and understood the limitation of their nuclear strike capability compared with the United States, the CIA paper said.

"They obviously took great care to ensure that the situation would not escalate into a thermonuclear war," CIA analysts at the Office of Research and Reports wrote.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev backed down and withdrew missiles from Cuba after threats from President Kennedy, averting what many feared could be a nuclear war.

Overestimated Soviet missile buildup

Gerald Haines, the CIA's chief historian, said analysis of NIC reports showed they continued to overestimate the Soviet missile buildup in the 1980s, when then-President Reagan was promoting his "Star Wars" missile shield plans.

A 1987 analysis of the Soviet Union's response options to "Star Wars" concluded that the Soviets were likely to pursue arms control measures to gain U.S. concessions on the proposal.

Many independent analysts believe Reagan's vigorous and hugely expensive buildup of the U.S. military in the 1980s caused the downfall of the Soviet Union, which was unable, with a moribund economy, to match it with a similar buildup.

A September 1991 CIA analysis of the defense implications of a breakup of the Soviet Union concluded that a Russia without Ukraine and other republics would "retain the potential of a major military power."

Washington has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past decade helping Moscow demolish parts of its nuclear arsenal, but Russia still retains a force similar in size to that of the United States.

More fact, less speculation

Haines said the newly released documents overall showed how CIA analysis became based more on facts rather than speculation after technical means of gathering information were employed.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the CIA was operating with "no eyes and ears," he said. But then the U-2 spy plane and Corona spy satellite began operating and "gave the United States tremendous advantage," Haines said.

A 1978 CIA memo said the selection of a Polish pope, John Paul II, would be "extremely worrisome to Moscow" because it would make it more difficult to integrate Poles more closely into a communist Soviet-dominated system of alliances.

The reports were "carefully scrubbed" to exclude intelligence sources or sensitive information that could affect current U.S. relations with other countries, Ed Cohen, director of the CIA's Office of Information Management, said.

Salvetti said documents on the policies of former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union, showed U.S. analysts "trying to keep pace with a rapidly moving train."

He added, "It was often the case where analysts were just trying to determine what it is that Gorbachev's intentions were when it was really hard for Gorbachev himself to understand where he was going."

A 1986 CIA report said a controversial Soviet radar under construction in Krasnoyarsk was mainly for ballistic missile detection and tracking rather than for satellite detection as the Soviets argued.

The CIA's analysis was the basis for U.S. administration policy that declared the radar a violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and that it be dismantled, CIA historians said.

---

Document says CIA overstated Soviet threat

Friday, March 9, 2001
Philadelphia Inquirer
By Jonathan S. Landay
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/03/09/national/NUKES10.htm

WASHINGTON - For more than 10 years during the Cold War, U.S. intelligence forecasts greatly exaggerated the pace at which the former Soviet Union would improve its long-range nuclear forces, a newly declassified CIA document indicated today.

The summary of a 1989 CIA internal review said every major intelligence assessment from 1974 to 1986 - a period covering at least three presidencies - "substantially" overestimated the Kremlin's plans to modernize and expand its strategic nuclear arsenal.

The document raised new questions about how well the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies judged the Soviet Union's aims and intentions, and the extent to which mistaken analyses influenced U.S. military spending and Washington's defense and foreign policies.

The persistent errors also raise questions about the intelligence community's ability to collect reliable information on today's targets, which are more diverse and even harder for spies to penetrate than the Soviet Union was.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union's force of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarines, and long-range bombers was the U.S intelligence community's primary target. But today's spies must try to keep track of international terrorists, rogue nuclear-weapons programs and computer hackers, and also plumb the minds of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jong Il, all of which is much harder than counting missile silos in Kazakstan or estimating the wheat crop in Ukraine.

The study is part of more than 19,000 pages of documents that have been declassified for a two-day conference on the CIA's analysis of the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1991 that opened today at Princeton University. The documents deleted material still considered important to national security.

Titled "Intelligence Forecasts of Soviet Intercontinental Attack Forces: An Evaluation of the Record," the study reviewed the U.S. intelligence community's projections of efforts to modernize Soviet nuclear forces in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

The forecasts, known as national intelligence estimates (NIE), were intended to guide the president and his top aides in setting defense and foreign policies, including military spending and the size of U.S. nuclear forces. An NIE represents the consensus of 13 agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which frequently disagreed about the severity of the Soviet threat.

The study found that predicting the rate of Soviet nuclear-force modernization "has proven to be the most difficult aspect of Soviet strategic forces to project."

As an example, it cited a 1975 forecast that by 1985 more than 90 percent of Soviet long-range missiles and bombers would be replaced. "In reality, the Soviets replaced less than 60 percent of them," the study said.

"This tendency to substantially overestimate the rate of [Soviet] force modernization occurred in every NIE published from 1974 to 1986, and it was true for every projected force - whether it assumed high, moderate or low levels of effort," the study continued.

In another example, it said an NIE published in 1985 - the beginning of President Ronald Reagan's second term - "projected that virtually the entire [Soviet] ICBM force would be replaced within 10 years."

But by 1989, "more than one-third of the projection period has passed, and so far only about 10 percent of the force is new," the study said.

Another document showed that inaccurate forecasting continued in a 1988 NIE. This one projected that Moscow could field up to 18,000 intercontinental nuclear weapons by the late 1990s if the United States deployed Reagan's proposed space-based national missile-defense system, known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI.

In fact, the cash-strapped Russian military has struggled in recent years to maintain an aging force of some 6,000 nuclear warheads and a deteriorating command and control system.

The study attributed the tendency to overestimate Soviet nuclear-modernization plans to a number of reasons, including the intelligence community's failure "to correctly understand Soviet military requirements."

Intelligence analysts also relied on the rate of a massive Soviet missile buildup in the late 1960s "as a guide for future deployment rates, but that rate of deployment was never approached again," the study said.

Melvin Goodman, a former senior CIA Soviet analyst, said the study bolstered criticism that intelligence assessments of the Soviet threat were deliberately inflated to justify increases in U.S. defense spending and nuclear forces, as well as SDI.

"This is the first time that the CIA has gone on the record confirming the exaggeration of [Soviet] force modernization," said Goodman, who teaches at the National War College in Washington.

Jonathan S. Landay's e-mail address is jlanday@krwashington.com.

---

Ask More From N. Korea
A sound bilateral relationship requires mutual accommodations and greater openness.

Friday, March 9, 2001
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20010309/t000020950.html

Anyone looking this week for clarity or even consistency in the Bush administration's policy toward North Korea would have been perplexed.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the new administration would pick up where the Clinton administration left off, pursuing agreements to halt Pyongyang's missile and nuclear programs in exchange for greater U.S. economic aid and improved political relations. But on Wednesday, President Bush, following a White House meeting with South Korea's President Kim Dae Jung, said he is in no hurry to resume talks and that he has doubts about how trustworthy North Korea really is.

Administration explainers say that policy toward North Korea is still under review, which seems obvious from the disparate comments made. That the developing policy may be linked to Bush's eagerness to build a national missile shield--a prime rationale for which is a potential, if dubious, threat from North Korea--seems obvious as well.

Two guidelines for a new policy are already apparent, and both are sound. Bush seeks reciprocity from North Korea. He wants it to take concrete tension-reducing measures in exchange for the humanitarian and energy aid it gets from the United States. One important step could be a major thinning out of North Korean troops and artillery along the demilitarized zone that separates it from South Korea. And Bush insists on "transparency," meaning Pyongyang must accept verification of any curbs on its weapons programs that it agrees to. It already permits international inspection of the nuclear reactor it shut down in the mid-1990s.

North Korea is suffering from a collapsed economy and a famine that so far has claimed more than 2 million lives. Yet it remains a master at using bluff and bluster and winks and nods to squeeze material help from the United States, South Korea and others. Now it ominously hints that it might resume long-range missile tests and restart its nuclear weapons program unless Washington gives it yet more.

The U.S. response should not be provocative or appear to threaten Pyongyang's security. Everyone's interests would be served if self-isolated North Korea becomes a more responsible participant in the international system. At the same time, Washington is right to insist that a sound bilateral relationship must be a two-way street, requiring mutual accommodations and greater openness.

So far the traffic on that street has largely run one-way.

---

Bush's N. Korea Stance Signals a Shift Policy:
In breaking with Clinton's efforts for a speedy rapprochement, he makes good on campaign talk--and deals a setback to the South's Kim.

Friday, March 9, 2001
Los Angeles Times
By JIM MANN
http://www.latimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi

WASHINGTON--South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's visit to Washington has brought forth the first significant change by the Bush administration in U.S. policy toward Asia.

With a few brief remarks by President Bush on Wednesday and further explanations by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Thursday, the new administration threw cold water on the Clinton administration's efforts last fall to bring about a speedy rapprochement with the Communist regime in North Korea.

"What the president was saying . . . is that we're going to take our time . . . and in due course, at a time and at a pace of our choosing, we will decide and determine how best to engage with the North Korean regime," Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday.

During his campaign for the White House, Bush suggested that he might take a tougher line in dealing with China and North Korea than had the Clinton administration, without saying exactly what he would do. This week's standoffish remarks on engagement with North Korea represent the first sign that his campaign rhetoric on Asia will translate into a different approach to policy.

At the least, these remarks mean that there will be a freeze for several months in the movement by the U.S. government toward a deal to halt North Korea's missile program. It remains possible that after a review of policy, the Bush team will pursue a deal not radically different from the one envisaged by the Clinton administration.

But privately, some Bush administration officials this week have gone further than merely talking about a delay. They also have called into question the underlying assumptions of the Clinton administration in dealing with the regime of Kim Jong Il, and even suggested that the Bush team might abandon the Clinton administration's quest for a deal curbing Pyongyang's missile program.

"There needs to be a timeout to break [the North Koreans] out of the bad habits the Clinton administration created," said Robert Manning, a Korea specialist with the Council on Foreign Relations who is familiar with the views of the Bush foreign policy team.

"There was a premise there that we're scared of the North Koreans, that they are irrational and that if we're not nice to them, they'll start a war. I don't think that's true," he said. "I think everything they [the North Koreans] do is aimed at survival of their regime."

The Bush team's coolness represented at least a temporary setback for the South's Kim, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year for his efforts at reconciliation with the North.

On Thursday, Kim gamely pleaded for U.S. help in dealing with Pyongyang, suggesting that his own "sunshine policy" toward North Korea could be jeopardized by the U.S. position.

"Without progress between the U.S. and North Korea, advances in South-North Korean relations will be difficult to achieve," the South Korean president said in a speech here.

The heart of the Clinton administration's North Korea policy was to try to bring an end to Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs by offering economic inducements.

In 1994, the Clinton administration negotiated an agreement with North Korea in which the United States agreed to help Pyongyang obtain new energy supplies--two light-water nuclear reactors and heavy fuel oil--in exchange for a freeze on its nuclear weapons program.

Four years later, North Korea test-fired its newly developed Taepodong missile over Japanese airspace, and the Clinton team began seeking to negotiate a freeze on North Korea's missile program similar to the nuclear freeze.

North Korea delayed in responding until last fall, when the Clinton administration had only a few months left in office. Then, U.S. and North Korean officials began moving hurriedly toward a deal for a missile freeze, but the agreement wasn't completed because the United States couldn't work out detailed procedures to verify North Korean compliance.

No one in the new administration appears to be talking about abandoning the 1994 agreement freezing North Korea's nuclear program--although some officials suggest that they would be happy if North Korea were willing to change some of the terms of the deal.

But other parts of Clinton's North Korea policy are now being reexamined.

One element in the Bush administration's approach seems to be to try to ensure that any accommodation with North Korea will cover not just its missile and nuclear weapons programs but also its conventional forces.

"For example, there's a huge [North Korean] army poised on the demilitarized zone [between the North and South] that is probably as great a threat to South Korea and Seoul and regional stability as are weapons of mass destruction," Powell asserted in his congressional testimony Thursday.

Beyond this emphasis on conventional forces, the administration also appears to be trying to alter the dynamics of the U.S. negotiations with North Korea.

In effect, the Bush team is arguing that Pyongyang should be in a hurry for a deal with the United States, rather than the other way around.

"They are the ones with all the problems in food, energy and jobs. They're the ones who need a billion dollars in aid a year," said Douglas Paal of the Asia Pacific Policy Center, who served in the administration of Bush's father. "We don't have to rush to a conclusion of our negotiations with them."

---

U.S. Urged To Resume N. Korea Talks

Friday, March 9, 2001
Washington Post
Associated Press
By Eun-Kyung Kim
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/issues/koreas/ap/A45550-2001Mar9.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/030901/nkorea_us.sml

WASHINGTON -- South Korea's president tried to ease American wariness about potential missile talks with North Korea by insisting the isolated nation is eager to improve relations with the United States.

Hoping to persuade the Bush administration to restart missile talks with the communist regime, President Kim Dae-jung said North Korea realizes better U.S. ties are essential for its economic recovery.

"For North Korea, change is not a matter of choice but of survival," he told a luncheon gathering Thursday. "Without opening and reform to bring in outside assistance, it will be difficult for North Korea to overcome its economic difficulties."

Across town just minutes earlier, Secretary of State Colin Powell told lawmakers he may seek to widen potential talks with North Korea beyond missiles to include American concerns about the million-man military force North Korea maintains along the Demilitarized Zone. In addition to South Korea's military, 37,000 American soldiers are facing the North Koreans south of the demarcation line.

Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the North Korean deployment is "probably as great a threat to South Korea and Seoul and regional stability as are weapons of mass destruction."

Clinton-era talks with North Korea were aimed largely at persuading the communist government to curb its missile development and missile export programs in exchange for economic benefits.

On Wednesday, President Bush told Kim that the United States would not resume talks until after it finishes a review of policy toward North Korea. He said he was skeptical that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il would respect any missile-control agreements, given that nation's penchant for secrecy.

The South Korean president, who met with his North Korean counterpart last June, offered a less suspicious view based on that meeting: "My impression was that he wants to improve relations with the U.S."

During a session Thursday with about a dozen members of Congress, Kim said he believes the North Koreans have decided on a Chinese-Vietnamese model in which "they will maintain the communist system and the dictatorship, but will considerably lessen their hold on the economy" and other matters.

"They don't need these weapons of mass destruction in order to successfully negotiate that route if, in giving them up, they get enough of a boost to get their economy back in shape and to survive," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., citing what he called the essence of Kim's rationale.

But Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he didn't think the United States could count on that, "but I think it would be absolutely irresponsible not to pursue to find out whether or not he is right."

Powell, during his testimony to the House International Relations Committee, said the United States supports the 1994 agreement under which North Korea agreed to freeze a nuclear weapons program in exchange for light-water nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

The replacement reactors would be used as alternatives for the country's plutonium-producing reactors, whose fuel can be converted into weaponry. Powell hinted he was dissatisfied with that arrangement, however, but was open to different types of "energy-generating capacity" for the North.

One advocate of an alternate approach is Henry Sokolski of the Non-Proliferation Education Center. He says nonnuclear methods are safer, quicker and less dangerous.

They include upgrading the North Korean electric grid, refurbishing existing power plants, building new, smaller power plants and integrating North Korea's grid with that of South Korea, he says.

President Kim Dae-jung told the luncheon gathering he does not believe Kim Jong Il is interested in revising the 1994 agreement.

---

Admiral Says Sub Captain Did Not Act Criminally

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/national/09HAWA.html

HONOLULU, March 8 - After chronicling a series of errors contributing to the collision between the submarine Greeneville and a Japanese trawler, an investigating admiral said today that he did not believe the submarine's captain, Cmdr. Scott D. Waddle, had acted with criminal negligence.

As he ended a fourth day before the Navy's court of inquiry at the Pearl Harbor Naval Station here, the investigator, Rear Adm. Charles H. Griffiths, acknowledged that he had uncovered no evidence that Commander Waddle had ignored warnings of a collision or otherwise acted negligently.

It was the first time that the question of which charges Commander Waddle and two other officers could face, if any, had been raised during the court's investigation into the collision on Feb. 9, which sank the Japanese vessel, the Ehime Maru, and left nine people lost at sea.

Cross-examining the admiral, Commander Waddle's civilian lawyer, Charles W. Gittins, repeatedly suggested that his client had acted within accepted Navy standards at all times and had done nothing to warrant criminal prosecution.

"Did you find any evidence that Commander Waddle acted criminally, negligently in the operation of his vessel?" Mr. Gittins asked.

Admiral Griffiths replied, "In my opinion, he was not criminally negligent."

Later, as Admiral Griffiths called the crew's efforts to assist in the rescue of the Ehime Maru admirable, Commander Waddle began to cry quietly.

And after the session, the captain met privately in the court building with relatives of some of the missing people and for the first time apologized to them directly, Navy officials said.

The court of inquiry is an investigation, not a trial, but its three presiding admirals will ultimately decide whether to recommend that Commander Waddle or two other officers aboard the Greeneville should be disciplined for their roles in the sinking of the Ehime Maru. Potential disciplinary action ranges widely, from admonishments to courts-martial in crimes as serious as dereliction of duty and negligence.

As their lawyers cross-examined Admiral Griffiths on Wednesday and again today, it was clear that their strategy was to identify circumstances that would explain why the officers were not aware that a fishing trawler was nearby when the Greeneville surfaced abruptly in a maneuver called an emergency main ballast blow.

In one of the inquiry's most dramatic moments, a lawyer for Lt. j.g. Michael J. Coen, the officer of the deck at the time of the collision, cited records showing that a technician had calculated that a sonar contact - which turned out to be the Ehime Maru - was 4,000 yards away and not out of range, as had been thought. Even so, he did not notify Commander Waddle or Lieutenant Coen.

The technician, identified in testimony today as Petty Officer First Class Patrick T. Seacrest, adjusted that calculation just as Lieutenant Coen began a periscope search, six minutes before the collision.

"He should have forcefully told the captain and the officer of the deck," Admiral Griffiths said.

When asked whether that information could have changed the course of events in the minutes before the collision, Admiral Griffiths replied, "Most emphatically, yes."

It was not clear whether the technician changed his calculation based on new sonar readings. No record of those readings exists. Mr. Gittins suggested today that the reason there is no record is that part of the sonar system had been used to play whale sounds for the 16 civilians aboard rather than make a permanent record of sonar contacts.

The testimony appeared to shift the weight of the investigation onto Petty Officer Seacrest, 34, who was described as an experienced veteran of the submarine fleet. He is among those scheduled to testify.

It is also possible he could be named a party to the investigation, meaning that he, too, could face disciplinary action.

In today's session the presiding officers expressed several judgments about the case so far - something unheard of in a civilian trial, but allowed in military justice.

One of them, Rear Adm. David M. Stone, commander of Cruiser Destroyer Group Five and of the aircraft carrier Nimitz battle group, openly challenged many of the issues raised by Mr. Gittins. In particular, he questioned the lawyer's efforts to show that Commander Waddle had used his "best judgment."

"A C.O.'s best judgment," Admiral Stone said, referring to the commanding officer, "does not necessarily mean the action conducted by him was prudent. A C.O.'s best judgment does not necessarily mean the action conducted by him was safe. A C.O.'s best judgment does not necessarily mean the action conducted by him was satisfactory or correct."

"In peacetime operations where lives are at stake," he said, "it is the outcomes based on prudent, safe and correct actions that serve as the basis by which our commander officers are judged and held accountable."

Afterward, Admiral Stone and the court's president, Vice Adm. John B. Nathman, emphasized that they had not reached any judgments in the investigation.

---

Sub's Sonar Probe Too Short, Expert Testifies

March 9, 2001
Associated Press
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Submarine-Collision.html

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii (AP) -- Navy admirals watched a computerized simulation Friday of the periscope search conducted before a U.S. submarine struck and sank a Japanese fishing vessel.

The video showed how easy it would have been for USS Greeneville Cmdr. Scott Waddle and another officer to miss the boat in choppy seas and overcast skies with only 80 seconds devoted to the search.

It also showed how the 180-foot ship would have been clearly visible had Waddle conducted a standard three-minute search at a higher power and depth.

Vice Adm. John Nathman, who is presiding over a Navy court of inquiry into the collision, said the court would not draw sweeping conclusions based on the re-enactment.

``There's nothing absolute about this,'' he said. ``This is a way of finding out what we can diverge from.''

Navy Capt. Thomas Kyle, who assisted the National Transportation Safety Board in its investigation, said the simulations factored in the depth of the submarine, the length of the periscope search, the weather conditions the day of the accident and the size and coloring of the Ehime Maru.

The high school fisheries training vessel sank in 2,003 feet of water south of Oahu after the Greeneville surfaced underneath it while conducting a rapid-ascent drill on Feb. 9. Nine men and boys were killed.

Kyle is the second naval officer to testify at the inquiry, which could lead to courts-martial of Waddle; the executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Gerald Pfeifer; and the officer of the deck, Lt. j.g. Michael Coen.

Wave heights have been estimated at between 3 and 6 feet, with an 8-foot swell, on the day of the collision. Factoring in the hazy conditions, the simulation showed the Ehime Maru as a split-second, mostly wave-obscured blip on the screen at the depth Coen conducted an initial periscope search.

The white ship was similarly hard to spot in the simulation of the second periscope search conducted by Waddle at a higher power and depth of 57 feet. At that point, the periscope would have been about 7 1/2 feet out of the water in a calm sea.

Kyle then showed a simulation of a more ideal, 360-degree sweep done at high power with the submarine nearly skimming the ocean surface and the periscope 10 to 12 feet exposed. The ship was clearly visible in the sweep, which lasted three minutes.

``That's a very obvious presentation of the ship. You would stop and look at that,'' Kyle said.

The court questioned Kyle about whether the Greeneville's sonar team had enough time to ensure the ocean surface was clear before the sub surfaced. Kyle said a longer sonar search would have prevented errors that led to the sinking.

``Time would have helped tremendously,'' he said. ``A little bit more time ... would have made it clear as could be'' that the Ehime Maru was within 1 1/2 miles of the submarine before the collision.

The inquiry, in its fifth day, has focused in part on the role of the sub's fire control technician. Rear Adm. Charles Griffiths Jr., who headed the Navy's preliminary investigation, testified the technician stopped manually plotting sonar contacts and did not notify Waddle about a nearby contact because he was distracted by 16 civilians who were crammed into the control room.

Griffiths said Thursday the collision probably wouldn't have occurred had Waddle been notified of the sonar contact.

But Rear Adm. Paul Sullivan, one of three admirals overseeing the court, asked Kyle on Friday whether more time would have allowed the submarine's sonar operators to gather better information on the contact now known to have been the Ehime Maru.

Griffiths has said the Greeneville devoted about six minutes to two ``legs'' of a sonar search before it rose to periscope depth, then descended to 400 feet to begin a rapid-surfacing drill. He said standards call for about 10 minutes to be devoted to the search.

``When you press the clock, in the back of my head, you run the risk that your solutions are not going to be as good as they should be,'' Sullivan said. ``It doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, but it's something you have to weigh.''

Kyle agreed.

``You want to have enough data to make sure that the data is reliable, and that takes time,'' he said. ``If you try to compress the time too much, then you start losing accuracy and you can make an improper conclusion.''

Sullivan, Nathman and Rear Adm. David Stone will forward recommendations about possible disciplinary action and policy changes to Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Fargo will take final action.

Marking the one-month anniversary of the accident, a relative of one of the nine killed said tensions in the courtroom had eased since Waddle made a tearful apology to the grieving families Thursday.

``We understand that he knew our feelings and he couldn't stand staying silent anymore,'' said Ryosuke Terata, who lost his son. ``Even though we can't forgive him for causing the accident, after all, we think he is a good person.''

---

Powell wants North Korea to reduce million-man army

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
By Ben Barber
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-200139215229.htm

Secretary of State Colin Powell raised the price of continued U.S. engagement with North Korea yesterday by calling on Pyongyang to trim its million-man army and suggesting that Washington would seek to renegotiate a 1994 nuclear deal.

The new U.S. conditions came as South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, now visiting Washington, continued to tack in the opposite direction by urging the Bush administration to "seize this opportunity" for peace.

Mr. Powell's comments marked a further retreat from a pledge Tuesday to pick up where President Clinton left off, with missile talks that included an attempt by North Korea to bring an American president to Pyongyang for a groundbreaking summit.

The secretary of state suggested substituting conventional power plants for twin atomic reactors that were promised to North Korea in exchange for freezing its nuclear weapons program.

"We're going to take our time; we're going to put together a comprehensive policy; and in due course, at a time and at a pace of our choosing, we will decide and determine how best to engage with the North Korean regime," Mr. Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Under the 1994 deal - known as the Framework Agreement -the United States, South Korea and Japan formed a consortium to build two modern nuclear power plants in North Korea and supply fuel oil until the plants came on line.

North Korea last year ended decades of isolation, opened diplomatic relations with a half-dozen Western countries and held a friendly summit with South Korea.

But Mr. Powell's remarks yesterday underscored the new administration's suspicions of Pyongyang openly voiced by President Bush on Wednesday after a White House summit with Mr. Kim.

"[North Korea] is a regime that is despotic," Mr. Powell said. "It is broken. We have no illusions about this regime. We have no illusions about the nature of the gentleman who runs North Korea. He is a despot."

He was referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

Mr. Powell tempered the praise he gave Tuesday for Clinton administration efforts to negotiate an agreement with North Korea to end its development and sales of missiles.

"As we look at the elements of the negotiation that the previous administration had left behind, there are some things there that are very promising," he said.

"What was not there was a monitoring and verification regime of the kind that we would have to have in order to move forward in negotiations with such a regime."

However Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, voiced concern that the new tough line would spoil the chance of an agreement.

"What I'm very worried about is that this opportunity to find out whether or not there is any real possibility [for peace] here is slipping away," he said.

The South Korean president, meanwhile, urged the Bush administration not to let North Korea's present eagerness to normalize ties with the United States slip away.

One day after President Bush called the North a "threat" and delayed missile talks until a policy review takes place, Mr. Kim agreed with the need for verification and for keeping security measures in place.

But he went on to push his sunshine policy of friendship toward the North, which won him a Nobel Peace Prize and led last year to the first North-South summit since the 1950-53 Korean War.

Mr. Kim said he favors "engagement with a background of a solid security stance" but added that he believed - based on nine hours of talks with Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang last year -that the North Korean leader wants peace.

Above all, the North Korean leader wanted good relations with the United States and needed help, the South Korean president said.

"We must assist so that North Korea can go along on the path of change," he told the American Enterprise Institute.

The South Korean president said his North Korean counterpart agreed that even after North-South reconciliation, American troops should remain in place to prevent power plays by Russia, China and Japan.

"We do not have any illusions about North Korea - we will help them where we can but seek assurances" there will not be any future military conflict, he said.

Wendy Sherman, the former State Department counselor who led negotiations with North Korea until the end of the Clinton administration, expressed hope that the Bush administration would move quickly to restart talks.

"I don't know what their real intent is, but I hoped they would have walked through the open door" and set talks on missiles and other issues of concern to the United States, she said in an interview.

"We should remain engaged with North Korea. We were close to an agreement, and North Korea would have stopped exports and production of missiles," she said. "We had discussions on verification - no arms-control agreements would not include it. It was on the table.

"I hope [the Bush administration] will complete their review very quickly and get their team in place."

Mr. Powell said for the first time that the United States might seek, as part of a deal to normalize relations, a cut in the size of North Korea's million-man army.

He characterized it as "poised on the Demilitarized Zone pointing south."

"That's probably as great a threat to South Korea, Seoul and regional stability as weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Powell said.

South Korean newspapers yesterday noted that the sunshine policy of Mr. Kim seemed to clash with the skepticism voiced by Mr. Bush.

"The sunshine theorists in Korea have up till now denounced general demands for 'reciprocity,' hinting we should 'give now and receive later,' while Americans want to take an entirely different approach," said an editorial in the on-line edition of the Chosun Ilbo, South Korea's largest-circulation daily.

Mr. Kim said yesterday that his policy is for "comprehensive reciprocity," under which the North agrees on three things:

• Strict adherence to the 1994 Framework Agreement to freeze nuclear weapons.

• Complete resolution of missile development and sales issues.

• A pledge of no armed aggression against the South.

In return, he said, North Korea would receive three things:

• An assurance of security from South Korea and the United States.

• An appropriate level of economic assistance.

• Aid in joining international lending institutions such as the World Bank.

-------- china

Anger at China

March 9, 2001
Inside the Ring Notes from the Pentagon.
Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200139211815.htm

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice got an earful from a group of three Chinese diplomats who came calling on her at the White House complex.

The three diplomats, former Ambassadors Zhu Chizhen, Li Daoyu and Zhang Wentu, were expected to hold discussions with Miss Rice on a variety of U.S.-China topics: arms sales to Taiwan, China's human rights record and U.S. missile defense plans.

Instead, one of the diplomats pulled out a prepared speech and harangued Miss Rice for some 20 minutes about the Chinese religious group Falun Gong, which China's communist government regards as its greatest internal threat.

Behind the Chinese presentation is China's belief that the CIA is backing the group, a position rejected as ridiculous by U.S. officials.

Falun Gong is a Chinese meditation, exercise and breathing group that is target No. 1 of the Beijing authorities. Its members have been imprisoned and its leaders tortured because of their activism. Several members of the group recently set themselves on fire in Beijing's Tiananmen Square to protest the crackdown.

Miss Rice, we are told, was angered by the Chinese diplomats' tirade and quickly ended the meeting after the 20-minute reading.

The ambassadors are part of a major propaganda campaign now under way by Beijing to influence the new Bush administration before it can get its national security team up and running.


-------- depleted uranium

International Humanitarian Law in a World of Global Processes

Mar 9, 2001
Russia Today
By Maximenko V.I.
http://www.russiatoday.com/news.php3?id=305894
http://www.transcaspian.ru

ALMATY -- (Transcaspian Project) NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in March - June 1999 and the disastrous consequences of the 78-days air war of the North-Atlantic Alliance against a small country in South-Eastern Europe have clearly shown that "humanitarian intervention" as an element of global military and political strategy of the U.S. turned into the most serious potential source of humanitarian catastrophes on the globe".

The last war on the Balkans has also shown how fragile is the world order when the only superpower is trying to secure for itself the possibility of communicating with the rest of the world using only the language of power. The question of overall effectiveness of international law and of the need to perfect international humanitarian law in particular has now become the order of the day in the global community (especially in the part of it, which rejects the dictate of a group of western countries).

Humanitarian aspect of the international law gains today special significance due to at least two main reasons.

Firstly, the most dangerous kind of modern expansionism (the strategy of expanding territorial and political control of the North-Atlantic Alliance eastwards and south-eastwards, towards the heart of Eurasia) uses the pretense of "moral" motives of protecting the universal humanitarian values (using the notion of "human rights" suggested to the world by the advocates of the ideas of French revolution) as a cover. Ideological guise of expansionist aims created by means of information war is all the more dangerous as the emergence of global computer networks in the 90s created new technical means of consciousness manipulation. The falsification of the facts of the struggle of the Yugoslavian nation against an armed and externally supported Alban separatism in Kosovo would be a good example of such manipulation. The aims of a forced change of constitutional state system of Yugoslavia and the disposition of foreign (NATO) troops were successfully disguised as "humanitarian" aims of protecting the Alban minority to manipulate international public opinion.

Secondly, the NATO "humanitarian intervention" on the Balkans turned from a fictitious propagandistic humanitarian catastrophe into a real one, while the West is trying to hush up its scale. This should not surprise anyone: the aftermaths of destroying by missile strikes and bombings the economic infrastructure of a country, which did not attack anyone and the tests of "no-contact" wars carried out on civilians reduced the "humanitarian" phraseology of the interventionists to powder. In the light of the facts of a humanitarian catastrophe, which burst out on the Balkans in 1999, the significance of international humanitarian law and the need of perfecting it under the conditions of global processes become fully visible. The Balkan Task Force and the Special Commission of the Yugoslavian Ministry of Development, Science and Environment collected the facts under consideration. The political assessment of the facts being opposite, the conclusions of these two commissions were practically identical.

Over the period from March 24 to June 10, 1999 NATO aviation with over 1200 aircrafts dropped more than 22000 tons of explosives on Yugoslavia. According to NATO, the overall sortie number sums up to 34250. 25000 residential, 78 industrial, 64 telecommunication and 42 energy objects, 66 road-transport and railway bridges as well as 8 aerodromes are destroyed. 2000 Yugoslavian citizens, mostly civilians have died in the course of bombings. Just before the NATO attack environmental situation in Yugoslavia including water, air, soil and other characteristics was better than in the neighbor countries (according to the 1998 data of the European Commission on Protection of the Environment). According to the experts military actions of the North-Atlantic Alliance, which turned into an ecological war, have changed this situation radically.

Toxic substances emitted into the atmosphere as a result of a purposeful destruction of chemical and oil-processing plants were spreading towards the Adriatic Sea and Italy since northern and north-eastern winds predominate in Yugoslavia. The relief peculiarities promoted southward and southeastward pollution of the Yugoslavian territory by the rivers Morava and Vardara. The fact that Danube waters carried polluting substances towards the Black Sea, while they partly settled on the river bottom, became especially dangerous. Taking into account the natural peculiarities of the Danube basin (slow water change etc.) it may be stated that slowly decaying substances as chlorine compounds and heavy metals (lead and mercury), which got into the river, will still be dangerous for all the countries in this region for 10 or even 20 more years. Rainwater samples taken by oil-processing plants in Novy Sad and Panchevo, systematically destroyed ever since the bombing started, looked like venous blood. The fact that chemical rains pollute the soil puts the aptitude of using agricultural production of Yugoslavia and neighboring countries under suspicion. In April 1999 highly toxic combustion products were carried by southern and southwestern winds through Byelorussia to the Russian territory up the Pskov - Smolensk line for 2 days.

One of the most flagrant violations of international norms guaranteeing the human right for a healthy and safe environment (Geneva Conventions, Rio Declaration 1992) was the use of ammunition with depleted Uranium-238 cores in the course of NATO bombings. Such ammunition was part of the regulation rounds of the 30-mm aircraft guns adopted by the U.S. on A-10 attack planes. It was also used by the "Apache" helicopters and in the heads of "Tomahawk" missiles. This kind of ammunition is particularly valued in Pentagon since it is regarded to possess extra high ability to penetrate tank armor. The U.S. widely used the Uranium-238 ammunition in the war against Iraq. Medical research conducted several years after the military actions show that in the parts of Iraq, where such ammunition was used, there is a higher percentage of stillborn babies and children with various congenital anomalies or infant leukemia. It has also been proved that toxic and radiological damage called forth by depleted uranium provokes cancer.

People are not able to control uranium and to stop uranium particles from spreading. According to a well-known rule of environmental security, pollution knows no borders. According to the wind rose, the particles (uranium oxides and highly radioactive radium and radon) created as a result of employing depleted uranium ammunition and may be carried by wind to Bosnia, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Macedonia or Albania. Yugoslavia is situated on the crossroads of international communications and an uncontrollable emission of radioactive waste on its territory is nothing less than an ecological war of the U.S. against Europe. If one would compare this war to an other one, which took place in the 90s - the Gulf War - it would become understandable that the Russian newspaper was quite right when giving in May 1999 an article concerning the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia an eloquent title "They hit Serbia aiming at Eurasia". It is symptomatic, that a Zb. Brzezinski's book "Chessgame" published on the Balkans a year before the war started, contained a part entitled "Eurasian Balkans". On the map printed in that book Zb. Brzezinski points to the new Central Asian countries, Caucasus and the Caspian and the Black Sea basins as the center of the "Eurasian Balkans", the region of coming shocks.

The war of NATO against Yugoslavia is a gross violation of many basic documents of international law. Among them are the UN Charter, especially chapter VII "Actions concerning peace threat, peace violations and aggression acts" (above all - articles 39, 40, 41, 42 determining the UN Security Council authority); the UN General Assembly December 17, 1984 resolution "On inadmissibility of state terrorism politics and any state actions aimed at undermining social and political order in other sovereign states"; the Final Statement of the Conference on Security and Collaboration in Europe (Helsinki, 1975); Code of conduct regarding military and political aspects of security (Budapest, 1994); Helsinki (1992) and Lisbon (1996) OSCE documents. All these documents proclaim non-interference in domestic affairs of other states, mutual respect of state sovereignty and territorial unity, settlement of international arguments only in a peaceful way as well as the possibility to use force in international relations only based on a corresponding resolution of UN Security Council.

In the course of the Balkan war NATO violated the 1997 Convention banning military and every other hostile use of the means of influencing the natural environment. The Supplementary proceedings of the 1949 I Geneva Convention and the UN resolution A47/37 (1992) "Environmental protection in armed conflicts" were violated. The 1954 convention on the protection of cultural values in case of armed conflicts was violated. Supplementary proceedings of the II Geneva Convention regarding the protection of the victims of internal armed conflicts was violated.

The NATO "humanitarian intervention" also exerted a destroying influence on the "Geneva law" - the humanitarian law in its classical definition, providing protection to the people not participating in military actions - and on the "Haag law", which determines the rights and the duties of the belligerents in an armed conflict and limiting the choice of methods and means of inflicting casualties on the enemy (the use of weapons, ammunition and the methods of waging war, which could cause excessive harm or needless suffering; the bombings intended to terrorize civilians, destroying or damaging private property of no military significance etc. are prohibited.)

Catastrophic humanitarian aftermaths of "humanitarian intervention" and its destroying effect on international law created a new international situation, very different from the one that existed ten years ago by the end of the Cold War. The destruction of the Eurasian superpower achieved by the U.S. at the end of the Cold War exerted a rather contradictory influence on the system of international relations. The Cold War world order was a legal order as it was based on a global balance of power. The creation of two dozens of new independent states in Eurasia at the end of the XX century (on the territory of former USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) broke this general geopolitical principle. People and governments of the newly independent states hardly had time to realize the possibilities of national development opened for them as a result of the fall of totalitarian regimes as the world is now experiencing active propagation of "sovereignty limitation" through "humanitarian intervention" with even stronger military actions to follow. In this aspect the 1999 Balkans war turned out to be a decisive moment for many people.

Holding a speech at a session of the Interparliamentary Assembly in Brussels in April 1999, at the height of the bombings, the president of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly Yegor Stroyev noted: "The principles of the modern world order - peace, law, respect for the sovereignty of a state and human dignity are torpedoes by the most powerful military machine of our time - the NATO. The basis of today's global civilization - priority of the law over arbitrariness - is now endangered. In the global community there is a power considering itself to be above the norms of international law. This power pretends to be simultaneously the judge and the jury".

One would hardly disagree with such an evaluation. However a question arises: what can the community of the states really oppose to aggressive aspirations for global hegemony of the only superpower except for the well-known reasoning about the priority of law over the arbitrariness?

The answer may be found not as much in the legal sphere since within the states and in their mutual relations power was and stays being a necessary sanction of law. The laws of geopolitical balance are old as the world and nobody can abolish them. Yet today the need for an improvement of the norms of international law, which could make them fit the world of global processes better, becomes truly vital.

Concrete directions of such efforts may be different, however it is quite possible that the growth of a destabilizing menace of intervention into domestic affairs of sovereign states under the pretense of human rights protection will force us to turn to the international political ideas, which let the states limit certain rights and freedoms of their citizens. In a general form these ideas are stated in the 1966 International Pact on civil and political rights (article 4), in the 1950 Convention on Human Rights and Basic Freedoms (articles 8 to 11 and 15). These documents stipulate for the limitation of human rights in cases when "life of the nation is in danger", for the sake of preventing disorders and crimes, preserving territorial unity and public morality. We may assume that the significance of these international legal norms shall rise in the world of global processes.

-------- finland

Ditching Finn nuclear plans would raise bills

March 9, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10035&newsDate=9-Mar-2001

HELSINKI - The chairman of the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT) said yesterday Finnish households would pay a heavy price should plans to build a fifth nuclear power reactor be shelved.

"It would mean a bill between 10 to 20 billion Finnish markka ($1.6-3.1 billion) to households through... financing another means for increasing electricity production," Jyrki Juusela told a news conference at a TT energy seminar.

"In addition, it would inevitably also mean slowing down of (Finnish) economic growth," Juusela said.

In November, Finnish power group Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) applied for a permit to build a new nuclear reactor to help satisfy increasing demand and ensure the country fulfils its greenhouse gas emission obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

Industry studies estimate Finland's electricity consumption will increase by 25 percent to around 100 terawatt hours annually by 2015, boosted by steady economic growth. Finnish industry consumes more than half of the current annual electricity consumption of nearly 80 TWh.

The decision to apply to build the reactor, which goes against the grain in a Europe moving away from nuclear power, has sparked furious debate in Finland and opened fissures within the ruling five-party coalition.

Opponents to nuclear power in Finland - which satisfies 28 percent of the country's electricity consumption - want alternative energy sources, such as natural gas, to be considered instead, with overall consumption to be cut as well.

The reactor proposal is expected to be sent to parliament for a vote later in the year.

Juusela said raising the share of natural gas in total energy consumption - now around 15 percent - would not be a viable option in satisfying demand as it would further increase dependency on Russian gas and electricty imports.

"Our electricity supply would then be 40 percent dependent on Russian gas and electricity imports," Juusela said.

-------- germany

German activists occupy nuclear waste loading site

March 9, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10036&newsDate=9-Mar-2001

DANNENBERG, Germany - About 30 environmentalist activists occupied a loading station for nuclear waste containers yesterday in protest at the planned resumption of waste shipments in Germany later this month.

A police spokeswoman said the demonstrators, members of the environmentalist group Greenpeace, ended the protest peacefully after about four hours, although three were still on a temporary police communications mast they had climbed.

"With this symbolic action we want to show our opposition to nuclear waste transport and make a call for peaceful resistance," Greenpeace spokesman Stefan Schurig said.

Police detained some 25 demonstrators and said they were considering increasing security measures at the station at the northern town of Dannenberg where nuclear waste containers were due to be moved from railway transporters onto trucks.

In another development, police said explosives experts were investigating two barrels probably filled with a petrol mixture found by children on a railway between Dannenberg and the town of Lueneburg that they said could have been primed to explode.

Unknown saboteurs damaged a rail line last month in what police said was probably a protest against the shipments.

Radioactive waste is due to be shipped later this month for the first time in four years from France's La Hague reprocessing plant to the Gorleben permanent storage site. Germany banned nuclear waste shipments in 1998 amid mass protests and concern over radiation leaks from containers containing waste.

Anti-nuclear activists also blocked the railway track near Dannenberg at the weekend. Police said they were expecting some 10,000 demonstrators to try to block the transports and they would have 15,000 officials on hand to break up any blockades.

-------- korea

U.S. to Revisit North Korea Pact

Friday, March 9, 2001
International Herald Tribune
Reuters
http://www.iht.com/articles/12900.htm

WASHINGTON The United States may ask North Korea to negotiate a reduction in the size of its army, as well as an end to its missile programs and exports, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, General Powell said the Bush administration had reservations about a 1994 agreement that froze North Korea's nuclear programs, saying it might want to "revisit or change" some of the provisions.

The assertions came in response to Democratic senators dismayed at a Bush administration that has been in no hurry to resume North Korean negotiations where the Clinton administration left off. "What I'm very worried about is that this opportunity to find out whether or not there is any real possibility" of a missile agreement "is slipping away," said Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware.

---

U.S. Questioned on N. Korea Stance

Friday, March 9, 2001
Washington Post
Associated Press
By Thomas Wagner
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/issues/koreas/ap/A45530-2001Mar9.html

TOKYO -- The Bush administration's tough talk about North Korea's communist regime raised concerns in Asia on Friday about regional security, with one Japanese editorial warning that "treating Pyongyang like an enemy will ensure that it becomes one."

However, some analysts said that holding the North and its million-man army accountable isn't likely to derail South Korea's efforts to reconcile with Pyongyang.

If a consensus emerged, it seemed to be that Bush should try to capitalize on the Clinton administration's progress toward curbing the North's long-range missile threat.

Bush's summit in Washington on Wednesday with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung was closely scrutinized across East Asia, where democratic South Korea, Japan and Taiwan rely on the 87,000 U.S. troops based in South Korea and Japan for their security against communist countries such as North Korea and China.

Bush told Kim that the United States will not immediately resume Clinton-era talks with North Korea, which achieved a moratorium on its missile testing in September 1999 in exchange for the partial lifting of sanctions.

Bush said he was skeptical about North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and expressed doubt that a missile deal could be verified, given North Korea's penchant for secrecy.

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said he may try to expand prospective missile negotiations with Pyongyang by including U.S. misgivings about its conventional force. He also said Washington would consider modifying a 1994 agreement aimed at halting the North's suspected nuclear weapons program.

North Korea did not immediately react to the Bush-Kim Dae-jung summit. But a statement released on Wednesday by its Foreign Ministry said Pyongyang sees Bush as hostile.

His administration is "increasingly assertive for a hard-line stance toward Pyongyang," which could jeopardize reconciliation between the two countries, the statement said.

It also said the United States should not assume that the North would be willing to "totally disarm itself first" as part of any agreement.

After decades of enmity, the Clinton's administration engineered the first visit of a high-ranking North Korean military official to Washington, and negotiations in Pyongyang in October involving then-U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Kim Dae-jung's reconciliation policy with the North helped produce a groundbreaking summit in Pyongyang with Kim Jong Il last year, the first family reunions across the border since the 1950-53 Korean War, and efforts to reconnect an inter-Korean railway.

For years, officials in Japan, South Korea and the United States have coordinated closely on North Korea policy.

So the nuances in the appraisals of the North by the U.S. and South Korean presidents alarmed some observers in Japan, who recalled the shock of a North Korean missile test over their country in 1998.

"It is imperative that Washington and Seoul understand and trust each other when dealing with North Korea," The Japan Times said in an editorial. "Treating Pyongyang like an enemy will ensure that it becomes one."

However, the Times also said Bush's views don't necessarily clash with those of South Korea and Japan. "It would be hard to paint Mr. Bush as a hard-liner as he applauded the South Korean president's leadership and vision, and acknowledged that Mr. Kim was a realist," it said.

China, North Korea's main ally, was silent on the Kim-Bush summit.

However, Li Xiguang, director of international communications at Beijing's elite Qinghua University, urged Bush to continue the policies of his predecessor.

"It would be counterproductive to change the policy of engaging North Korea," Li said. "If that changes, the North could react with hostility and become more confrontational and defensive."

In South Korea, some analysts believe the Bush administration is delaying talks with the North in order to promote a planned missile defense system to thwart potential missile threats by "rogue" nations such as North Korea.

But Koh Jae-nam of the state-run Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, noted Russia and China have joined the United States in supporting inter-Korea reconciliation. He said he doubted the summit would jeopardize East Asia's security.

---

Macho on North Korea

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/opinion/09FRIE.html

Pay attention to the brouhaha at the White House Wednesday, when President Bush shot down the hopes of President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea that the Bush team would quickly resume negotiations with North Korea. This episode highlights the fine line between a tough, effective foreign policy and a tough, ineffective foreign policy, and it raises the question: On which side of that line does Mr. Bush plan to reside?

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell, who represents the pragmatic, hard-nosed internationalists within the administration, declared that the Bush team intended "to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off" in negotiations with North Korea to curb its production and sale of ballistic missiles. But President Bush, after meeting President Kim Wednesday, brusquely indicated that the missile talks with the North would not be resumed any time soon.

What gives? This is the second time in two weeks that Mr. Powell has been out of step. Last week it was his signaling a willingness for "smarter," but smaller, sanctions on Iraq to hold our Arab allies together. That sparked grumbling from the Dick Cheney-Don Rumsfeld camps. (If this were the Clinton administration, the New York Post headline would read "White House in Chaos - Who's in Charge?")

Question: Is the Bush foreign policy going to be a more hard-nosed internationalism, in which we galvanize our allies around tougher policies toward North Korea, Iraq, Russia and China but still get meaningful things done and hold our alliances together? Or is it going to be an ideologically driven, hard-line approach in which the White House is always looking over its shoulder at the right wing of the Republican Party, and our allies become alienated and nothing meaningful gets done?

Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with President Bush, in his first dealings with North Korea, coming on as a real skeptic. Kim Jong Il, the "dear leader" of North Korea, is a wild man who understands only force and thinks that's all we understand too. That's why whenever his people are starving more than usual, and he needs a quick influx of potatoes, he digs a suspicious, reactor-size hole and we pay him with potatoes or oil or a harmless reactor to stop. It's sort of silly, but it's worked to keep peace and restrain the North's nuclear capabilities. Given this background, though, it is legitimate for President Bush to signal the North that we're not buying that carpet again.

But then what? One approach says: "We don't have an interest in just letting North Korea collapse, because it could blow up the whole peninsula and even threaten Japan. So we're going to take a very hard-nosed approach to securing a verifiable deal that would curb North Korea's missiles and promote rapprochement with South Korea."

The other approach says: "We're the tough guys. We don't really believe in arms control. And we don't care if North Korea collapses. Deep down we don't even want a deal with North Korea, because that would eliminate the very missile threat we've been hyping to justify spending $60 billion on a missile defense shield. If the allies don't like it - too bad."

Which is Mr. Bush's approach?

You have to wonder whether Mr. Bush knows. He declared Wednesday that when it comes to North Korea, "We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements." But as the Times reporter David Sanger pointed out, the U.S. has only one agreement with North Korea - the 1994 accord that froze its plutonium processing. And Bush aides admitted there was no evidence that this deal was being violated. Later a White House official, trying to clean up for the president, said Mr. Bush was referring to concerns about whether North Korea would comply with a future deal, even though he didn't use the future tense. "That's how the president speaks," the official said. O.K.

Well, if that's how he speaks, is that how he thinks? Confused? Which approach Mr. Bush adopts depends in part on how he understands North Korea's past behavior. But if he doesn't understand that, or he hasn't applied himself to understanding it, or he is so wedded to his own Star Wars missile shield he doesn't want anything to get in the way, or he is so worried about being accused by Republican hard-liners, as his father was, of being a "wimp" that he'll never take yes for an answer from the North - then, Houston, we have a problem.

---

North Korea's Failures

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/opinion/L09KOR.html

To the Editor:

Your March 8 front-page article about President Bush's meeting with President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea says "the United States has only one agreement with North Korea" and implies that Mr. Bush was mistaken by saying we cannot be certain whether North Korea is keeping "all agreements."

In fact, Mr. Bush made an understatement (perhaps to be polite to Mr. Kim).

We indeed can be certain that North Korea has failed to keep many agreements with the United States, with international organizations and with South Korea - for example, the rearmament and verification provisions of the 1953 armistice, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (from which North Korea withdrew), obligations toward the International Atomic Energy Agency, provisions of the 1991 agreement with South Korea regarding nuclear inspections and probably also the Biological Weapons Convention.

FRED C. IKLÉ Bethesda, Md., March 8, 2001 The writer, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was under secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

---

The visitor from South Korea

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-20013919537.htm

After a day of full and "frank" discussions on Wednesday between President Bush and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, it was time yesterday for the South Korean visitor to pour a little oil on the troubled waters. Several critical circumstances made this visit a good bit less triumphant than Mr. Kim's first, just after his election three years ago.

The White House has not been pleased about Mr. Kim's stated intent to sign a peace "declaration" with North Korea. And it certainly was not pleased that he put his name to a communique with Russian President Vladimir Putin, just before leaving for Washington, stating that the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (ABM) was "a cornerstone of strategic stability," and suggesting that American missile defense plans were a problem.

Yesterday, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Kim said that he "deeply regrets such a controversy had to arise." Mr. Kim said that contrary to reports, the communique did not contain a clause about missile defense (though the Russians pushed it to the very end) and that the statement about ABM was nothing new, and in fact had been the U.S. position for years (which was true under President Clinton). "But I now regret it was included," he said. It certainly was not smart for South Korea to be seen siding with the Russians against the United States.

The desire of South Koreans for warmer relations with the North is understandable. Though South Korea is a wonder of free enterprise, in stark contrast with the devastated totalitarian North, 10 million Korean families are still separated, and many live with the memory of the horrors of the North Korean invasion 50 years ago. Mr. Kim is deeply concerned about time running out on his peace efforts. As he repeatedly stressed at AEI, "We must not lose this opportunity. We must assist so that North Korea can continue on the path of change. We must help so that it does not return to its old ways, which would be unwelcome by other countries and would not be good for North Korea itself."

However, time is not so pressing that the Bush administration should not be deliberate in its policy review towards North Korea, which is badly needed. Mr. Kim has achieved Nobel Peace Prize-winning successes by holding out the olive branch to North Korea, trade has grown and political exchanges have taken place. Still, the United States should proceed with caution, given our role as guarantor of the peace with 37,000 troops still on duty in the Korean Peninsula.

The Clinton administration's specialty was to answer North Korea's duplicity with concessions, whether dangerous nuclear reactors were the problem or missile development and sales. Bill Clinton was narrowly dissuaded from traveling to Pyongyang in the last weeks of his presidency to offer American rockets to the North Koreans for "satellite launches" in return for a supposed halt in North Korea's missile program.

Now, the Bush administration needs to take a firmer line to ensure that North Korea lives up to its nuclear commitments, stops sales of its Nodong missiles to countries like Libya, and agrees to relax its belligerent military posture. As the South Korean president remarked, openness and peacefulness is entirely in the interest of North Korea. This will not change even with a dose of realism administered along with the olive branches.

---

Weapons sales concern Seoul, United States

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
By Bill Gertz
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200139223645.htm

North Korea is preparing to export missile components from a port on its west coast, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

The missile shipment was photographed by a U.S. spy satellite within the past several days as it awaited loading at a port near the port of Nampo, on North Korea's west coast.

The exact types of missile components were not disclosed, but the goods are believed to be for foreign production of North Korea's homemade Scud B or Scud C missiles. The Scud B has a range of about 186 miles, and the Scud C can hit targets up to 310 miles away. North Korea also has exported medium-range Nodong missiles, which have a range of 620 miles.

One official said the shipment appeared to include chemical-weapons related warheads. However, a second official said the components included fuel tanks and related propulsion gear.

The missile shipment has been stranded at the port for more than a week because severe cold weather has frozen the area, the officials said.

The destination for the shipment is unknown, the officials said, and no plans were under way to block the missiles' sale through diplomacy or possibly a covert action operation.

Intelligence officials said North Korea is a major missile supplier to several nations, including Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Libya.

A CIA report to Congress last month said North Korea is a key supplier of missiles and related equipment. The North Koreans exported "significant ballistic missile related equipment and missile components, materials and technical expertise to countries in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa," the report said.

Missile sales are a major source of hard currency for the Pyongyang government and the money is then used for continued missile development, the CIA report said.

North Korea's missile exports were discussed during meetings at the White House on Wednesday between President Bush and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

South Korean presidential spokesman Park Joon-young said there was agreement between the two presidents that Pyongyang's missile exports are a continuing problem. "We're concerned about it too," Mr. Park said.

Mr. Bush said after his meetings that he is concerned about "the fact that the North Koreans are shipping weapons around the world."

The intelligence officials said Mr. Bush was briefed on the missiles at Nampo during one of his recent daily intelligence briefings. The president said he wanted to go cautiously in reaching any agreements with North Korea on curbing its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Mr. Kim said yesterday that he agrees with Mr. Bush about the problem of missile proliferation from North Korea.

"In fact, while I was in Pyongyang in June last year, I conveyed our position in writing to the North Korean side regarding our position on the nuclear issue, on the missile issues," Mr. Kim said after a speech sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and Council on Foreign Relations.

In a letter to North Korea, Mr. Kim said he stated any "lasting peace" on the Korean Peninsula would require solving the missile export problem.

The South Korean president said he explained to Mr. Bush that there should be "comprehensive reciprocity" involving a give-and-take with North Korea.

The United States should demand that Pyongyang strictly adhere to the 1994 agreement ending the north's nuclear program, a "complete resolution" of the missile development and export problem, and a guarantee that it will not engage in aggression, Mr. Kim said.

If North Korea agrees, then the United States and South Korea should guarantee its security, provide economic assistance and help North Korea secure loans from international lending institutions, Mr. Kim said.

"There must be verification measures every step of the way so as to make sure that North Korea is living up to its promise," Mr. Kim said. "And I explained this to President Bush and his staff, hoping that they will take this into consideration as they make their North Korea policy review and as they come up with their North Korea policy."

The Bush administration is reviewing U.S. policy toward North Korea, and the debate currently centers on whether to continue to take the conciliatory approach of the Clinton administration or adopt a harder line toward North Korea.

Al Santoli, a national security aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, said the reports of the pending missile shipment are signs of "continued proliferation actions by North Korea at a time when President Kim Dae-jung is attempting to press upon the new administration that we should trust the sunshine policy" of closer ties to Pyongyang.

"This is why we should proceed with caution," Mr. Santoli said. "There is no indication that the North Koreans intend to downsize their military or meaningfully halt their proliferation actions."

-------- missile defense

Day 'warm' to missile system

Friday 9 March 2001
Edmonton Journal
Southam Newspapers
Janice Tibbetts
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news1/stories/010309/5069945.html

Stockwell Day, dogged by political problems on the homefront, arrived in the U.S. capital Thursday, eager to switch to policy talk as he pledged to express "warmth" and "openness" in a meeting today with Vice-President Dick Cheney.

It is Day's first foreign trip as official Opposition leader and when he calls on Cheney he intends to take an opposite tack from the governing Liberals by declaring a willingness to support a controversial missile defence system.

"The missile defence issue is one in which we say these opportunities should be explored," the Canadian Alliance leader told a news conference at the Canadian embassy. "We've been more open and transparent (than the Liberals) in showing some warmth to that approach."

The Canadian government has been neutral on the shield, despite pressure from the U.S. to voice support. The plan to create a defence system to block incoming nuclear warheads has generated international controversy and Canada has also faced pressure, particularly from Russia, to oppose the scheme.

The highlight of Day's two-day trip will be the short visit with Cheney, who is back at work this week after checking himself into hospital to be treated for a heart ailment.

The private meeting is viewed as low-key by the Americans. In fact, the visit appears to be barely on the radar screen at Cheney's office, where press secretary Juleanna Glover mistakenly said Thursday it had already taken place.

There's a tradition of opposition leaders calling on U.S. vice-presidents.

In 1984, then-Opposition leader Brian Mulroney met with then-President Ronald Reagan, initiating a relationship that continued when Mulroney became prime minister.

Day says he also hopes to appeal to Cheney's anti-protectionist philosophy and urge the administration to back down on plans to slap duties on Canadian lumber, a request also made by the Liberals.

"Certainly we'll be sharing with him our concerns about some of the problems that are coming quite early in the relationship," the Alliance leader said.

Day, noting there are only "shades of difference" between the Liberals and the Alliance on bilateral issues, was uncritical of the government's relationship with the Republican administration and he even praised Chretien for taking a "wait-and-see" approach

One area where the Alliance and the Liberals do differ that is likely to come up during the Day-Cheney meeting was not mentioned by the leader of the Opposition.

The Alliance would allow oil-drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge under some circumstances. The Liberals are opposed to it under any circumstances, saying it will threaten the Porcupine caribou herd that roams from Alaska into the Yukon.

The prime minister and a parade of Liberal cabinet ministers have already called on their counterparts in the Bush administration. The latest is Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief who meets with his U.S. counterpart today.

---

USA Allies keep balking at US missile defense
But some NATO members are resigned to Bush pressing ahead with plans.

FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2001
Christian Science Monitor
By Brad Knickerbocker
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/03/09/fp2s1-csm.shtml

For years, the idea of being able to shoot down enemy missiles - hit a bullet with a bullet - has remained a distant technological dream. That's kept it far down the list of military and diplomatic concerns, despite the billions of dollars spent to achieve it.

But the Bush administration has brought it to the forefront, and in the process missile defense now stands as a major point of argument in how the US relates to its allies in Europe and in Asia.

As a presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised "to build effective missile defenses, based on the best available options, at the earliest possible date," making this one of his top military priorities. Before he became Mr. Bush's Defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld headed a congressionally sponsored commission that found nations such as North Korea and Iran could soon have the capability to produce ballistic missiles armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads - weapons of mass destruction.

Since then, Mr. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell have suggested that the 1972 Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which governs defenses against attacking missiles, might have to be scrapped. In his Senate confirmation hearings, Rumsfeld called the ABM Treaty "ancient history."

NATO's worries

European countries in the 19-member NATO worry that this could provoke another arms race in a post-cold-war world that has become more complex. There's also concern that a unilateral move by the US to construct a national missile defense (NMD) could "decouple" the US from its European allies, weakening a body that has helped protect much of the world for half a century.

NATO Secretary-General George Robertson acknowledged as much this week in meeting with US officials here. "Many Europeans ... continue to fear the effects of the United States proceeding with deployment of a missile-defense system," he told a forum sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute.

Halfway around the world, the Bush administration's goal of accelerating an NMD system has stirred discussions over the future of the Korean peninsula.

Meeting in Seoul last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung expressed skepticism about US plans for an NMD system. In a joint communiqué, the two leaders described the ABM Treaty as "a cornerstone of strategic stability."

In Washington this week, Mr. Kim and Bush downplayed differences over missile defense. Still, Bush described their White House talks as "frank," diplomatic code indicating all is not sweetness and light.

The issue reflects fundamentally different goals for the region. Kim emphasizes what he calls a "sunshine" policy of rapprochement with North Korea. Bush's defense and foreign policy team stresses North Korea's apparently growing ability to threaten not only South Korea but other countries as well.

"They still have weapons of mass destruction and missiles that can deliver those," Mr. Powell said at the White House this week. "So we have to see them as a threat."

Scaled-back plans

Over the years, Pentagon planning for missile defense has become more modest. Gone are the days of space-based lasers blasting Soviet missiles, as envisioned in former President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative - which was quickly dubbed "star wars." Most experts say that such a system - even if it worked - could be overwhelmed by thousands of multiple warheads or fooled by decoys.

Instead, current planning is for ground-based antimissile missiles poised to protect the US, and perhaps other countries, against an accidental launch or sneak attack by a "rogue state" such as North Korea, Iran, or even Libya (which was recently reported to have acquired missiles capable of hitting Europe).

But even these plans for a scaled-back missile-defense system have been confounded in practice. Two of three test firings have failed to hit their target. And the General Accounting Office recently warned Congress that a crucial satellite-surveillance system designed to detect enemy missiles "is at high risk" of being late, more costly than anticipated, and unlikely to perform as advertised. The GAO (Congress's investigative arm) also reported that the system's software would not be ready until three years after the first satellites are scheduled to be launched.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R) of California, who chairs the defense appropriations subcommittee, says he finds this "very troubling."

More troublesome at the moment may be the diplomatic effects of the Bush administration's focus on national missile defense as a key element in its review of the US military.

Spurgeon Keeny, head of the private Arms Control Association in Washington, says it's "in clear violation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.

"Unless the United States backs off from its explicit threat to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and its implicit threat to eschew arms-control treaties that would in any way restrict US freedom of action, the international community is unlikely to follow the US lead when it jeopardizes other countries' economic and political interests," says Mr. Keeny, a former senior government official responsible for arms control and nuclear-policy issues.

Nations resigned to US plans

For the moment, European members of NATO are resigned to the US pressing ahead with missile defense - especially if, as the Bush administration now promises, it will consult with its allies along the way. And, says NATO Secretary-General Robertson, the full alliance remains in agreement on its "common values, shared risks, and shared burdens."

"These debates, as tough as they can be, are not about first principles," he says. "The first principles still hold."

---

Losing Momentum on Korea

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/opinion/09FRI1.html

Regrettably, President Bush has decided for the time being not to renew discussions with North Korea aimed at shutting down Pyongyang's development and sales of long-range missiles. Reaching acceptable agreements with the North is never easy, and the new administration is entitled to take some time to develop its own strategy and goals. But by suspending the constructive talks that were begun by the Clinton administration, Washington has forfeited an opportunity to explore North Korea's true intentions. It has also complicated the challenges facing South Korea, whose president, Kim Dae Jung, has been trying to coax the North from confrontation to diplomacy.

North Korea had offered the Clinton administration some of the essential elements of a missile deal. But there was still a considerable way to go. Late last year the North proposed to halt further development and exports of its long-range missiles in exchange for food and fuel aid and a commitment by other countries to launch North Korean space satellites. If a verifiable agreement along those lines could be completed, it would eliminate the threat of North Korea's building missiles that can reach the United States. That in turn would reduce the pressure on Washington to rush ahead with development of a missile defense system, one of the Bush administration's core defense goals. It would also end the North's current missile exports to danger zones like Iran and Pakistan.

But acutely difficult issues remained unresolved as the Clinton presidency ended. North Korea has not yet agreed to permit the international on-site inspections needed to verify its compliance. Nor has it agreed to destroy the long-range missiles it already has or even to provide a detailed inventory of its current missile arsenal. Washington would need such an inventory to determine whether new missiles are being added.

Most of the arms control agreements Washington negotiated with Moscow during the cold war were based on a long period of familiarity and mutual observation. There is no comparable history yet between the United States and North Korea. There are also suspicions by some analysts that North Korea seeks only to buy time and extort Western compensation without really committing itself to a peaceful course.

Yet there have been encouraging signs, particularly in the past year, that North Korea is serious about improving relations with South Korea and the West. The Bush administration appears still to be debating its next moves on North Korea. It should carefully review the unresolved missile issues, then resume discussions with the North later this year in an effort to complete a sound agreement.

-------

Bush administration to review USEC-Russian deal

9Feb2001
Platts
"Paul Maser"
<pmaser@govmail.state.nv.us>

The Bush administration has withdrawn approval for USEC Inc--the US executive agent for the US-Russian high-enriched uranium agreement (HEU)--to sign a new deal with Russia's Techsnabexport for enrichment services from blended down weapons uranium from 2002-2013. In a letter to members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, White House National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that USEC's execution of the HEU agreement "requires careful oversight to ensure that the agreement achieves important US nonproliferation objectives, while at the same time being mindful of the stresses this may place upon the domestic industry. I believe that a review of recent decisions related to this agreement is warranted."

Rice said that the administration would, in particular, pay close attention to a side deal under which USEC would purchase some 3-million commercial SWU from Russia. The Clinton administration gave USEC authority to sign the deal with Techsnabexport in its last week in office. USEC officials say they have not yet received any direct or indirect instructions on the Russian from the interagency Enrichment Oversight Committee.

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

South by High-Tech

March 9 - 15, 2001
LA Weekly
by Martin Goodman
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/16/travel-goodman.shtml

Mexico had a challenge coming its way. My 16-year-old nephew was flying in for a visit. First stop: Bandelier National Monument and its ceremonial caves.

"It's fine and all that," Matthew called out, climbing down a ladder. "But I'm not really into Native American culture."

So pueblos were out. Matthew's imagination played in a high-tech world. I needed to bypass all that was most ancient in the state, yet still amaze him.

Near those cliff dwellings in Bandelier is the city of Los Alamos. Back in 1943, it was largely the home of teenage boys at the Ranch School. Then Robert Oppenheimer swept in with his team of research scientists. The Manhattan Project was under way, leading to the world's first nuclear explosion. Project Matthew was now under way as well, revealing New Mexico as a world leader in mind-bending science.

The Los Alamos Historical Museum is housed in one of the Ranch School buildings. Los Alamos celebrates rather than questions all things nuclear: See the atomic explosion birthday cake and bonnet! The museum looks back on a time when naiveté was at its most sophisticated, the world's keenest minds working in the wilderness to give science more power than nature ever had.

The Bradbury Science Museum in the town brings the story up to date. For young minds of nuclear capacity there are hands-on shows of robotics, laser technology and genetic manipulation. Bring your own skepticism, for the morality of nuclear war is a one-sided debate. Model casings for the bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are on display, each very different. One bomb could surely have sealed the war, but then how could scientists compare the effects of the second?

Skepticism goes back on hold as we head south down the eastern side of the state. The summer desert baked to its regular 105 degrees in July 1947, and aliens landed near Roswell. They were whisked away by military operatives for examination in an aircraft hangar, the whole episode buried under layers of official subterfuge. Credible or not, it is one of the 20th century's most pervasive conspiracy theories. Does Roswell's UFO Museum pass the high-tech teenage test? It scrapes by. For myself, the obsessions of the museum's volunteers were sweet. Entrance is free into what used to be a cinema, and the space is a shrine to a B-movie version of outer space.

More convincing is a display of rockets in Roswell's Museum & Arts Center. Robert Goddard risked blowing up his Massachusetts neighbors, so he brought his efforts to Roswell's desert. Here he developed the world's first successful liquid-fuel rocket. Those early rockets, and the workshop in which they were made, are well-displayed in the museum.

Goddard needed the emptiness of New Mexico for his rockets. Oppenheimer chose the state for its isolation and beauty. Other top scientists like the altitude and the clear, dry air. Due west from Roswell a road cuts through the Sacramento Mountains, an undulant greenness reminiscent of California's coastal hills. Located on Sacramento Peak, at 9,200 feet, is the National Solar Observatory. Paths lead through pine forests around a range of telescopes, each with its own visitor viewing area. You're always close to the sun in New Mexico. This research center adds a little understanding to the heat.

The observatory overlooks White Sands Missile Range. At one end is the peak of any high-tech trip through the state. Show a driver's license to security, drive into the military complex, and you are free to roam around a missile park. This must be the universe's best free exhibit of military hardware. From early missiles to ones still deployed, the freedom to get close to weapons of mass destruction tames them somehow. I forgot their power and admired their beauty of form.

To the west, approaching Arizona, is the most beautiful display of science I know. The Very Large Array is a series of antennas with white dishes, each of them 81 feet in diameter. They run on tracks with a radius of 13 miles. If aliens follow up on their Roswell visit, this is where the world will likely hear of them first. This astronomical observatory scans space to collect radio waves from distant galaxies.

After the first hour of our high-science road tour, Matthew put his PowerBook on the back seat and gazed instead at the landscape. I was touched to see him discover the natural wonders of this land. But I kept my trump card for traveling back through Albuquerque.

"Did you know that Bill Gates and Microsoft started out in Albuquerque?" I asked him.

Matthew smiled. I had pressed the button that wakens a high-tech teenager's dreams. He knows New Mexico now. It's the place you have to come to before you change the world.

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

The Domenici Deception:
Nuclear Energy Bill Is an Atomic Waste

March 9, 2001

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A sweeping nuclear energy bill introduced this week in the Senate would promote an increased reliance on nuclear power under the guise of environmentalism and would improperly give the nuclear industry a $100 million subsidy, according to Public Citizen's analysis of the bill.

Promoting nuclear power is risky because questions about its safety still abound and we still cannot guarantee safe storage of nuclear waste for the duration of its hazardous life.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and entitled "The Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001," would encourage the construction of new nuclear plants, subsidize the completion of unfinished reactors that have lain fallow for years and promote the development of reactor designs that lack containment structures to prevent the release of radiation into the environment and surrounding communities.

"Senator Domenici's nuclear energy bill is yet another misguided attempt to subsidize this most dangerous and unforgiving technology," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "It is thoroughly irresponsible to promote the use of nuclear power when there is still no technically feasible means of assuring that long-lived radioactive wastes can be isolated from the environment. Further, this will do nothing to solve the current predicament we have with rising electricity costs."

The Domenici bill also would approve a shift from formal hearings - which give the public the right to obtain documents through discovery and to cross-examine hearing participants - to informal hearings, in which the public can do neither. This would curtail the ability of citizens to adequately participate in the licensing hearings on a proposed "high-level" waste repository at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, and on safety issues at more than 100 U.S. nuclear reactors.

"Senator Domenici wants to turn Americans into second-class citizens by limiting our public hearing and participation rights," said James Riccio, senior analyst for Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Shielding the nuclear industry from public scrutiny will further undermine confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry. If the nuclear industry cannot withstand the rigors of formal hearings, their reactors and nuclear waste dumps should not be built," added Riccio.

The Domenici bill would extend the Price Anderson Act, which indemnifies the nuclear industry against the financial consequences of a nuclear accident. The bill also would encourage the construction of more reactors while limiting the liability of the nuclear industry in the event of an accident. The bill would allow foreign corporations to own and operate nuclear reactors in the United States, which would mean that U.S. taxpayers would be subsidizing foreign corporations while exercising limited controls over their operations.

"I fail to see why the American taxpayer should indemnify foreign corporations whose nuclear reactors threaten the lives and livelihoods of American citizens," Hauter said. "Foreign and domestic corporations that expose the public to the risk of a nuclear disaster should be held financially accountable for their actions. Shielding nuclear corporations from the consequences of their actions will only result in more dangerous nuclear plants and waste dumps."

The Domenici bill also would create an Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research to promote dangerous and discredited technologies such as the reprocessing of radioactive waste, which would cost $10 million alone in 2002.

"This does nothing to solve the nuclear waste problem but instead introduces a host of new environmental and safety problems," Hauter said. "It merely serves as a smokescreen to mask the problems that would be exacerbated by the increased reliance on nuclear power that this bill promotes."

The bill's proposed remedy for the failure of electricity deregulation - taxpayer subsidizing of the operation of more nuclear reactors - simply would complicate this country's self-inflicted power crisis, Hauter said. By propping up a dangerous and failed technology, the legislation ignores proven alternatives such as wind, solar and energy conservation, she said.

"The massive subsidies and radioactive waste clean-up costs are so staggering that nuclear power will only increase already sky-high wholesale electricity prices," Hauter said. "The prescription for the failure of electricity deregulation is to re-establish public authority over profiteering power producers."

Finally, the overarching problem with the bill is that nuclear reactors are neither clean nor safe, Riccio said. For Senate Republicans to promote nuclear power as environmentally friendly is at best deceptive and constitutes the worst kind of corporate welfare, he said.

-------

Senator seeks more US reliance on nuclear power

USA: March 9, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10033&newsDate=9-Mar-2001

WASHINGTON - New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici introduced legislation Wednesday to spur use of nuclear power, saying the measure would promote new plant construction and expand technology funding for the "safe and environmentally clean fuel."

Entitled the Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act, the senator said the bill would complement a comprehensive national energy plan put forward last month by Republican leaders in the Senate and blessed by the Bush White House.

The nuclear bill aims "to foster greater use of nuclear energy while supporting advanced research into technologies to minimize wastes created by this cost-effective and environmentally sound energy source," Domenici said.

The bill has five major points: supporting nuclear energy production; encouraging new plant construction; assuring a level playing field for nuclear power; creating waste solutions; and improving Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.

Domenici said national concerns over energy supplies - highlighted by power shortages in California in recent months - pointed to doing more for nuclear power, since alternatives like wind and solar could not pick-up the burden if nuclear production was lost.

Currently, 103 commercial nuclear power plants operate in the U.S., providing around 20 percent of the nation's power.

"Overall, you take fewer risks by doing nuclear power," Domenici said.

Nuclear utilities have been frustrated in recent years by the lack of a federal plan to store some 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, currently being stored on-site at plants. A separate measure to start storing the highly radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert failed last year, after the Senate came up one vote short in overriding a veto by then President Bill Clinton.

Following are some key elements of Domenici's legislation:

* Renews the expiring Price Anderson Law, providing liability coverage for nuclear activities.

* Elevates directors for nuclear energy and science at the Energy Department to assistant secretary level.

* Authorizes $60 million for Nuclear Energy Research Initiative and $15 million for Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization.

* Authorizes $15 million to the Energy Department for funding to provide incentives to utilities to make efficiency-enhancing capital investments that improve electrical capacity by at least 5 percent.

* Enables payment of NRC fees for individual projects and gives preferential treatment for projects that would enable one class of improvements to impact many plants.

* Authorizes $18 million in funding to keep domestic mining and conversion industries viable, and funding to place the Portsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusion plant into "cold standby" at $36 million.

* Authorizes $50 million for Energy Department research and development on Generation IV reactors and for development of a detailed road map recommending a path toward construction of a Generation IV reactor.

* Develops national strategy for spent fuel, including study of reprocessing and transmutation.

* Eliminates provisions that precluded any foreign ownership - "owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government" - of power and research reactors located in the U.S.

-------- alabama

TVA mulls reviving mothballed Ala. nuclear power plant

March 9, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10053&newsDate=9-Mar-2001

NEW YORK - TVA Nuclear, a subsidiary of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), is considering reactivating its 1,065-megawatt (MW) Browns Ferry 1 nuclear unit in Alabama to meet growing power demand, a spokesman said yesterday.

"It is an option," spokesman Gil Francis told Reuters, adding that TVA has never considered the unit permanently closed since it shut its doors in March 1985.

"Nothing has changed from TVA's point of view. We continue to consider it an option," Francis said.

The Browns Ferry unit, in Decatur, Ala., which began service in 1974, was shut along with adjacent units 2 and 3, both rated at 1,065 MW, amid ongoing safety concerns.

Browns Ferry 2 was returned to service in 1991, while Browns Ferry unit 3 returned to service in the mid-1990s. Both units are generating power today.

"We have to do the technical and financial analysis to see if it would be worth bringing Unit 1 back, and then we would have to meet all of the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) requirements," Francis said.

Returning Unit 1 to service would cost over $1 billion, Francis said, which TVA has to weigh against the rising cost of natural gas and coal, the fuels it uses at most of its other generating facilities.

"A lot of this is being driven by power demand. We're seeing about a 1,000 MW demand increase per year," the spokesman said.

Several Alabama politicians have also recently called for TVA to consider restarting Unit 1, Francis said, with those politicians looking for ways to avoid the kind of power shortage currently creating havoc in California's electricity market.

TVA Nuclear is a subsidiary of government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, headquartered in Knoxville.

Tennessee Valley Authority supplies power to nearly eight million people in almost all of Tennessee and parts of Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.

The company has about 29,500 MW of generating capacity, of which about half is supplied by coal-fired power plants, with about 20 percent of generation coming from nuclear power sources, about 20 percent from hydroelectric dams, and about 10 percent from natural gas and oil-fired plants.

In January, TVA issued a request for proposals for long-term supply of up to 600 MW of base-load power capacity and up to 600 MW of summer peaking power capacity beginning June 1, 2004.

The company is also building several large coal and gas-fired power plants in an effort to stay ahead of increasing demand, which Francis said is growing at about 3 percent annually in the southeastern U.S.

------ ohio

Investigators question government uranium deal

03/09/2001
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-03-09-uranium-deal.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - When the government put enriched uranium estimated to be worth $10 million up for sale, it expected a good return. Instead, the U.S. Treasury received a scant $76,051, raising the ire of Energy Department investigators. A private contractor, who handled the sale, reaped millions of dollars, according to auditors. After a review of the sale, the department's inspector general concluded that the contractor, who prepared and packaged the uranium and negotiated the deal, was paid $3.4 million for "questionable costs" that should never have been allowed.

On top of that, Fluor Fernald Inc., received a $675,430 fee for handling the deal, nearly 10 times what the government made on the 1997 sale, said the inspector general's report recently made public.

Still, the deal was vigorously defended Friday by the contractor and by the Energy Department office at the Fernald weapons plant near Cincinnati, where the uranium was located and is being disposed of as part of a general cleanup project.

"We don't think the sale was a bad deal. We told the IG (inspector general) that and that's still our position," said Glenn Griffiths, deputy director of the DOE site office at the Fernald facility. He said the alternative to the sale was to declare the uranium a waste and face huge disposal costs.

Under the sale agreement, neither the name of the buyer nor the specific sale price can be made public for five years, said Griffiths. Other department sources said the company is a foreign uranium fuel provider.

According to the IG investigation, Fluor Fernald Inc., the managing contractor for environmental cleanup at Fernald, estimated the sale would get the government $5 million to $7 million. Instead, the government received $76,051 after all fees and other costs were calculated, according to the IG report.

There were contradictory explanations Friday on how much money actually was paid for the 978 metric tons of uranium, which the buyer resells after it is diluted as commercial reactor fuel.

Ken Morgan, a spokesman for the DOE's Ohio field office, said the amount was "substantially less" than the $10.5 million "projected sales revenue" cited by the IG report. Griffiths said the number was essentially corrected, but included all of the costs involved, including preparing the material, which was in many different forms and not properly packaged or analyzed.

But Griffiths said the $5 million to $7 million profit projections were made in 1990 before the market for uranium softened dramatically. He said the material was advertised as early as 1992, but no buyer was found for five years.

Still, the inspector general's report questioned the millions of dollars that were awarded to Fluor Fernald for cost recovery and the additional $675,430 "award fee" since the project "was not completed within budget."

"In our judgment, had this process been effectively managed, the department could have returned an additional $3.6 million to the Treasury," Inspector General Gregory Friedman wrote Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

Fluor Fernald spokesman Jeff Wagner said the IG report "takes a very narrow view" of the sale. "We feel that we fulfilled our obligation in the project and did it very well and safely," said Wagner.

While Abraham had not yet seen the report, his spokesman, Joe Davis, said that the secretary is taking the IG's findings seriously. "We're going to make sure we take a close look at it," said Davis.

While the uranium deal, reached more than three years ago, raises concerns, Friedman wrote that "the more pressing issue" is how the department will handle future uranium sales, including one expected at Fernald as early as this summer. That sale again is expected to be handled by Fluor Fernald Inc.

Two years after the uranium sale agreement was signed, Fluor Fernald, a subsidiary of the Fluor Corp., a $12.4 billion energy and construction conglomerate, had its DOE contract renewed for managing the environmental cleanup of the Ohio facility.

-------- us nuc waste

Group seeks home for N-waste

March 9 2001
By Charles Clover
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT33FVUD4KC&live=true&tagid=ZZZOMSJK30C&subheading=US

At first glance, the mission of the Non-Proliferation Trust, a Delaware-registered company that consists mainly of a website (www.nptinternational.com) and the goodwill of a number of prominent US Republicans, seems a little far-fetched.

The trust would like to ship 10,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods to remote sites in Russia for permanent storage, generating $15bn (£10.2bn), which it would then administer as aid to Russia through its Bermuda subsidiary, "which is similar to a non-profit organisation, though not really non-profit", admits Joseph Egan, the trust's spokesman.

Intriguingly, it is not the first attempt to combine prominent Republicans, thousands of tons of nuclear waste, an exotic locale and a slightly screwball plan. But this one, against all odds, might just work.

All told, the trust's management includes two admirals, a former director of both the CIA and the FBI, a former head of the US Marine Corps, a former chief of staff when George Bush was vice-president, and a host of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists.

One of the main hurdles to the project could be removed this month, when the Russian parliament is expected to vote on a law that would allow the country to import vast quantities of spent nuclear fuel from around the world.

If it is passed and the amendments are approved, the vote would be a big victory for Russia's minister of atomic energy, Yevgeny Adamov, who recently said that Russia "should fight for its share" of the spent nuclear fuel market, which he estimates could be worth $150bn over the next few decades.

Mr Adamov would like to charge nuclear utilities $1,000-$2,000 a kilogram to reprocess or store permanently spent fuel in facilities at Krasnoyarsk-26 and Mayak, two nuclear dumping sites in Siberia. The ministry calculates that the two sites can store or reprocess 20,000 tons of spent uranium over he next 10 years, roughly 10-15 per cent of the world's total accumulation.

For Russia, working with the Non-Proliferation Trust (NPT) could negotiate one big obstacle, if it helped win the US State Department's approval for the re-export of the spent fuel from countries such as Taiwan and South Korea. These countries - and most of Russia's other prospective customers - use nuclear fuel made in the US, which has put restrictions on its re-export, in order to prevent potentially fissile material from falling into the wrong hands.

"NPT's project is an essential US catalyst to make spent fuel imports to Russia a reality," says Mr Egan, "The vast majority of spent fuel is subject to US consent rights."

Mr Egan says NPT has been in talks with Taiwan, South Korea, Switzerland and Italy on the export of spent fuel to Russia.

Environmentalist groups complain that the plan is setting a dangerous precedent by opening up an international market for nuclear waste that would be difficult to regulate.

So far, neither Washington nor Moscow has officially endorsed NPT's plans, although Yuri Bespalko, spokesman for the Russian ministry of atomic energy, confirms the ministry has been in talks with the group.

The US State Department says only that NPT's plans appear to meet its criteria for re-export of spent nuclear fuel. However, they still require an agreement with Russia for peaceful nuclear co-operation for plans to go ahead.

But the project enjoys the support of powerful Republicans, notably Jesse Helms, head of the Senate foreign relations committee, who has written a letter to the State Department in support of the project.

NPT is the latest in a series of proposals making the rounds in Washington in the last decade aimed at storing spent nuclear fuel in remote foreign locations.

In the mid-1990s a similar proposal to store fuel on South Pacific atolls was pitched by US Fuel and Security Group, headed by Admiral Daniel Murphy, the former commander of the US Sixth Fleet, whose corporate counsel was James Baker, the former US secretary of state.

The plan fell through in the face of opposition from the islanders.


-------- MILITARY

Ranchers organize vigilante groups

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
By FABIOLA SANCHEZ Associated Press Writer

http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351676

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - When Colombian rebels occupied Otto Ramirez's land, demanded protection money and killed his foreman, the Venezuelan rancher fled into hiding. Now, tired of rebel threats, he's taking action.

Ramirez and dozens of his fellow ranchers have organized and armed a militia. Already, he says, the militiamen are patrolling parts of remote Tachira state, near the Colombian border.

For the ranchers, it's a matter of defending their lives and land, a role they say the state is not taking.

But for the government, it raises worries that the spillover of Colombia's conflict could lead to the rise of right-wing paramilitaries _ like ones in Colombia blamed for atrocities.

``Nobody here can be organizing a private army or arming 20 men with rifles,'' President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday, warning farmers that his government would prosecute those creating militias.

``Here, the armed forces are our defense and nobody else,'' he said.

The problem, according to the Venezuelan Ranchers Association, is that there is virtually no government presence along remote border regions, leaving ranchers there vulnerable to incursions by Colombia's leftist guerrillas.

The rebels kidnap and bribe ranchers and even impose themselves as ``judges'' in disputes involving Venezuelan landowners and peasant squatters, whom the rebels support.

``The Venezuelan state is weak and (the guerrillas) are enslaving us,'' complained association president Jose Luis Betancourt, who opposes the formation of paramilitary groups. ``We can't allow the vacuum of a government presence to be filled by groups outside the state.''

The Colombian newspaper El Tiempo reported this week that the right-wing United Self Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC, is training more than 100 Venezuelan farmers in the western Venezuelan state of Tachira. Venezuelan officials deny knowledge of any paramilitary presence.

Colombia's paramilitaries emerged from groups organized by ranchers to defend themselves from leftist rebels. The paramilitaries have since become a formidable force accused of human rights atrocities, including massacres of villagers suspected of supporting rebels.

``This is the story of Colombia's paramilitaries. Almost always, these apparent remedies are worse than the disease,'' says Defense Minister Jose Vicente Rangel.

The rancher militias are the latest sign of how Colombia's 37-year-old conflict _ involving two leftist guerrilla groups, right-wing paramilitaries and the army _ is affecting Venezuela.

Colombian coca growers have moved some crops to Venezuelan soil, Venezuela says. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Colombian peasants have fled right-wing paramilitary violence into northwestern Venezuela. Venezuela is investigating reports that Colombia's largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, is using radio broadcasts to urge Colombian workers on Venezuelan farms to rise up against their employers and join the revolution.

Rangel has promised more army patrols for the ranchers in the border region _ while claiming that criminals, not Colombian rebels, are to blame for the kidnappings and extortion. At least 15 ranchers were kidnapped last year, and more than 275 since 1976, Betancourt says.

Ramirez, 58, decided to organize a militia of 60 men after gunmen chased him and his family from their small estate, San Isidro, near the frontier city of Cano Lindo, about 400 miles west of Caracas.

Wearing olive military garb and packing pistols, the guerrillas came at dawn on Jan. 20. They identified themselves as members of the Popular Liberation Army, a faction of Colombia's leftist National Liberation Army, and demanded $14,300 as a ``vacuna,'' or protection tax.

``I knew when they arrived at my ranch why they came,'' Ramirez told The Associated Press. ``The same had happened to my neighbors and I knew I was next.''

Ramirez told them he didn't have the money. A month later, the guerillas killed his foreman. Ramirez fled to the western city of San Cristobal with his family, protected by four bodyguards.

``My land is totally left alone. No one wants to work there. ... To milk my cows, I need to be escorted by the National Guard. Those vagrants have ruined me,'' Ramirez said.

``We are tired of being held hostage,'' he told Colombia's El Tiempo newspaper. ``If the Venezuelan state is unable to protect us, we ourselves will do it.''

---

China Reassures Powell on Iraq Dealings

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/world/09IRAQ.html

WASHINGTON, March 8 - China has told the United States that it has ordered companies suspected by Washington of helping Iraq rebuild its air defenses to halt their activities, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today.

"China has now said that they have told companies that were in the area doing fiber optics work to cease and desist," General Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The United States carried out air raids twice last month to "degrade" Iraqi air defenses that American officials said more aggressively pinpointed British and American aircraft patrolling no-flight zones imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Pentagon officials have privately accused China of violating United Nations sanctions imposed against Iraq for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, by improving communications so Baghdad can go after the air patrols more successfully.

"We are still examining whether or not it was a specific violation of the sanctions policy and if it was, we will call that to the attention of the sanctions committee," General Powell said.

China's message was given to the American ambassador at a meeting with a Foreign Ministry official in Beijing on Monday, a State Department official said. Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said on Tuesday that no evidence was found that the companies were helping Iraq's defense.

---

U.S. Says G.I.'s Based in Kosovo Won't Help Keep Peace in Serbia

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By JANE PERLEZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/world/09BALK.html

WASHINGTON, March 8 - Despite a spreading Albanian insurgency, the Bush administration has told NATO allies that it will not let American peacekeepers cross from Kosovo into Serbia proper, administration officials said today.

Britain and other allies have urged more assertive action to monitor Albanian insurgents in a border zone in Serbia from which NATO has excluded the Yugoslav Army.

The Albanian Kosovar guerrillas, estimated at more than 1,000, have taken advantage of the absence of Yugoslav troops to establish bases along the zone, which is 3 miles wide and 50 miles long, and to attempt to take control of areas of Serbia proper where ethnic Albanians live.

The Americans are concerned that an expanded mission, even if it involved only a small number of G.I.'s, would embroil them in a wider Balkans conflict - a situation that President Bush argued against forcefully in his election campaign.

American officials said the Albanian insurgency was discussed today in meetings by President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the NATO secretary general, Lord Robertson.

Despite the American opposition to a greater involvement in the Balkans, a largely American force of peacekeepers took its strongest action today against Albanians in Macedonia, where an insurgency has also sprung up. The troops acted to support the Macedonian government, which fears an open rebellion that could foment its Albanian minority and cause a wider conflict.

In Brussels, NATO said it would let Serbian and Yugoslav forces return to an area along the border with Macedonia where Albanian fighters have established bases, but only on a conditional and phased basis.

At the boundary between Kosovo and Serbia proper, "this is a pretty profound disagreement between the United States and Britain," one official said. "We have consistently said we do not see a role for KFOR troops in the sovereign territory of Serbia," the official said, using an abbreviation for NATO's Kosovo force.

This official said that because NATO runs on consensus, it is unlikely that any peacekeepers could operate in Serbian territory without Washington's agreement.

"Either there is an agreement for KFOR to operate in the zone, or not," the official said. "Our position is no."

In the absence of both the Serbian and NATO troops, Albanian militants have set up bases and attacked Serbian civilians as well as lightly armed Serbian police officers.

To deal with any clashes once Serbian forces return, the British have suggested a more aggressive role for NATO forces inside the buffer zone. But the Pentagon has objected to the ideas, which include joint NATO-Serbian patrols to verify a cease-fire that NATO has said could take place within days.

But joint patrols were more than the Pentagon could stomach, officials said.

"There is no guarantee the Serbs are going to behave," one official said. Said another: "What do you do if a drunken Serb kills an Albanian?"

The British have also suggested that allied troops protect monitors whom the European Union has offered for the task. But the Pentagon has also vetoed that idea, which envisioned only 30 monitors, administration officials said.

Trying to reassure allies about Washington's intentions, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said last week that American troops would remain in Kosovo.

But the Bush administration wants to ensure that the role of the 5,200 American soldiers does not go beyond peacekeeping within Kosovo, officials said.

As the Albanian insurgency has widened in recent months, the United States has found that it has more in common with the new Yugoslav government than with the Albanians who are causing the trouble.

In allowing the Yugoslav and Serbian forces to return to the buffer, NATO made its first concession to Belgrade after fighting against Serbia in the Kosovo war two years ago.

When the Yugoslav soldiers return, NATO is demanding that Belgrade purge any who were involved in atrocities against ethnic Albanians during the Kosovo war. How the Yugoslav soldiers would be screened was not clear.

American soldiers in Kosovo have been increasingly involved in trying to tamp the Albanian insurgency, chiefly through the seizure of supplies and volunteers from the Kosovo side of the border, which falls within the American command sector.

Bush administration officials said their approach to the insurgency was based in part on a larger question: Concerns that once Serbian troops returned, the Albanian guerrillas would seek to destabilize areas of Kosovo itself.

For example, they said, the Albanians have threatened to seek revenge against Serbs in Mitrovica, a divided city in Kosovo, if Serbian forces are allowed to take back the Presevo valley, an area just inside Serbia where 70,000 residents are Albanian.

"That's a serious threat," one official said.

---

Mixed signals sent on evolving Bush foreign policy

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
By David R. Sands
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-200139214936.htm

The celebrated Bush administration foreign policy team, in its first major tests, can't seem to decide who bats leadoff and who hits cleanup.

Mixed messages and public confusion have plagued the administration in its early weeks, first on U.S. policy toward Iraq and then on President Bush's willingness to continue the Clinton administration's rapprochement with North Korea.

"I think it's fair to say that the rhetoric to date hasn't been well coordinated yet," says Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon and State Department official who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"That's not unusual when the people in a new administration have not had time to develop a nuanced policy in the crush of events," he says.

But the muddle has surprised Washington because of the experience and depth of the foreign-policy team Mr. Bush recruited.

Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell came to their posts trailing glittering resumes and long records of government service at the highest level. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a rising star in Republican foreign-policy circles even before signing up for Texas Gov. George W. Bush's successful presidential campaign.

But in the space of two days this week, the administration effectively reversed itself on what it would do about missile talks with North Korea, which were left unfinished when President Clinton left office.

Mr. Powell on Tuesday said the new administration planned "to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off."

A day later, following a meeting with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, Mr. Bush publicly questioned key parts of the Clinton strategy and signaled he planned to go much slower on thawing relations with Pyongyang.

A senior White House briefer spent considerable time afterward trying to persuade skeptical reporters that the abrupt change in tone did not signal either an abrupt change in tone or an internal rift between senior policy-makers.

By yesterday, Mr. Powell was suggesting stiff new conditions for any deal with North Korea and even talking about trying to reopen a deal made in 1994.

On Iraq, the administration has struggled to coordinate its evolving policy on international sanctions against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Powell told a House hearing Wednesday that it is critical that U.N. weapons inspectors be allowed back into Iraq to keep Baghdad in check.

Mr. Cheney had told a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of The Washington Times, in an interview published earlier this week: "I don't think we want to hinge our policy just to the questions of whether or not inspectors go back in there."

The administration has struggled to explain its efforts to "re-energize" the sanctions against Iraq while at the same time decreasing the number of goods banned from sale to the regime.

The stature and bureaucratic skills of the Bush team's heavy hitters had led some analysts to expect that policy and turf clashes were inevitable.

Mr. Cheney has built a personal staff with broad security and foreign-policy credentials. Mr. Powell has vowed to restore the influence of an often demoralized department, partly through the strength of his own charisma. And Mr. Rumsfeld, backed by the Pentagon's resources and budget clout, has literally written the book on how to lead and how to follow at the highest levels of U.S. government.

Open criticism of any one of the three is rare. "I have some ideas [about the Bush team's early policy miscues,"] one veteran Republican foreign policy official says, "but I'd rather not see them in print."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat who was national security adviser under President Carter, praises Mr. Bush's skeptical stance on North Korea and his go-slow approach to any deal with the Communist regime.

"I never understood the pell-mell rush by the last administration to get a deal with Pyongyang, or why the president would want to go there in the last days of his term," says Mr. Brzezinski.

One problem he finds in the Bush administration struggle to present a united front is that so many sub-Cabinet policy posts have yet to be filled as nominees slowly work their way through the confirmation system.

"Some serious issues like the Middle East, like China, aren't going to wait," he says. "That's when you need talented people and staff so that you are better prepared to shape policy."

Mr. Powell, appearing at a budget hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked how many of the State Department's senior officials had been confirmed.

"You're looking at him," Mr. Powell joked. German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping, in town for talks with senior Bush administration officials, says he is not concerned as he watches the new team settle in.

"This is an administration that is in that phase of defining its policies, its standpoints, its interests," says Mr. Scharping. "There is no tendency on our part to overestimate the importance of any particular statement."

Nevertheless, Democratic legislators yesterday told Mr. Powell that the apparent confusion over message could have real consequences in places like the Korean Peninsula, especially with regional powers like China, Japan and South Korea all seeking clues to the new president's thinking.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware said he was "puzzled and disappointed" by the apparent abrupt change in tone on North Korea this week.

Added Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts: "I have a sense that we may be sending messages that are subject to misinterpretation."

Replied Mr. Powell: "I think there's less difference here than meets the eye."

-------- arms sales

Taiwan appeals for U.S. arms sales

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/worldscene-200139213128.htm

TAIPEI, Taiwan - Taiwan yesterday appealed to the United States to maintain sales of weaponry against rival China, a day after Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan attacked the U.S. policy of selling military equipment to the island.

"Hopefully the U.S. government would properly take into consideration our needs [in defense]," army Gen. Huo Shou-yeh, vice Chief of the General Staff, told reporters after attending a meeting of the parliament's national defense committee.

He referred to annual Taipei-Washington arms talks next month, during which, according to unconfirmed reports, Taiwan is to disclose a shopping list of sophisticated weapons, including destroyers equipped with the Aegis satellite anti-missile system.

Despite Washington's switching of diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, the United States has remained the biggest arms supplier to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.

-------- colombia

Colombia talks attracting support

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
Associated Press
MARGARITA MARTINEZ
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351674

LOS POZOS, Colombia (AP) - Signaling an expanding international peace role in Colombia, leftists rebels and the government welcomed diplomats from two dozen countries and the United Nations for talks Thursday in a guerrilla-held village.

Envoys from Europe, Latin America, Japan and Canada held far-ranging discussions with delegates of President Andres Pastrana's government and the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

The United States refused to send an envoy, reflecting skepticism in Washington about the peace process and a ban on U.S. contacts with Colombia's largest rebel faction. The State Department considers the FARC a terrorist organization.

The diplomats from 26 countries issued a statement offering support for negotiations, but urging faster progress in cease-fire talks and a planned exchange of ill prisoners. They then boarded buses for a nearby town where they were to spend the night before returning to Bogota on Friday.

Government and rebel negotiators said they would meet again Friday. Presidential peace commissioner Camilo Gomez called the meeting a ``very frank'' exchange, but did not provide details.

Colombia's 37-year-long conflict claims at least 3,000 lives annually, mostly civilians caught in the cross fire between guerrillas, the military and right-wing paramilitary groups.

Government and rebel delegates said they were not dampened by the United States' failure to attend.

``The peace process is full of dynamism,'' Juan Fernando Criales, a member of Pastrana's negotiating team, declared before heading into talks attended by the FARC's aging founder and chief, Manuel Marulanda. Rebel spokesman Andres Paris said the international presence provided a ``counterweight'' to growing U.S. military aid to Colombia.

In Washington, Peter Romero, the acting chief of the State Department's Latin America bureau, denied suggestions that the United States does not support the peace process.

``Ever since President Pastrana came to office and started a dialogue with the FARC, we have been supportive of his efforts,'' he said Thursday.

``We did not involve ourselves with these particular talks simply because it does not appear that there is yet a critical mass that would warrant our consideration to participate,'' Romero added.

Following Thursday's meeting, the government and the FARC are expected to name a small group of countries as direct facilitators of the talks . There was no indication yet that either side would request foreign mediation or for the United Nations to deploy large observer teams.

The peace talks begun in January 1999 have stumbled amid continuing violence. But a summit here last month between Pastrana and Marulanda breathed new life into the process. The two agreed to get the international community more involved.

Europeans fear a $1.3 billion U.S. aid package will inflame the country's violence and undermine the negotiations. Washington is providing combat helicopters and training troops for a counternarcotics offensive into FARC-dominated areas where the rebels profit from the cocaine trade.

The meetings in Los Pozos, located in a Switzerland-sized rebel enclave ceded by Pastrana to the FARC two years ago, has become a magnet for activists.

As the envoys arrived to a hearty greeting from the camouflage-fatigued Marulanda and his top officers, mothers of some 500 police and soldiers held prisoner by the rebels waved placards and shouted ``freedom, freedom.''

``I saw my son on a video, chained up and surrounded by barbed wire,'' said Magdalena Rivas, the 52-year-old mother of a police lieutenant captured in a 1998 FARC attack. The rebels are holding their prisoners in primitive jungle pens.

Marulanda asked the protesters to have ``faith and patience'' while talks moved ahead on a possible swap for jailed rebels.

---

Colombia in New Dispute With Venezuela Over a Missing Rebel

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By JUAN FORERO
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/world/09COLO.html

BOGOTÁ, Colombia, March 8 - In a new dispute between uneasy neighbors, Colombian authorities said this week that Venezuela had freed a Colombian rebel who hijacked a Colombian airliner in 1999. Venezuela had denied that it had arrested the guerrilla.

But Colombia displayed evidence today. It released a grainy videotape that the authorities said showed the hijacker, José María Ballestas, a member of the second-largest guerrilla force, being arrested on Feb. 13 by the police in Caracas.

Colombia also said it had an arrest report sent on Feb. 14 by Interpol in Caracas to Colombian officials with details of Mr. Ballestas's capture.

"It's been confirmed, once again, that the kidnapper, José María Ballestas, was arrested by Venezuelan police, contrary to what some people have said about him not being captured," Defense Minister Luis Fernando Ramírez said in an interview today. "What we need is an explanation, if there was a political decision or what, to liberate him."

The squabble is the latest to highlight the tensions between President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and the Colombians over Mr. Chávez's relationship with Colombian rebels.

Mr. Chávez, a populist critical of United States influence in Latin America, has antagonized Colombia by criticizing President Andrés Pastrana's American-supported plan to curtail coca production and by allowing two rebels to speak in November in the Venezuelan legislature.

The Venezuelan international relations minister, Luis Davila, told reporters on a trip to Colombia that his government was investigating the allegations.

Other top Venezuelan officials denied this week that Mr. Ballestas had been captured.

The Venezuelan Embassy in Bogotá and the Foreign, Interior and Justice Ministries in Caracas declined to comment today.

The Colombians say Mr. Ballestas is a Colombian who led National Liberation Army rebels in hijacking an Avianca liner with 42 people on board on April 12, 1999.

The hijackers forced the plane to land in a northern region under rebel control.

The passengers were released over 19 months, after the collection of ransoms.

Colombian authorities said they had been on Mr. Ballestas's trail for months and had forwarded important information that helped the Venezuelan Technical Judicial Police arrest him outside a shopping center in Caracas.

Two days later, on Feb. 15, Mr. Ballestas was to have been handed over at the Caracas airport to two Colombian agents, who were to have transported him here. But Mr. Ballestas was not turned over.

Colombian officials said Venezuelan police officials had privately said they had been told to release Mr. Ballestas.

"What they've said so far is that the capture was false," Mr. Ramírez said of Venezuelan officials. "Later, Mr. Davila said that they're investigating.

"So now they might say that `yes, the capture was made, but we released him for some reason that we don't know yet.' "

A human rights group in Venezuela announced today that it had lobbied Mr. Chávez's administration to release Mr. Ballestas because they had been told that he was a political prisoner and assumed that he would face persecution if was returned to Colombia.

It was unclear, however, whether that lobbying led to the release.

-------- drug war

The Trajectory of a Painkiller

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/opinion/L09PAI.html

To the Editor:

Re "Sales of Painkiller Grew Rapidly, but Success Brought a High Cost" (front page, March 5), about Purdue Pharma's efforts to promote OxyContin for the treatment of moderate to severe pain:

As a pain physician in private practice before joining Purdue Pharma, I was visited by Purdue sales representatives, all of whom conducted themselves in a professional manner and promoted OxyContin according to its approved labeling. As an academician, I can say no other company has done more to increase the understanding of pain.

Through discussions with medical examiners in several states, we have confirmed that the vast majority of deaths attributed to OxyContin abuse were in fact due to abuse of multiple drugs, often including alcohol.

The media frenzy about OxyContin abuse is interfering with good pain management. In fighting drug abuse, we must not limit patients' access to strong analgesics to manage pain and preserve quality of life.

J. DAVID HADDOX, M.D. Senior Medical Dir., Health Policy, Purdue Pharma Norwalk, Conn., March 6, 2001

•

To the Editor:

Re "Sales of Painkiller Grew Rapidly, but Success Brought a High Cost" (front page, March 5):

Undertreatment of pain affects many more people than the much smaller numbers engaged in diversion for abuse purposes.

Underrecognition and undertreatment of pain is a major public health problem. People with pain are at high risk for depression, dependency, inability to work, other illnesses and even death. The excess focus on risks distracts from the primary importance of the effective treatment of pain.

DIANE E. MEIER, M.D. New York, March 5, 2001 The writer is co-director of the Center to Advance Palliative Care, Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

•

To the Editor:

Re "Sales of Painkiller Grew Rapidly, but Success Brought a High Cost" (front page, March 5):

Of course pharmaceutical companies market their products by direct contact with doctors. It works!

The real problem lies with the doctors who abrogate their responsibility for continuing medical education. Many do not consult the great abundance of objective information available to them. They prefer the easier, less perfect path: take the samples, listen to the pitch, prescribe the drug.

ALFRED G. GILMAN, M.D. Dallas, March 5, 2001 The writer, a Nobel laureate, is chairman of the department of pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

•

To the Editor:

Re "Sales of Painkiller Grew Rapidly, but Success Brought a High Cost" (front page, March 5): The "high cost" that is the real theme of your article is that doctors, medical schools and other medical institutions still believe that they can accept "free" lunches and the like and not be influenced by the drug companies' marketing agendas.

Perhaps it is time for influential medical institutions to take a stand and stop accepting free lunches, free educational support and all the other goodies that are accepted as "free." Or is that too much to ask of people who have promoted the ubiquitous and harmful sale of $1 billion of a drug that, while quite useful, represents a minor advance in the important field of pain treatment?

BERTRAND M. BELL, M.D. Bronx, March 5, 2001 The writer is a professor of medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

•

To the Editor:

Re "Sales of Painkiller Grew Rapidly, but Success Brought a High Cost" (front page, March 5): On several occasions, our efforts to educate consumers and health care professionals about undertreatment of pain and end-of-life care have been supported with small grants from Purdue Pharma. Not once have any conditions been attached.

Based on the work that we do nationally, we are aware that Purdue has provided similar support to many organizations across the country with the common goal of improving care of the dying.

MYRA J. CHRISTOPHER Pres., Midwest Bioethics Center Kansas City, Mo., March 5, 200

-------- land mines

Land mine heartland

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
James Morrison
http://www.washtimes.com/world/embassy-200139212634.htm

Queen Noor of Jordan knows firsthand about the gruesome toll land mines take on a civilian population.

"Over the past 25 years, reading news reports, driving past Jordan Valley mine fields fenced off by barbed wire, or visiting victims, I have grieved for children and adults in Jordan and the Middle East, some consider the land mine heartland of the world," she said yesterday at the National Press Club.

Speaking as part of the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines, Queen Noor called for a worldwide effort to end the use of those anti-personnel weapons and to clean up the deadly debris from countless civil wars.

"The 80 million or so land mines that lie hidden today in the fields, forests and roads of approximately 80 countries, and the 250 million stockpiled around the world waiting to be deployed, amount to a land mine for every 12 children on Earth," she said.

"They comprise one of the greatest public health hazards of our time - a modern, manmade epidemic. Land mines are indiscriminate killers, unable to distinguish between a soldier's heavy boot and a toddler's bare foot."

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

Polishing Public Profile of U.N. Is a Job for a Novelist

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By LYNDA RICHARDSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/nyregion/09PROF.html

AT night and on weekends, Shashi Tharoor, whether in Singapore or Geneva or his East Side apartment in Manhattan, has sat typing into the morning's early hours.

Over 15 years, Mr. Tharoor has written elegant novels chronicling the fantasies and foibles of India, his spiritual home, including an unsparing contemporary satire on an epic Hindu poem. He also writes sharp-edged, often witty political commentary that appears in magazines and newspapers.

Writing through the Manhattan night, the 45-year-old Mr. Tharoor just finished another novel, "Riot," a look at communal violence and human passions in modern India.

But for the last six weeks, when the writing stops and the sun comes up, Mr. Tharoor has headed off to one of the more challenging temp jobs ever - running, on an interim basis, the United Nations Department of Public Information.

The United Nations has never had the greatest success putting the best public face on its work. And this specific office has been widely derided over the years. Politicians think it is a wasteful propaganda office. The former United States ambassador, Richard C. Holbrooke, for one, wasted no opportunity to attack it. Working reporters also see the department as largely useless and terribly slow.

Mr. Tharoor didn't exactly seek out the job. He was appointed by Secretary General Kofi Annan in late January. He has 428 employees in New York City, and 307 more workers in offices around the world. If his office is unappreciated, he is not unenthusiastic.

"For the moment, I'm having a whale of a time," he says in a refined Anglo-Indian accent, sipping tea in his spacious 10th-floor office. He is gregarious and relaxed in a dark pinstriped suit.

Mr. Tharoor has been a loyal United Nations man for most of his adult life, and it has required every creative power you can think of.

His United Nations experience began in 1978 when he served on the staff of the High Commissioner for Refugees, heading its Singapore office at the height of the Vietnamese "boat people" crisis. His hazel eyes light up as he describes helping to rescue thousands: "The satisfaction of seeing what you do reflected in the eyes of real human beings is immeasurably invaluable."

Mr. Tharoor's profile rose even higher during the Bosnian war, when he led the team handling the United Nations' peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia and was Mr. Annan's chief aide in the peacekeeping department. He was most recently Mr. Annan's director of communications and special projects.

HOW Mr. Tharoor has balanced his novelist's introspection and publicist's mandate is something of a puzzle to his closest friends. "I do keep my two worlds firmly apart," he says, brushing aside his black hair. "In one part of my world, I write about nothing but India, but in my work, I do nothing on India. As a human being, I have a number of responses to the world, some of which manifest in my writing and some in my work. Both are coming out of the same person."

Indeed, the United Nations policy of neutrality during the Bosnian war created friction between Mr. Tharoor and his literary friends, many of whom thought the United Nations should have done more to help the Bosnian Muslims. To that, Mr. Tharoor answers like a diplomat: "Peacekeepers can't take sides. Our only side is peace itself."

But Mr. Tharoor notes that he had dinner just the night before with Susan Sontag, a critic of the United Nations' conduct in Bosnia. "I believe certainly in all the friendships and relationships I had at the time," he said. "I've survived the experience. People understand, I think, when you're acting out of integrity."

While some people at the United Nations see him as a certain type, the upper-crust Indian British colonial kind, Mr. Tharoor says he is anything but. He describes his upbringing as middle-class. "I'm very much a mainstream Indian type," he said.

Born in London, he was raised and educated in India, where his father was a newspaper executive and his mother a homemaker. He holds a doctorate from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Mr. Tharoor is separated from his wife, a scholar who was his college sweetheart in New Delhi. He says his busy schedule did not play a role. "In some marriages, sadly, you sort of fall out of love with each other," he said. "It's very painful all around." They have 16-year-old twin boys.

Mr. Annan has indicated that Mr. Tharoor's tenure may last only months. But Mr. Tharoor, who has earned a reputation as an urbane, quick thinker, one not above appreciating the strategic value of small gestures, appears to be thriving.

On this day, for instance, he shows up for an interview he knew would touch on New York's difficult dealings with the world body wearing a rather hideous tie from the New York City Transit Museum, with a United Nations tie clip.

Did he wake up this particular morning with a fashion flash? "In the world of diplomacy," he says mischievously, "no coincidence is entirely accidental."

---

VOW TO U.N.

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/world/09BRIE.html

LIBERIA: Under threat of Security Council sanctions, Liberia said it would comply with all the demands that had to be met to avoid an embargo, including stopping the trade in diamonds from neighboring Sierra Leone and severing ties with a rebel army there. Foreign Minister Monie Captan said Liberia would prove within 60 days it was a responsible country with nothing to hide. Barbara Crossette (NYT)

---

Sanctions imposed on diamond exports

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/worldscene-200139213128.htm

NEW YORK - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Wednesday to impose sanctions on diamond exports from Liberia to punish the country for its reported guns-for-gems trade with Sierra Leone's rebels.

The ban on diamonds, along with a travel embargo on Liberian President Charles Taylor and a coterie of officials and businessmen, will come into force automatically on May 7. The delay was requested by West African nations, who must help enforce the sanctions.

A new, broader arms embargo to substitute for one imposed during Liberia's 1992 civil war went into effect immediately after the U.S.- and British-drafted resolution was adopted by the 15-nation body Wednesday.

Liberia, and especially Mr. Taylor, is accused of helping rebels of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) carry out a 10-year civil war, financed largely by diamonds from Sierra Leone in exchange for arms.

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

U.S. SHIP NAMED FOR CHURCHILL:

MARCH 9-11, 2001
THE MORROCK NEWS DIGEST
http://morrock.com

A U.S. guided missile destroyer to be commissioned Saturday will carry the name of the late British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill -- becoming the only active U.S. warship to bear the name of a foreigner.

---

3 Midshipmen Resign in Deal in Rape Case

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/national/09MIDS.html

WASHINGTON, March 8 - Three football players at the United States Naval Academy have resigned from the school in a deal with the state attorney's office to avoid prosecution on charges of raping a female classmate, sources close to the investigation said today.

The three athletes, all 21-year-old midshipmen, faced charges of second-degree rape and sexual assault for a sexual encounter last year with a woman who had passed out after drinking at a party in suburban Arnold, Md.

The athletes are Cordrea Brittingham of Berlin, Md.; Arion Keith Williams of Detroit; and Shaka Amin Martin of Danville, Va. They resigned earlier this week.

Mr. Brittingham and Mr. Williams were charged in July. Mr. Martin was charged in October.

The defendants acknowledged having sexual relations with the woman, whose name was not released, but they said it was consensual. The deal with prosecutors was first reported in the Friday edition of the Washington Post.

---

Osprey Victims' Families Testify

March 9, 2001
Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Osprey.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-03-09-osprey.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The wives of three Marines killed in a crash last April of a V-22 Osprey pleaded Friday for the Pentagon to fix ``the hidden dangers'' that have taken the lives of 23 Marines in less than a year.

In an emotional presentation to a four-member panel of experts reviewing the future of the Osprey program, Stacey Nelson said she has learned of ``many legitimate and serious safety concerns'' about the innovative but technically troubled aircraft since the crash that killed her husband and 18 other Marines near Tucson, Ariz.

The panel was created after a second Osprey crash last December killed four more Marines. None of the eight remaining Osprey aircraft have flown since the December crash in North Carolina, and speculation is mounting that the Pentagon will delay or cancel the program.

``I know you have been thinking about the program and the program and the program, asking will it live or will it die,'' she said, her voice cracking. ``I simply want to remind you ... that the life's blood of my husband and 22 other brave Marines is now and forever more a part of this program.''

Nelson's husband, Staff Sgt. William Brian Nelson, 30, was an aerial observer/mechanic aboard an Osprey that suddenly fell into a nose dive, flipped onto its back and crashed April 8 near a small airport.

She and the two other wives said they are not urging the Pentagon to cancel the Osprey program, but rather to return it to the manufacturers to work out technical problems that they said make it unsafe.

``Our first and greatest priority is simply to ensure that no other Marine is asked to give his life until this aircraft is safe,'' Nelson said.

Reading from a letter she received from her husband the day of the crash, she choked back tears.

``Hey baby, I'm getting ready to go to work,'' he began. He said he had received a photo she had sent of ``baby Nelson.'' (A second daughter was born after he died.)

``It's really hard to believe that Brian Nelson has a beautiful wife, soon-to-be two beautiful children and a house with a dog,'' he wrote. ``It's all because of you. You've given me this wonderful life and I thank you for it. I love you very much.''

Also addressing the Osprey review panel were several supporters of the program, including former Pentagon official Frank Gaffney, who said the Osprey was a ``national asset'' that held incalculable potential benefits for military and civil aviation that the United States ``cannot afford to forego.''

On the other side, Connie Gruber, whose husband, Maj. Brooks S. Gruber, 34, was co-pilot of the Osprey that crashed last April, called the crash ``an accident that could have been prevented if only Bell and Boeing had presented the Marine Corps with a safe aircraft.'' The Osprey is built by Textron's Bell Helicopters unit and Boeing Co.

``I ask that you hold the parties, the ones that knew of should have known about the hidden dangers of this aircraft -- the makers of the aircraft -- responsible for the devastation of the lives of those of us who will forever be impacted by their poor judgments, overzealousness or carelessness,'' she said.

At the Boeing office in Philadelphia that works on the Osprey program, spokeswoman Madelyn Bush declined to comment, noting that lawyers for the family of Lance Cpl. Jasson Duke, who also was killed in the April crash, announced Friday that they have filed a lawsuit against Bell and Boeing.

Trish Brow, wife of Maj. John Brow, the pilot and aircraft commander on the Osprey that crashed in Arizona, told the panel, ``All along, I felt the program was pushed too hard and too fast. Stop the V-22 from killing the pilots that fly it.

``If the Osprey is the right aircraft for the job, I ask that you please insure it is adequately funded and tested to insure this aircraft doesn't kill other husbands and fathers,'' she said.

The review panel is headed by a former deputy commandant of the Marine Corps, retired Gen. John R. Dailey, and Friday's session was its first public hearing. The panel is expected to complete its work in April.

The Osprey is unique in its ability to take off like a helicopter, rotate its propellers 90 degrees and fly like an airplane. The Marine Corps plans to buy 360 Ospreys to replace its fleet of aging CH-46 and CH-53 transport helicopters.

Gen. James Jones, commandant of the Marine Corps, has called the Osprey a ``must have'' aircraft, although he said following the December crash that a review of the program was warranted.

---

Army gives China the order for berets

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
By Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200139223327.htm

The Pentagon bypassed a "buy America" law to meet the Army's rush demand for 3 million black berets and awarded contracts to firms manufacturing the headgear in communist China and other Third World countries.

The beret purchase has become a contentious topic inside the Army special operations forces.

Former Army Rangers, whose elite units exclusively wear the black beret, are lobbying members of Congress to overturn a decision by Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, last October to issue the black headgear to all soldiers.

The Rangers are hot because China, in the midst of a huge military buildup, is regarded by U.S. military planners as a potential adversary as it broadens its influence in the Pacific, and threatens Taiwan, an old American ally.

"I think it's embarrassing for our country for our soldiers to wear uniforms made in communist China," says a Senate defense aide. "We've got to help Gen. Shinseki find a way out of."

Protests have grown so fierce that President Bush asked the Defense Department to reconsider. But it's not clear whether the Pentagon will. An Army spokesman says the department has not asked the Army to supply any information. Asked yesterday by a reporter about the commander in chief's review, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said: "I have not asked the Army to do anything particular about that."

Three ex-Rangers yesterday completed a 700-mile protest march from Fort Benning, Ga., the Rangers' headquarters, to Washington. They will hold a rally tomorrow at the Lincoln Memorial.

Gen. Shinseki says unearned berets for everyone represent the Army's transformation into a lighter, more agile force for the 21st century.

As it turns out, his urgent deadline to have every soldier in the Army wearing a black beret by June 14 spurred the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency to waive the so-called "Berry Amendment," a federal law that for years has required the Pentagon to buy clothing made in U.S. factories of 100 percent American components. The agency then awarded contracts totaling $23 million for 1.3 million black berets to seven companies, five of which are producing the headgear in low-wage Third World plants. The Army eventually plans to buy 3 million black berets.

The decision is not a happy one with American apparel makers, either. They say Gen. Shinseki's "arbitrary deadline" prevented them from tooling up to meet the Army's huge order. The four-star general wants each of the 474,000 soldiers wearing the black beret by June 14, the Army's 225th birthday.

"It's a disgrace," says Marc Lamer, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents a U.S. manufacturer. "This had to be done this way because this guy decided on a quick deadline."

Mr. Lamer, who represents a firm that protested the contract awards, says only one American manufacturer currently has the machines to make a one-piece wool beret, as the Army demanded. Such tooling is no longer in production and what is left is scattered around the world, he says.

But Mr. Lamer says that if the Army pursued a "normal type of procurement" with sufficient notice instead of one month, U.S. manufacturers would have had time to purchase the needed equipment and submit bids.

"Their justification for doing all this was the urgency, because they had to have berets arriving by April," he says. "There was no time for an American manufacturer. The deadline was simply the chief of staff of the Army deciding he wanted them when he wanted them."

A Defense Logistics Agency spokeswoman said yesterday, "In this case, since the total capacity of the only known domestic producer of a specified beret could not meet the required delivery, the waiver was granted to allow for foreign acquisition."

The spokeswoman confirmed that thousands of U.S. Army berets are being made in China as well as Romania, Sri Lanka and other countries.

An Army spokeswoman had no immediate comment yesterday.

Under the "Berry Amendment," virtually every piece of military clothing is made in America with American components.

Mr. Lamer's client is Michele Goodman, president of Atlas Headwear Inc. in Phoenix.

She originally protested the Pentagon's decision to bypass the Berry Amendment. But she withdrew the case because her firm makes a two-piece sewn beret, while the Army wants a one-piece beret.

Ms. Goodman says that, with more time, her company and other apparel makers could have persuaded the Army to accept a different type of beret.

"The machines they use now to make the one-piece are antiquated. They are no longer made," she says. "Eventually, the Army is going to have to go to something different. This was a very good option."

She says her beret would cost about $4.75. She says the ones made in China cost $7.

Steven Lamar, director of government relations for the American Apparel and Footwear Association, says the Pentagon rarely waives the Berry Amendment. Usually, it's done when no U.S. company makes the item.

"Our concern was they shouldn't be waiving the Berry Amendment to fill this item," he says. "The urgency for this item is arbitrary. It's not like, 'we all need berets because of this military action we're going to do.'"

The Army previously has purchased all its berets for airborne, Special Forces and Rangers from one manufacturer able to handle the relatively small orders.

-------- OTHER

-------- environment

ANTI-BEETLE PLAN

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/nyregion/09MBRF.html

MANHATTAN: Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern and the United States Department of Agriculture announced a new assault esterday on the Asian long-horned beetle, the city's most lethal enemy of trees. More than 12,000 trees in New York City and Nassau County are to be injected with imidacloprid, an insecticide absorbed into the tree through small canisters placed at each tree's base. The federal government will pay the $1.5 million cost. Elisabeth Bumiller (NYT)

---

Ducks of Manhattan

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/opinion/L09DUC.html

To the Editor:

Re "Duck Soup: A Binocular View of Buffleheads, Mallards and Friends" (Weekend section, March 2):

One need not travel to Piermont, N.Y., or Brigantine, N.J., or for that matter, the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, to see ducks.

When I've canoed around Manhattan, I've been pleasantly surprised to see ducks, cormorants and Canada geese floating in the rivers. Granted, they favor the more inaccessible areas off uptown Riverside Park, the Harlem River near Inwood and islands in the East River just south of Hell Gate. It was good to know that the waters flowing past Manhattan are still waterfowl-compatible.

GEORGE UBOGY Greenwich, Conn., March 6, 2001

---

Our Dependence on Oil

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/opinion/L09ARC.html

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman ("Drilling in the Cathedral," column, March 2) laments drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it is a migratory wildlife refuge and because of its natural beauty.

Another reason not to drill in the refuge is that more oil is not the answer to our energy needs. We must develop fuel-cell, solar-cell and other technologies as if we were going to war. Only then can we stop polluting our atmosphere and possibly save the world from the nightmare of global warming.

RICHARD W. GREEN Plainfield, Mass., March 7, 2001

---

Tycoon to president

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
John McCaslin
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

A letter this column obtained, sent by Bruce Bennett, librarian at the Environmental Protection Agency's Region 9 headquarters in San Francisco, to Arctic Power, not only blasts the latter for its pro-oil-exploration position in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but contains a few choice words for President Bush, too.

"I also find it irritating," the EPA official writes to Arctic Power, "that people such as you go on and on about our need to regain energy self-sufficiency when we are shipping a good portion of the Alaska pipeline oil (I have been told up to 20-25 percent) overseas where it fetches a better price."

"Of course," the bureaucrat continues, "industry flacks such as you spend precious little time on the ideas of alternative energy and conservation. These routes are effective despite your attempt to belittle them."

"Finally," Mr. Bennett opines, "I keep thinking that the oil industry doesn't really give a damn about the impending condition of global warming (Bush refers to it as a 'social fad,' a perfect denial by an oil man)."

Before becoming Texas governor, Mr. Bush made his fortune in the oil business and as managing partner of a group that held a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Asked about his reference to the president, Mr. Bennett told Inside the Beltway yesterday that his letter was not meant to reflect the EPA's position.

---

Norton's deputy

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
Greg Pierce
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm

President Bush again has angered environmentalists by nominating a prominent coal and energy industry lobbyist to be Interior Secretary Gale Norton's deputy, Scripps Howard News Service reports.

Mr. Bush announced yesterday he plans to nominate J. Steven Griles, a principal in the lobbying firm National Environmental Strategies, as deputy interior secretary.

During the Reagan administration, Mr. Griles served as assistant secretary for lands and minerals management, deputy assistant secretary for land and water, and deputy director of the office of surface mining.

In recent years, he has worked in the private sector, lobbying for a host of industry causes, including the National Mining Association and Occidental Petroleum, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiles public data on lobbyists.

-------- genetics

Unapproved corn found in veggie dogs

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
PHILIP BRASHER
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406350895

WASHINGTON (AP) - Add veggie corn dogs to the list of food products that anti-biotech activists say contain genetically engineered grain never approved for human consumption.

Morningstar Farms corn dogs, a product of the Kellogg Co., were purchased Feb. 24 at a Baltimore Safeway store and later tested positive for StarLink corn, the environmental group Greenpeace said Thursday.

The frozen product was made in early October with corn from the 1999 harvest, Kellogg spokeswoman Chris Ervin said.

The government says there is little, if any, health risk from StarLink corn, which was withdrawn from the market after its discovery in Kraft Foods taco shells and other products last fall. The corn was approved only for animal feed because of unanswered questions about the potential to cause allergic reactions in humans.

Kellogg notified the Food and Drug Administration of Greenpeace's finding but has not recalled the corn dogs, Ervin said. ``It's too preliminary. All we're doing is sending the product to an independent lab for testing,'' she said.

Greenpeace's testing was conducted by an Iowa lab, Genetic ID, that identified StarLink in the taco shells, prompting a nationwide recall.

It was virtually impossible to keep StarLink from getting into food products because of the way corn is intermingled, said Gene Grabowski, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America.

``Strict segregation, 100 percent segregation, is impossible with today's food supply,'' he said.

The government moved to contain the 2000 harvest of StarLink corn _ most of it was found and diverted toward approved uses _ and advised corn processors and seed companies to start testing for the grain.

Greenpeace accused Kellogg of misleading consumers into believing that its Morningstar Farms products were biotech-free.

In addition to the StarLink corn, Greenpeace-commissioned testing also found biotech soy in the veggie corn dogs. All genetically engineered soy is approved for food use.

``Americans have asked Kellogg's over and over to stop this genetic experiment on our food, yet Kellogg's refuses to listen and tries to mislead consumers,'' said Charles Margulis, a Greenpeace spokesman.

While Kellogg has tried to use only nonbiotech soy in Morningstar Farms products, they are not labeled as free of genetically engineered ingredients, Ervin said. The appearance of biotech soy in the corn dogs was the result of a supplier's mistake, she said.

StarLink's developer, Aventis CropScience, says its corn is safe for people. Aventis has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to approve the corn temporarily for food use to prevent further disruptions in grain handling.

The Agriculture Department agreed this week to buy as much as $20 million worth of corn seed that has tested positive for the biotech grain.

The National Corn Growers Association has warned farmers against buying seed not certified as StarLink-free and has asked the Agriculture Department for helping in getting that message to growers through its network of field agents.

Farmers also are advised to avoid contaminating their corn crops with stray StarLink plants that will sprout this spring from grain left in fields from last fall's harvest.

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

IMF reforms lacking

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351034

WASHINGTON (AP) - Conservative critics of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank told Congress on Thursday that reforms begun by the institutions do not go far enough in improving how the global financial system works.

Allan H. Meltzer, chairman of an advisory panel that delivered a highly critical report on the two Washington-based lending agencies last year, said that recent bailouts of Turkey and Argentina showed that much needs to be done.

He testified before a hearing of Congress' Joint Economic Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Jim Saxton, said his panel would try to keep up pressure for a significant overhaul at the institutions. The United States is their largest shareholder.

The Clinton administration said the recommendations of the Meltzer Commission were too radical, and decided to pursue more modest changes.

Saxton, R-N.J., said Bush administration officials have ``shown an appreciation'' for the commission's work.

The 183-nation IMF played an important role during recent financial crises, such as the 1997-98 global currency crisis that swept Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, Russia and Brazil.

The IMF assembled $166 billion in bailout packages for those nations and more recently put together emergency packages for Argentina and Turkey.

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has said the new administration will soon put forward its own set of reforms for the IMF and World Bank.

The administration has said it will nominate John Taylor, a Stanford economist, for the top international job at the Treasury Department, the undersecretary for international affairs.

Some have viewed that nomination as a signal that the administration plans to push a conservative agenda to reduce the size of future IMF rescue packages and scale back operations at both institutions.

Taylor said in a television interview in 1998 that he believed the IMF should be abolished.

When confronted with the financial crisis in Turkey last month, the administration followed the pattern set under former President Clinton, endorsing an IMF loan program and the country's decision to allow the value of its currency to be set by market forces.

C. Fred Bergsten, the head of the Institute for International Economics, said he believed that the Bush administration was likely to pursue a more moderate reform path than the one advocated by Republican conservatives in Congress. As evidence, he pointed to other nominations being made to fill Treasury posts.

The White House announced Thursday that President Bush will nominate Peter Fisher, a top official at the New York Federal Reserve, to become the Treasury official overseeing banking and financial markets as undersecretary for domestic finance.

Fisher played a crucial role in the buying and selling of Treasury securities and the intervention in currency markets, tasks performed by the New York Fed. In that position, he has gained wide respect on Wall Street for his knowledge of how markets operate.

O'Neill has said in interviews that he supports the more moderate recommendations for reform at the IMF and World Bank made by the Council on Foreign Relations in a 1999 study. Kenneth Dam, a member of the council's study group that developed the recommendations, has been nominated as deputy treasury secretary.

Bergsten, a member of the Meltzer panel who dissented from the majority recommendations, said he believed a number of reforms have been made in response to the widespread criticism of the handling of the Asian crisis.

As a result of IMF pressure and market forces, he said fewer countries were trying to manage the level of their currencies.

---

The banana wars

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
David H. Murdock
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-20013919224.htm

The European Union has finally committed to an open and competitive banana market. In January it passed a law to open the banana market no later than Jan. 1, 2006. Dole applauds this step. The United States has long wanted it. So have we.

We at Dole Food Co. believe in free trade and the freedom of everyone to compete for markets. Over the past 15 years, Dole has grown its business worldwide and, today, we are the largest banana company in the world - and we have done it profitably. Since Europe imposed an illegal banana trade regime in 1993, we have lost substantial market share in the European Union.

We've managed to cut our losses by growing our other businesses, but there's no doubt that Europe's illegal trade discrimination hurt us and hurt us badly. For the past eight years, we have supported the U.S. Trade Representatve's efforts to obtain a more fair, open and competitive banana market in Europe. Therefore, when we say that Europe is finally heading in the right direction, we do not do so lightly.

To transition from today's illegal regime to the open market of 2006, Europe has chosen the most pro-free-trade interim device possible. Europe calls it "first-come, first-served." A banana exporter applies for entry to the European Union market only when its bananas are loaded on a ship, fully documented, and already on the water, committed to the European Union. The discrimination of the current illegal system is eliminated because all applicants will be treated equally and each applicant gains market access in the same proportion as every other applicant based on the applicant's actual commitment of bananas to the European Union.

Instead of giving market access to any European company that applies for access - which is now the case - it goes in a nondiscriminatory manner only to operators of those ships already on the water.

Europe proposed this idea to the United States last fall. The Clinton administration opposed it; Chiquita opposed it. Chiquita wants managed trade - a closed market and a guaranteed market share that is significantly greater than every other participant, including Dole. Under the Clinton/Chiquita proposal licenses would be awarded only to certain importers based on their historic market shares of five to 10 years ago.

The Clinton/Chiquita proposal is flawed. First, there is no fair, equitable or legal basis to achieve it. Second, it draws from a period of time the illegal regime was in effect - a period already condemned by the World Trade Organization (WTO) panel that decided the case. Third, it sets bad precedent for other trade negotiations because it continues a managed market instead of an open, competitive system. Finally, it would result in fewer exports from Central and South American countries because banana export companies would shrink their production and exports to match their allotted market share. This could have disastrous repercussions for Latin America, whose banana exports would be substantially curtailed. The United States is putting billions of aid dollars into Colombia and Ecuador. Does it make sense to impose a managed trade regime that will result in reducing these countries' exports of a legal cash crop?

Europe's first-come, first-served system would have the desired effect of encouraging Europe to make good on its commitment to open trade. This system will benefit those banana exporters that invest in the jobs, people, countries and infrastructure that it takes to grow markets, open trade and compete. Everyone will have the right to compete for a share of the market by putting themselves into the business, at risk, with ships sailing for Europe. In contrast, managed trade by historic reference periods - the Clinton/Chiquita proposal - would make it politically difficult for the Europeans to keep their commitment to an open market. Companies with favorable fixed market shares would find it in their interest to lobby the governments not to go to an open market.

Dole Food Co. has often criticized Europe for violating both free trade principles and WTO rulings. Now we at Dole see a change in Europe's attitude and the United States should build on that change to finally end the greatest single dispute in the history of international trade.

President Bush is campaigning for free trade and open markets. We at Dole strongly agree with the principle of free trade. This is certainly not the time to take a step backward on the banana issue, as the Clinton/Chiquita proposal would have us do. It is time to step forward and negotiate the European proposal on terms beneficial to the United States, free trade and competition principles - and put an end to managed markets. We urge President Bush to do just that and end the banana trade war with Europe.

David H. Murdock is chairman and chief executive officer of Dole Food Co. Inc.

-------- police

An Inquiry Into Claims That Motorists Were Ordered to Undress

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By AL BAKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/nyregion/09SUFF.html

GARDEN CITY, N.Y., March 8 - The federal government announced today that it would investigate complaints that a Suffolk County highway patrolman made drivers undress and walk home or face arrest, and said the inquiry would focus on whether federal criminal civil rights laws were violated.

In a joint statement, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, Loretta E. Lynch, and the Suffolk County district attorney, James M. Catterson Jr., said they would join with the F.B.I. and the Suffolk police to investigate a string of recent complaints against the officer, Frank Wright.

Federal penalties for civil rights violations are often more severe than those under state law. In a written statement, Mr. Catterson said, "The breadth and scope of federal criminal civil rights statutes make a federal investigation the appropriate forum in which to review this important matter."

In January, several women reported that a patrolman, whom the police later identified as Officer Wright, 34, had made them undress or had mistreated them during traffic stops.

A special state grand jury convened this week was to consider whether criminal charges should be filed against Officer Wright, who had been suspended without pay for violating department procedures.

Now, the case will be presented to a federal grand jury, said Drew Biondo, a spokesman for Mr. Catterson. He did not say when the grand jury would be impaneled.

In the statement, Ms. Lynch said: "The allegations that a police officer violated the civil rights of female drivers in such a demeaning manner are most serious. We will conduct a full investigation to determine if a federal criminal civil rights prosecution is warranted."

Mr. Biondo said that at least 14 women had complained that an officer had made inappropriate demands. One man, Anthony J. Luciano, has said that Officer Wright stopped him on suspicion of drunken driving and ordered him to strip to his shorts and walk home to teach him a lesson.

Officer Wright's lawyer, William Keahon, has said the officer is "totally innocent of any misconduct."

Gary W. Gramer, a lawyer who represents many of the women who said they had been treated improperly by Officer Wright, said that he would file separate federal civil rights complaints on behalf of his clients within the next two weeks.

"I am thrilled the federal government is taking over," Mr. Gramer said tonight. "As I previously indicated, it is not fair to ask local prosecutors to prosecute police who they work hand in glove with."

The first woman to come forward was Angelina Torres, 27, of Mastic Beach, who said Officer Wright made her walk four blocks home wearing only her underpants and high heels on New Year's Eve morning.

Another woman, Julianna Rubio, 19, of Ridge, said Officer Wright made her stand outside his police cruiser on Dec. 27, wearing only her socks while he flashed a light on her and laughed at her for 10 minutes.

"I was just looking down and hysterically crying. He was making comments like: `Are you learning your lesson? Do you think I should let you go?' " Ms. Rubio said in a recent interview. "I pretty much was helpless. I felt pretty much that he had all the power at that time. I am still having nightmares about it."

---

Ticket-writing double standard

March 9, 2001
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-20013919921.htm

An interesting item to contemplate, especially if you have recently been issued a traffic ticket: A D.C. police officer was suspended without pay this week for 75 days - because he issued a traffic ticket to a fellow officer. That's a real no-no. Only people without badges, it appears, have to pay attention to speed limit signs, or stop for red lights. If you're a cop, no stop.

Officer Curtis Reed witnessed a car run a red light and pulled the car over. Despite the flashed badge presented by Sgt. Demetrius Givens, the officer decided to write up the infraction and gave the sergeant a ticket.

The ticket was later upheld by a traffic court judge - however, Sgt. Givens gave it the full court press and made allegations that the other officer issued the citation out of vindictiveness. The officers apparently knew - and disliked - each other. The sergeant had apparently intended to discipline the more junior officer prior to the ticket incident - and subsequently claimed that Officer Reed was simply trying to "get" him. An internal investigation later determined that Sgt. Givens offered to "cut a deal" - agreeing to forget about the disciplinary action if Officer Reed would agree to drop the ticket.

Still, Sgt. Givens did, in fact, run the red light. Accordingly, the fact that Officer Reed may not have liked him especially is beside the point. It's also pretty egregious that these two cops can haggle over a ticket and grant each other favors - an option not available to ordinary violators. Try "cutting a deal" with an officer and you might find yourself facing more serious charges of attempting to bribe a police officer.

Traffic enforcement is not supposed to be about personal issues. If Sgt. Givens ran the light, then he ought to pay the fine and accept the demerit points assigned by the motor vehicle department.

Instead, he apparently expected what is known in the business as "professional courtesy" - a euphemism for special treatment cops afford one another. It is an unwritten maxim that one does not ticket a fellow officer. Officer Reed found out the hard way. He got suspended by his own department, lost more than two months' pay - and has received a possible career-ending (or at least stunting) censure on his record. All because he had the temerity to subject another cop to the same laws as anyone else. All of this is not news to most people - but it is a sad indicator of the double standard.

-------- spying

Guilty plea in Australian spy case

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351398

WASHINGTON (AP) - A former Australian intelligence analyst arrested in an FBI sting for trying to sell U.S. defense documents pleaded guilty Thursday to attempted espionage, the Justice Department said.

Jean-Philippe Wispelaere agreed to cooperate with U.S. intelligence officials in exchange for a 15-year sentence, the last five years of which he could serve in Australia.

He could have faced a maximum penalty of life in prison, or even death if certain conditions, such as disclosure of nuclear secrets, were met. Wispelaere had pleaded innocent after his arrest in 1999.

The Australia portion of his sentence depends on a prisoner exchange treaty between the United States and Australia, the Justice Department said. Sentencing was set for June 1.

The government said Wispelaere, 30, was paid $120,000 for nearly 1,000 secret and top secret U.S. defense documents by undercover FBI agents who posed as foreign spies, lured him to Virginia and arrested him at Dulles International Airport.

Wispelaere worked for Australian military intelligence from July 1998 until his abrupt resignation on Jan. 12, 1999. The U.S. government alleged that six days later, he walked into the Bangkok, Thailand embassy of a foreign country, which U.S. officials would not identify, and offered to sell classified U.S. documents. That country tipped off U.S. officials and FBI agents set up a meeting with him.

The FBI said he sold 713 classified U.S. defense documents, including photographs presumably from U.S. spy satellites, to an undercover FBI agent in Bangkok for $70,000. For an additional $50,000, he was alleged to have mailed more than 200 others to a post office box the FBI set up in Virginia.

The documents had been shared with Australia under U.S.-Australian defense treaties, and the U.S. government said their disclosure could cause ``exceptionally great damage'' to U.S. national security.

---

12 HELD AS SPIES

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/world/09BRIE.html

LEBANON: The Lebanese Army has detained 12 people, including a Palestinian officer, accusing them of spying for Israel. The army statement did not say when or where the 12 were arrested, but said they were part of a "terrorism and spy network" that gathered information about the Hezbollah guerrilla group, which fought Israeli forces in south Lebanon for 18 years before Israel's withdrawal last May. (AP)

-------- terrorism

Embassy worker ID's defendant

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
Associated Press
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351411

NEW YORK (AP) - A U.S. embassy employee on Thursday pointed to a defendant as the man he saw tossing explosives toward a guard just before a bomb devastated the embassy complex in Kenya in 1998.

Charles Mwaka Mula said in court that he spotted Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali getting out of a truck outside the embassy as Mula was leaving.

It was the first time a witness has placed a defendant at either of the Aug. 7, 1998, bombings at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Among the 224 people killed were 12 Americans.

Mula told Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald that Al-'Owhali was wearing a black jacket, T-shirt and faded blue jeans when he stepped out of the passenger side of the truck and approached an embassy guard.

The witness said Al-'Owhali appeared to be carrying a pair of microphones on his hips when he made conversation with the guard, who seemed to ignore him.

Al-'Owhali then pulled one of the microphone-like objects from his hip and tossed it toward the guard, Mula said. The object exploded.

Mula said Al-'Owhali threw two more of the objects _ one toward the embassy _ and walked away quickly, just before a large bomb exploded.

Mula covered his face with a hand through much of his testimony but looked almost immediately at Al-'Owhali when asked to identify the man he saw that day.

``The one who's wearing the white hat,'' he said, pointing toward Al-'Owhali, who was wearing a skull cap.

Fitzgerald showed Mula a newspaper photograph of someone Mula had once told authorities was Al-'Owhali, but Mula said he did not recognize the person in the photograph. The photo was of someone else.

Al-'Owhali's lawyer, Frederick H. Cohn, on cross-examination noted that Mula identified Al-'Owhali in court with a beard. Mula had earlier testified that Al-'Owhali did not have a beard the day of the bombing.

Al-'Owhali has been the focus for two days in the trial of four men accused of conspiring to bomb the embassies.

FBI agent Stephen Gaudin testified Wednesday and earlier Thursday about Al-'Owhali's confession, taken within days of Al-'Owhali's arrest five days after the bombings.

Gaudin said Al-'Owhali admitted riding a bomb-carrying vehicle into the embassy compound in Nairobi, tossing stun grenades at a guard and the embassy, and then fleeing the bombing that was supposed to kill him.

Al-'Owhali, 24, has said in court papers that the confession was coerced by U.S. investigators who threatened to hang him ``like a dog.''

If convicted, Wadih El-Hage, 40, and Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, 36, could get life sentences while Al-'Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, 27, could face the death penalty.

---

Man in bomb plot case pleads guilty

3/9/2001
InfoBeat News
Associated Press
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
http://www.infobeat.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IBFrontEnd.woa/wa/fullStory?article=406351385

NEW YORK (AP) - An Algerian accused of helping smuggle explosives into the United States in a 1999 case that stirred fears of a terrorist attack during the millennium celebrations has pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government.

Abdel Ghani Meskini, 33, entered the plea in federal court on Wednesday. A transcript was released Thursday.

The guilty plea to conspiracy charges could carry up to 105 years in prison and fines of $2.75 million, but prosecutors said they will argue for a lesser term and possible admission to the witness protection program if Meskini cooperates.

Meskini was arrested in New York for his alleged part in a conspiracy to sneak explosives from Canada into the country in late 1999.

Meskini was taken into custody after authorities connected him to Ahmed Ressam. Ressam, a 32-year-old Algerian, was arrested in Port Angeles, Wash., after arriving on a ferry from Canada in December 1999. He was allegedly trying to smuggle bomb-making materials into the United States.

Ressam's arrest stirred fears of a terrorist attack on New Year's Eve 1999 and prompted Seattle to cancel its millennium celebration at the Space Needle. The arrest also cast a pall over other cities' festivities.

Meskini and Mokhtar Haouari, another Algerian arrested in Canada and brought to the United States for trial, are accused of conspiring to support a terrorist group and conceal support for Ressam.

---

REBEL EXHUMATION

March 9, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/world/09BRIE.html

PERU: Prosecutors ordered the exhumation of 14 Marxist terrorists who were killed during a commando raid on the Japanese ambassador's home in Lima in 1997 to rescue dozens of hostages. Prosecutors suspect that the terrorists were executed on the spot. Clifford Krauss (NYT)

---

Truck Pieces and Testimony Show Embassy Blast's Force

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By ALAN FEUER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/world/09TERR.html

They sat on a table pushed up against the jury box: more than a dozen burned and twisted fragments of a truck.

Although yesterday's session of the embassy bombings trial ended before the metal chunks could be officially introduced as evidence, lawyers in the case said they were just what they appeared to be: the warped remains of the truck that bore the bomb that demolished the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, on Aug. 7, 1998.

The fragments, marked with yellow evidence tags, were so mangled that it was virtually impossible to tell if they were axle parts, shards of a crankshaft or pieces of the chassis. But they sat before the jury in Federal District Court in Manhattan for 15 or 20 minutes as a government explosives expert testified about the staggering force of the Nairobi blast.

The expert, Donald Sachtleben of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, told how the huge explosion shattered nearly every window in the area around the embassy, cracked brickwork in adjacent buildings and knocked down cinder-block walls as if they were made of cardboard.

"The rear of the embassy," where the bomb blew up, "was just devastated," he said. The Cooperative Bank building behind the embassy, he added, was so badly damaged that even a week after the explosion, bricks on its outer wall were still falling from as high as 18 stories.

The bombings trial concerns the terrorist attacks on the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 200 people. Four men - Wadih El-Hage, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, Mohammed Saddiq Odeh and Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali - have been charged in the case, accused of joining Osama bin Laden in a global conspiracy that led to the blasts.

Yesterday, the trial moved at a pace that resembled the day of the bombings themselves. It was tediously dull one moment, action- packed the next. Most of the day was given over to discussions about Mr. al-'Owhali as the prosecution introduced several witnesses who corroborated an earlier account of his role in the Nairobi attack.

According to that account, which was given on Wednesday by the federal agent who interrogated him in the days after the blast, Mr. al-'Owhali jumped out of the bomb truck as it pulled up to the embassy and tossed grenades at a military guard so that the truck could get close to the embassy walls.

Yesterday, the government called as a witness a Kenyan embassy worker who said he saw a man jump out of a truck on the day of the attack and toss explosives at the guard only moments before the bomb went off. The embassy worker, Charles Mwaka Mula, pointed at Mr. al-'Owhali, picking him out as the man from the truck.

The prosecution called Paul Wangi, a janitor in a Nairobi hospital, who testified that he found three bullets and a pair of keys in the hospital men's room the day after the attack. The authorities said Mr. al-'Owhali had told them during his long interrogation that he had hidden the bullets and the keys in the same bathroom after fleeing the scene of the blast.

Then the government called Ishmael J. Ali, a Somali who owns a money transfer company just outside Nairobi. Mr. Ali told the jury that four days after the attack, $1,000 was wired from Yemen to Nairobi for a man named Khalid Salim bin Rashed.

Federal prosecutors contend that the name is one of Mr. al-'Owhali's many aliases. They also say that Mr. al-'Owhali himself has confessed that while trying to flee Nairobi, he called a friend in Yemen to have cash sent because he was broke.

Since Mr. al-'Owhali was the focus of testimony yesterday, his chief lawyer, Frederick H. Cohn, was busy with cross-examination. Mr. Cohn, a bearish man with a Barnum & Bailey mustache, is a cross-examiner who relies heavily on sarcasm and wit.

He tried to get Stephen Gaudin, the agent who interrogated Mr. al- 'Owhali, to concede that the suspect had been mistreated by the Kenyan police when American officials were not around. Mr. Cohn asked about his client's cell, his health, his apparent nervousness during questioning. But Agent Gaudin said that although Mr. al-'Owhali had been left alone with the Kenyans several times, he had never complained.

Later, Mr. Cohn tripped up Mr. Mwaka Mula, who had identified Mr. al-'Owhali as the man who had jumped from the bomb truck.

Mr. Cohn got the witness to admit that the man he saw that day was cleanshaven. Then Mr. Cohn introduced a sketch of the suspect the F.B.I. had made with Mr. Mwaka Mula's help.

The man in the sketch had a mustache and a beard.

-------- activists

Peter, Paul & Mary:
Singing for Peace 40 Yrs On

Friday March 9
Yahoo News
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010309/re/folk_dc_1.html

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Legendary folk music pioneers Peter, Paul & Mary have used music to advocate for human rights and peace since the 1960s.

Four decades on, they are still fighting an uphill battle.

``We're seeing a lot of pain, war, injury of one person to another in the world,'' said Peter Yarrow, a member of the group.

``I think we will continue to sing and to be advocates through our music of the things that we cherish most.''

He was speaking at a news conference to promote the group's maiden performances in Hong Kong from Friday to Sunday.

Yarrow, Paul Stookey and Mary Travers formed the trio in 1961, and shot to instant fame, becoming the world's most popular folk music group.

Currently, the group is participating in a project called 'Operation Respect, Don't Laugh At Me' -- a school curriculum aimed to help children learn ways of sharing and interacting.

As part of the project, the trio has recorded a song, ``Don't Laugh At Me,'' which advocates sympathy for children.

To improve the world, ``you have to start with children really, in their lives, in their schools,'' Yarrow said.

``And we hope all three of us that all the advocacies that we've been part of will link once again our music and our spirits together in an effort to address the problems in this world.''

The group is also planning a new album.

``We have about 20 songs that we could record,'' Yarrow said, adding that some of them could be included on a planned compilation album ``that represents our own musical history.''

---

China's Leadership Pushes for Unity

March 9, 2001
New York Times
By ERIK ECKHOLM and ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/world/09CHIN.html

BEIJING, March 8 - Last month, President Jiang Zemin summoned more than 2,000 top Communist Party officials to Beijing for an extraordinary, closed-door meeting.

At a crucial point in his political life, Mr. Jiang wanted to make sure that the ruling party remained firmly unified on two divisive issues: the campaign to crush the Falun Gong spiritual movement and the correctness of the party's decision to use troops against the 1989 pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square.

Such a large scale "central work conference" had not been held since 1988, political experts said. The one convened in February reflects the leadership's deep unease about party unity and domestic stability, even as their country emerges as a world power and as Mr. Jiang, who is expected to step down as president and party chief in the next two years, worries about a smooth transition and his own legacy.

Seeking to counter rumors of high- level discord, the seven members of the Standing Committee of the party's Politburo - the men who effectively rule the country - stood up one by one to endorse the anti-Falun Gong campaign as an urgent necessity and to justify the 1989 crackdown, according to two officials who attended separate, detailed briefings on the meeting as part of the leadership's effort to spread the message through party ranks.

The two said they spoke because they had misgivings about the leadership's strategy. "It is very rare to hold this kind of meeting now, and in Beijing," said one of the officials, noting that major issues of party policy and unity are normally dealt with during the leaders' summer retreat at the seaside resort of Beidaihe. "So you know this has to be very, very important to them."

Mr. Jiang warned his audience that Western powers were trying to use the Falun Gong conflict and the memory of Tiananmen to divide the party as it nears pivotal changes in leadership over the next two years, the officials said.

Although Mr. Jiang has pursued friendlier ties with the United States, he appears to harbor deep suspicions about American motives - or, at least, is not above using the "American threat" as a rallying cry to bolster his own position.

The leaders also reportedly expressed concern about anti-China currents within the Bush administration and warned that relations could go through a rough period, especially if the United States sells advanced weapons to Taiwan.

Although no one suggests that the party is in imminent danger of falling from power, it has no overwhelmingly dominant leader like Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping and indications are plentiful that the center is not holding as it once did.

At last month's conference, Mr. Jiang complained that some local leaders had been unenthusiastic about the drive to stamp out Falun Gong, allowing practitioners to go to Beijing where they have held almost daily silent protests in Tiananmen Square. Before the movement was banned as an "evil sect" last year, Falun Gong had attracted millions of ordinary Chinese with its meditative exercises said to bring about good health and spiritual salvation.

Under guidance from a new office in Beijing, each province has set up a team to coordinate the anti-Falun Gong battle using a two-pronged strategy: prison or "re-education" for leaders and recalcitrant members; intense propaganda demonizing the group for everyone else.

But not everyone has been in step: At least one group of police officers, from the northeastern city of Shenyang, has written to the party's main newspaper, the People's Daily, to complain that the government's strategy of harsh repression is not working, a journalist with a state newspaper said. The letter was not printed.

Meanwhile, demonstrations by angry workers and farmers over issues like unpaid pensions, taxes and corruption have become commonplace. Even party stalwarts express amazement at the scale of the official corruption that is emerging from investigations around the country.

Adding to their sense of apprehension, Mr. Jiang and the rest of the leaders are taking what they see as major but necessary political risks in opening the economy further to the pressures of global competition. A temporary surge in unemployment and other dislocations are expected as China joins the World Trade Organization.

The officials said the February meeting was in part an attempt to make sure that Mr. Jiang's policies would be continued by his successors and to demonstrate to all officials that it would be risky to step out of line.

Mr. Jiang and other top leaders made it clear that they hope to crush the defiant Falun Gong movement altogether before the 16th Communist Party Congress, to be held in the fall of 2002, when the transition to new leaders is expected to begin, the official said.

"If this isn't solved by then it opens the possibility of a rift between the old and new leaders and that could be a real threat," one of the officials said.

A central message at the February meeting, the officials said, was that the United States and other Western powers are trying to use the Falun Gong issue and memories of the violent 1989 crackdown to drive a wedge between the current, aging leaders and their potential successors, who might find it to their political advantage to break with unpopular policies.

The recent publication in the United States of "The Tiananmen Papers," said to be secret records of leaders' deliberations as they decided to use military force to halt the demonstrations, was cited by Mr. Jiang and other top leaders at the meeting as a deliberate Western effort to split the party, the officials said.

The book of transcripts was published in English in January and has not been widely seen here outside elite and scholarly circles. Government officials have tried to dismiss it as a fabrication, though many experts here and abroad say the documents appear to be genuine.

The papers will soon be published outside mainland China in the original Chinese, which is likely to lead to much broader circulation and discussion here via the Internet and contraband copies. While the transcripts provide no explosive revelations they provide potentially embarrassing details about the roles in the 1989 crackdown of current leaders such as Li Peng, the former prime minister who now ranks No. 2 in the party and is chairman of the National People's Congress, or Parliament. And they describe Mr. Jiang's accession to party leadership that year as having been personally engineered by Deng Xiaoping, even though Deng, the most respected figure in Chinese politics then, lacked the formal authority to do this.

"The spirit of the meeting," said one official, "was that although Falun Gong and the Tiananmen papers are threats to the party in their own right, both are also symptoms of renewed efforts in the West to undermine the Communist Party and, in particular, to sabotage preparations for the 16th Party Congress."

The official added, "The leaders asserted that Falun Gong has become a tool of hostile Western forces, directly nurtured and protected by, among others, the C.I.A."

As for the Tiananmen papers, the leaders reportedly said that "although the book is in itself inconsequential, it is a sign of stepped-up Western efforts to destabilize China and sow division within the party."

The unusual gathering in February of a central work conference was featured at the time in the state-run press as an important meeting, but the specific topics were not disclosed beyond vague calls for unity and support for Mr. Jiang's opaque refinements of ideology. It was attended by all senior central officials, top party leaders from each province and leaders of the military, the judiciary and government ministries.

After the meeting, senior officials fanned out to brief party organizations and government agencies about the message.

This week, thousands of Chinese officials are gathered in Beijing for the annual 10-day session of the National People's Congress, which has been devoted mainly to announcing the government's economic plans. Bold political initiatives appear to be on hold as the leaders scramble behind closed doors to influence the scheduled change in the country's top three positions over the coming two years.

Mr. Jiang, 74, is expected to step down as party secretary at the party congress next fall after serving since 1989, though there is speculation that he will try to keep another senior post and hopes to run the country behind the scenes. He will remain president until his term expires in spring 2003.

At that time, Li Peng, 72, is expected to retire from his major party and parliamentary posts and the No. 3 leader, Prime Minister Zhu Rongji, 72 is also scheduled to step down, as are several other senior leaders who have reached or passed the age of 70.

Party members and diplomats widely assume that the youngest member of the Standing Committee, Vice President Hu Jintao, 58, will succeed Mr. Jiang as party general secretary and then as president. But the politics and process of the succession are known only to a small circle.

Mr. Hu, former chief of the Communist Youth League and party chief of two provinces, has kept a relatively low profile during his rise to power. Western diplomats, who have rarely even met the man, call him a "political cypher."

He is widely believed to have been designated in the early 1990's by Deng Xiaoping, as the best successor to Mr. Jiang's generation. There have been no open signs of discord between Mr. Hu and Mr. Jiang, but his rise through the ranks did not depend on Mr. Jiang's patronage, either.

The struggle to eradicate Falun Gong and discredit its leader in exile, Li Hongzhi, was set off in 1999 after 10,000 followers held an illegal vigil outside the leadership compound in Beijing, calling for official recognition. It has been a messy and unpleasant campaign involving intense, crude propaganda and the detention of tens of thousands of otherwise law- abiding citizens, leaving many Chinese feeling uneasy.

Mr. Jiang and other leaders appear worried that if the struggle against Falun Gong drags on too long it could, in fact, cause divisions at the top.

Mr. Jiang is also worried about his historical legacy and if he steps down without resolving the bitter conflict, his reputation may suffer.

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