------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Money well-spent on dismantling weapons
Unsatisfactory Verdict in Hawaii
Japanese Outraged at Commander's Fate
Atomic waste bound for Britain rolls into France
Substandard justice
China Sees 'Destructive Damage' in Relations
U.S. Says It Can Find Way To Build Subs for Taiwan
Also on Taipei's Radar: Reform U.S. Weapons
Pentagon seen clearing merger of big ship builders
Chic, little mini-nukes in our future?
Nanotechnology has us in its sights
General Dynamics bids for Newport News again
Poll: More support nuclear power
The evil of nuclear is the ignorance around it

MILITARY
Bush Says Use of Force Is 'an Option' in Defense of Taiwan
Bush says U.S. force an option to defend Taiwan
Bush Vows Taiwan Support But Officials Say No Change in Policy
Experts Say Taiwanese Need More Than Arms
Getting It Right on Taiwan
China Expresses Concern Over Arms Sale to Taiwan
People in Streets of Taiwan Are Underwhelmed by Arms Sales
Military Analysis: U.S. Weapons Help Taiwan Stave Off Threat
Arms package leaves Taiwan open to Chinese missiles
No Aegis shield for Taiwan
China infuriated by arms package offered to Taiwan
SuperBra offers support, easy access
U.S. Sends Experts to Assess Drug Program or Afghans
U.S. Suspends Drug Surveillance Over Colombia
U.S. Contends Peru Military Did Not Check Plane Number
RUSSIA: AMERICAN'S TRIAL OPENS
A Mother, a Child and a Drug War
Peru shooting of missionary plane questioned
Pilot pleaded to Peruvian controllers: 'Save us'
Foreign inspectors sweep Afghanistan for poppy
States
Conservatives oppose European defense force
North Korea vows anti-U.S. struggle
Governor of Puerto Rico Sues to Block Navy Training Exercise
Judge to Consider Vieques Bombing
Judge considers stopping bombing on Vieques
Russia Wins Fight to Be First Space Travel Agent
China and the U.N.
Bob Kerrey Reveals His Role in Deaths of Vietnam Civilians
One Awful Night in Thanh Phong
A Sexual Harassment Scandal Confronts the Marines
Kerrey says squad killed civilians in Vietnam
States

OTHER
Look to the Sun
BIOLOGICAL-WEAPONS INSPECTIONS
FOOT-AND-MOUTH IN HUMANS
DEAL IN PCB CASE
Nader, Updated: Still a Lightning Rod
States
Political pollution
Trade Pact's Caveat
Hawaii
Diallo and Controversy Return to Bronx, as Art
Divided Justices Back Full Arrests on Minor Charges
Monitoring the Police
Bomb damages police building in Chechnya
Conneticut
Cuffing of minor offenders is upheld
Indian police gunfire kills infant on bus
U.S. terrorism report criticizes two PLO groups

ACTIVISTS
NV Action Training for Trainers, May 12/13
WEF (World Economic Forum) Meeting in Miami
Anti-nuclear activists try to stop Sellafield cargo
Nuclear Power Foes to Hold Rally In SLC on Chernobyl Anniversary
Cambridge Journal: Protesters Blooming in Harvard Yard
Falun Gong Members Mark '99 Sit-In With New Protests
Harvard protest moves into second week
Falun Gong protests defy Chinese crackdown
Oregon


-------- NUCLEAR

Money well-spent on dismantling weapons

Kansas City Star
04/25/01
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/3acc9f34.425,.html

The Bush administration is reviewing programs aimed at dismantling many of the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union and ensuring that other weapons of mass destruction -- such as those of the chemical and biological variety -- don't fall into the wrong hands. Congress has appropriated more than $760 million a year for this purpose, and so far the record indicates it's money well spent.

Still, it makes sense to take a fresh look at where the money's going, especially in light of revelations regarding Russia's sale of nuclear technology to Iran.

Given the large sums involved, a certain amount of waste is inevitable. Another issue -- expected to be addressed during the administration's review -- is whether some programs are receiving adequate Russian support.

The weapons-deactivation effort is unusual in that it involves U.S. military personnel and American contractors working on foreign soil, dismantling or destroying weapons of a former adversary. U.S. teams have deactivated more than 5,000 warheads, dismantled hundreds of missiles and closed a former Soviet nuclear-test site.

This summer, said Capt. Bob Bennett of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the last of the Soviet "Bear" bombers will be destroyed. "We have made the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan non-nuclear nations," he said. "That has been completed."

That's a good track record. But some programs have faced criticism, such as a $6 billion effort to dispose of U.S. and Russian plutonium stocks.

As former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn told The New York Times, the weapons-reduction programs would benefit from a comprehensive review. Some aspects of this effort may need to be strengthened -- and some may have already accomplished their purpose.

---

Unsatisfactory Verdict in Hawaii

New York Times
April 25, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/opinion/25WED2.html

The decision to spare Cmdr. Scott Waddle a court-martial may satisfy those who believe that the termination of a promising career is punishment enough for his role in a collision of his submarine with a Japanese fishing vessel that claimed nine lives. But the verdict cannot satisfy those who believe, as we do, that the case has been incompletely developed, especially given the loss of lives and the international implications. Only the adversarial proceedings of a court-martial could satisfactorily determine accountability - not just the commander's, but the Navy's as well.

Nine people aboard the Ehime Maru were killed when Commander Waddle's submarine, the Greeneville, shot to the surface at high speed during exercises in February. Hearings by a court of inquiry last month established that the submarine had gone to sea solely to entertain 16 civilian guests of the Navy's distinguished visitors program, which seeks to bolster public support for the service. The hearings also established that Commander Waddle had failed to observe important procedures and had personally conducted an inadequate periscope search that failed to spot the Japanese ship. His punishment, announced Monday by Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, the commander of the Pacific Fleet, consisted of a reprimand under whose terms he will resign, ending his naval career at his current rank with an honorable discharge and a full pension.

Admiral Fargo said he had chosen not to proceed to a court-martial because he had found no evidence of "criminal intent or deliberate misconduct." Some legal experts said this reflected a narrow reading of the law, and that the evidence of negligence uncovered by the court of inquiry was itself sufficient to allow the case to go to trial.

This page has recommended a court-martial, not to prejudge the outcome but to ensure a fuller hearing. The court of inquiry, for example, did not take live testimony from any of the 16 civilians. That failure, combined with the Navy's decision not to proceed to a court-martial, has also fueled speculation that its larger objective was to spare the visitors program a thorough examination in the crucible of a public hearing. Commander Waddle's attorney had left little doubt that he planned to raise the presence of civilians on board as part of his defense, producing potentially embarrassing material about a program the Navy deems an important public relations tool.

Shortly after the Greeneville incident, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to review the visitors program. That review must be completed expeditiously. It should also involve public questioning of the 16 civilians about what they saw aboard the ship and how they came to be there.

---

Japanese Outraged at Commander's Fate

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By CALVIN SIMS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25FAMI.html

TOKYO, April 24 - For more than two months, Japan has struggled to understand how a United States nuclear submarine could have collided with a Japanese fishery school vessel, killing nine people in early February. Revelations that the submarine's captain and crew made a series of errors that led to the collision and that civilian guests were at some of the submarine's controls made the accident even harder to accept.

Today, Japan's despair shifted to outrage - particularly for relatives of the Japanese who were hurt or killed in the accident - after the submarine's skipper, Cmdr. Scott D. Waddle, was allowed to resign and avoid any further punishment.

For many Japanese, the Navy's decision on Monday to honorably discharge Commander Waddle, who received a letter of reprimand but will keep his full rank and pension, was unacceptable and raised the issue of a possible double standard.

A formal court of inquiry found that the commander had failed to follow proper procedures in the hours before his submarine, the Greeneville, collided with the school vessel, the Ehime Maru, on Feb. 9.

In interviews today, many Japanese said they could not understand the logic of a military justice system that they said essentially allowed Commander Waddle to walk away without real penalty, despite his clear negligence.

Ryosuke Terata, 45, whose son Yusuke was one of nine Japanese who missing and presumed dead after the sinking, called the disciplinary action far too lenient.

"If he were in Japan, he would be fired and indicted on charges such as professional negligence resulting in death," Mr. Terata told the Kyodo news service.

Kazuo Nakata, the father of Jun Nakata, a high school teacher who was also missing, said, "I cannot help feeling that the way this has ended is a farce."

Japan's outrage underscores the vast cultural gulf between the United States and Japan, the world's two largest and most advanced democratic economies. It is a gap that social and political analysts here say is often forgotten but one that becomes apparent when incidents like the submarine debacle occur.

"It is difficult for the Japanese to understand the workings of the military court because we are not a military power and have long ago denounced militarism," said Kuniko Inoguchi, a professor of international politics at Sophia University here. "This incident has taught us that in America, justice works differently when it comes to military affairs, but we are struggling to understand that because negligence in the case seems so clear."

Ms. Inoguchi added, "Some people are questioning whether the outcome would have been the same if it was an American or European ship that sank."

For its part, the Japanese government said it had no plans to challenge the Navy's decision because the disciplinary action was taken according to United States law.

Ietaka Horita, principal of the Uwajima Fisheries High School, said it was important to remember that the survivors of the accident were still suffering from its trauma and emotional impact. Toshio Komado, 50, said his son Atsushi, who was rescued from the collision, had psychological and physical problems.

"The students are seeking a direct apology from him," Mr. Komado said, referring to Commander Waddle. "We want him to come to Japan and apologize, not as a civilian but as a member of the United States Navy."

---

Atomic waste bound for Britain rolls into France

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 07:11 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-04-25-waste.htm

WOERTH, Germany (AP) - Thousands of police prevented demonstrators from blocking a train carrying nuclear waste on Wednesday, escorting the train into France on its way to Britain for reprocessing.

The train, carrying five containers of spent fuel rods from two southern German nuclear plants, crossed the border near the German town of Woerth in the early evening.

The containers are to be taken to the port of Dunkirk overnight, where French environmentalists said they would continue the demonstrations.

In Germany, police deployed at least 4,500 officers to prevent any repeat of the massive protests which last month held up by almost a day a shipment of reprocessed waste returning from France.

About 20 people were taken into temporary custody near the border Wednesday, but police said there were no major incidents.

The day before, police detained 68 activists after a sit-down protest near the Neckarwestheim power plant where most of the waste originated. They have been released.

Germany halted all nuclear shipments in 1998 after it emerged that radioactive emissions from the special containers had been exceeding safety limits. It also suspended dealings with the British plant last year in the wake of a scandal over fake records.

---

Substandard justice

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
4/25/01
House Editorial
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010425-54388022.htm

Nine Japanese children, teachers and crewmen were killed due to the negligence of a Navy commander, and he is being released from duty with full pension benefits. For the Japanese families and friends of the dead, it appears the Navy´s respect for the lives of their loved ones died at sea that day.

Cmdr. Scott Waddle of the USS Greeneville was only given a reprimand Monday by Adm. Thomas Fargo of the Pacific Fleet for dereliction of duty in the collision of his submarine with a Japanese trawler. Cmdr. Waddle should have been court-martialed, but was not, and two of his officers bearing some responsibility for the accident have returned to service on the Greeneville. This distortion of justice by the Navy is inexcusable.

Cmdr. Waddle allowed the submarine´s schedule to be delayed by almost 45 minutes as his on-board VIP guests had lunch and he chatted with them. "I have it under control," were Cmdr. Waddle´s words when he was notified that the ship was behind schedule. That sense of overconfidence would prove to be fatal. The court of inquiry berated Cmdr. Waddle for creating a false sense of urgency on board and for creating a "command climate" in which those under him were reluctant to communicate necessary information.

Cmdr. Waddle later ordered the ship to go to periscope depth in five minutes, despite the fact that procedures require 10, and performed an 80-second periscope search rather than the required three-minute search. He had the sub do a rapid ascent while a display monitor showing the location of surface ships was broken. He also didn´t allow enough time for further collection of sonar data before performing an "emergency blow," a maneuver to bring the sub to the surface.

Yet Cmdr. Waddle 41, a 1981 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and one-month shy of 20 years of service will receive a pension with cost-of-living increases, medical benefits, "survivor" benefits, and other military privileges. While his sincere apology to the families was appropriate, it does not do proper justice to the loss of life. The Navy will use this deadly accident as a case study for future training. In Adm. Fargo´s words in the Los Angeles Times: "It will serve to remind all that, no matter how apparently routine the mission, there is nothing about going to sea that is forgiving."

Cmdr. Waddle´s negligence and overconfidence during a publicity tour aboard the USS Greeneville caused the deaths of nine persons and marred the lives of many others. Our military is there to protect life and uphold the highest standards of justice and honor. The Navy´s decision to lower that bar serves as a tragic memorial to the loss of young lives aboard the Japanese trawler.

-------- china

China Sees 'Destructive Damage' in Relations
Taiwan Arms Sales Decision Angers Beijing

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64349-2001Apr25?language=printer

BEIJING, April 24 - China today launched a diplomatic broadside against the decision by the Bush administration to sell Taiwan more than $4 billion in weapons, warning that the move would "cause destructive damage to Sino-U.S. relations," China's official media reported.

Li Zhaoxing, the vice foreign minister and top Communist Party member at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "urgently summoned" U.S. Ambassador Joseph W. Prueher to protest the move to sell Taiwan a package of 12 anti-submarine warfare planes, four destroyers and, possibly, eight submarines.

Li, the voluble former Chinese ambassador to the United States, threatened that the arms sales would "seriously impact bilateral cooperation in the non-proliferation field," intimating that China would use the Bush decision as justification to resume widespread proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. China has always made an unspoken link between American weapons sales to Taiwan and its sale of weapons of mass destruction or weapons-related technology to nations such as Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan and Iraq.

Li also warned that the sale would "only further the arrogance of pro-Taiwan independence forces to split China, intensify the tension across the Taiwan Strait, and harm peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region," a hint that the sale might prompt China to deploy more missiles across the strait from Taiwan or launch saber rattling military exercises near Taiwan's shores.

However, it is unclear what affect the arms sales will have on China's Taiwan policy. During the past 16 months, since the election of Chen Shui-bian, the first opposition candidate in Taiwan's history, China has pursued a level-headed policy toward Taiwan and has stopped threatening the island. That policy has borne fruit and currently China's image is perhaps the highest it has been in years in Taiwan.

The decision to sell the weapons to Taiwan is the latest hiccup in U.S.-China relations, which have been bedeviled recently by a string of bad news and rough talk. On April 1, a U.S. Navy surveillance plane collided with a Chinese jet fighter off China's coast and the American plane crash-landed in China while the Chinese pilot went missing and is now presumed dead. China kept the American crew captive for 12 days. It has yet to return the plane.

Ties have also been stressed because of the decision by the Bush administration to push ahead with testing for the national missile defense system. China opposes that system because it believes the system will nullify China's small nuclear deterrent.

U.S.-China relations are at a "sensitive and complicated juncture," Li told Prueher, demanding that the ambassador "fully understand the seriousness, danger and destructive nature of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan."

Li's comments were foreshadowed Wednesday by a senior Chinese official who told The Washington Post that Bush's decision would have a serious impact on U.S.-China ties.

Li, who is known to hold strong views against the United States, warned Prueher that the United States "shall . . . be held responsible for all the consequences arising" from the sales. He demanded that the United States cancel the sale.

Like the official on Wednesday, Li stressed China's opposition to the sale because it included for the first time a clearly offensive weapon, submarines. He said the move "scotched the U.S. lies of selling only defensive weaponry to Taiwan," according to a report on the meeting by the New China News Agency.

"The Chinese people and the people of the world realize once again that the U.S. government does not live up to its promises, and facts have revealed that the U.S. does not actually want sustained peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits," Li said.

"The Chinese people cannot help asking: What are the intentions of the U.S. side after all in selling arms to Taiwan? Where on earth is the U.S. trying to lead Sino-U.S. relations?"

China and Taiwan split amid civil war in 1949. Beijing considers Taiwan a part of China and has threatened to use force if the island refuses to reunify peacefully with the Chinese mainland. Taiwan rejects reunification on Beijing's terms, but says it won't declare independence.

Chinese analysts said the reaction was more muted than it could have been because Washington deferred the sale of the most controversial item Taiwan requested: high-tech destroyers equipped with the Aegis combat radar system.

"Still the United States crossed a red line by authorizing the sale of what clearly are offensive weapons," said Chu Shulong, a leading Chinese expert on security affairs.

Washington is committed to selling Taiwan defensive weapons under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, passed after Washington cut ties with Taipei in favor of diplomatic relations with Beijing.

----

U.S. Says It Can Find Way To Build Subs for Taiwan
Germany, Netherlands Balk at Allowing Use of Their Designs

By John Pomfret and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59771-2001Apr24?language=printer

The Bush administration asserted yesterday that it would find a way to provide submarines to Taiwan, even though German and Dutch government officials said they would not allow their designs and technology to be used to build the ships.

U.S. proponents of large arms sales to Taiwan said they feared that the administration had announced the submarine deal without adequate consultation with allies -- or possibly without any real intention of delivering the subs to Taiwan. One congressional Republican aide said he was wondering whether the administration had been "duplicitous."

China, meanwhile, reacted with measured condemnation to the proposed sale, announced by the administration on Monday. The largest proposed arms transfer from the United States to Taiwan in a decade, it would include four Kidd-class destroyers and a dozen P-3 Orion submarine hunter aircraft as well as eight diesel-powered submarines.

"China has viewed with serious concern the related reports," said a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Zhang Qiyue. "If the United States disregards China's solemn representation, it would be a grave violation of China's sovereignty, rude interference in China's internal affairs and would increase tension across the Taiwan Strait."

The Chinese ambassador in Washington, Yang Jiechi, also lodged a formal protest with the State Department, a department spokesman said.

In announcing the decision Monday, a senior White House official said the United States probably would build the diesel-powered submarines at a shipyard at Pascagoula, Miss., using either German or Dutch designs, since the United States has not made diesel-powered attack submarines for decades and has not operated one since 1990.

Yesterday, however, Uwe-Karsten Heye, chief spokesman for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, told the Bloomberg News Service that Germany had not received an application from the United States to build or sell licenses for submarines destined for Taiwan. "In any event, we wouldn't permit the sale," he said.

A Dutch Foreign Ministry spokesman also told Bloomberg that while the Netherlands delivered two submarines to Taiwan in the 1980s, it now has an agreement with China not to sell any more weapons to the island. Frank de Bruin, a Dutch Foreign Ministry spokesman, said, "The Netherlands maintains a one-China policy. That means no weapons are to be sold to Taiwan or to third parties for resale to Taiwan."

Despite those statements, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday that "the United States would not have indicated that they would be available to provide to Taiwan if we didn't believe that we had the means to secure their production."

A Pentagon spokesman, Adm. Craig Quigley, also said there were many ways to obtain or build the submarines. "There are umpteen permutations," he said.

On Capitol Hill, however, the German and Dutch statements prompted sharp concern. "I worry that the administration will have difficulty securing the cooperation of a third country given the pressure Beijing will surely use to prevent their cooperation," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

McCain added that if the United States could not deliver the submarines, "we should reconsider our postponement of a decision on the Aegis system" -- a reference to the administration's decision not to provide Taiwan with advanced destroyers equipped with Aegis battle radar systems, the item China had opposed most vociferously.

"The promise of diesel submarines may be a mirage, contingent as it is on agreement by another nation," said conservative commentator William Kristol.

The arms sales decision comes during a low point in Washington's relations with Beijing.

Ties have been strained by the April 1 collision between a Navy reconnaissance plane and a Chinese jet fighter, Washington's support of a motion at the U.N. human rights commission to censure China's human rights record and the Bush administration's backing of a missile defense system.

The package constituted a breakthrough in U.S. weapons sales to the island of 23 million people because of the submarines, which past U.S. administrations had deemed to be offensive weapons. A Chinese official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said in Beijing that the submarine component of the sale "is causing extreme anger in the Chinese government" and warned that "there will be serious repercussions."

Although he declined to be specific, he pointed to an announcement in Moscow today that Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan will discuss an acceleration of bilateral "military technological cooperation" when he visits Russia April 29.

There was confusion in Taiwan, however, about the prospects for obtaining the submarines.

"We really don't know what it means," said Andrew Yang, secretary general of the Taipei-based Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies. "China could put a lot of pressure on the Netherlands or Germany not to cooperate. . . . It's only a promise to assist Taiwan to get submarines."

Nonetheless, Gen. Tyson Fu, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Taiwan's National Defense University, said Washington's willingness to furnish submarines and P-3 warplanes was "an important step towards tactical parity" with Chinese naval forces.

Over the last 10 years, China's navy has modernized by purchasing four Kilo-class submarines from Russia and building its own nuclear and diesel-powered subs. Western military officers say that for the first time, Chinese subs from all three of its fleets now regularly patrol as far as the east coast of Taiwan.

These vessels, along with a pair of destroyers that China also bought from Moscow, arguably have given China the capability to shut down Taiwan's two biggest ports, at Kaohsiung in the south and Keeling in the north, hobbling Taiwan's economy.

Pomfret reported from Beijing, Mufson from Washington. Staff writer Thomas E. Ricks also contributed to this report.

----

Also on Taipei's Radar: Reform U.S. Weapons
Only Part of Security Needs, Officers Say

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 25, 2001; Page A26
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61384-2001Apr24?language=printer

CHIAYI AIR BASE, Taiwan -- With a decision to sell more than $4 billion in armaments to Taiwan, the biggest and most sophisticated package since the sale of 150 F-16s in 1992, the Bush administration has placed itself firmly behind Taipei in its standoff with China.

But here on this air base, home to 70 of the F-16 Fighting Falcons, it becomes clear that modern weaponry is just one of the shortcomings in Taiwan's military as it seeks security in the face of China's modernizing military. Taiwan's armed forces need not only weapons, military officers here acknowledge, they also need top-to-bottom reform.

Morale, corruption in the arms procurement process, weak leadership, undue influence of the army over Taiwan's navy and air force, lax training and problems in integrating weapon systems from around the world constitute just some of Taiwan's troubles, military experts say.

"The next five years are critical," said Shuai Hua-min, a former two-star army general and one of the fathers of military reform in Taiwan. "We need to reform our organization, get a new defense system and deal with the threat from the People's Republic of China, all at once."

Taiwan's military reforms are important to the United States, American officials argue, because under a vaguely worded law, the United States has committed itself to helping the island's defense. If Taiwan's military collapses in the event of a Chinese attack, the United States would face a difficult choice: Should American soldiers die for Taiwan?

Beijing claims that Taiwan is part of China and has threatened to attack the island if it declares independence. Taiwan and U.S. forces in Asia are the focus of China's military modernization program, which seeks to intimidate Taiwan into negotiating reunification and ensure that if China does attack Taiwan, U.S. leaders will think twice before getting forces involved.

But since 1979, when Washington broke relations with this island of 23 million people, Taiwan's military in many ways has been alone as it faced the challenge of dealing with a modernizing Chinese military. The United States has provided Taiwan with weapons, $21.5 billion worth from 1987 to 1997. But it also took what some U.S. officials now say were unnecessary steps to weaken Taiwan's ability to use those weapons or develop its own systems.

Among other moves, the United States sold Taiwan a tank but substituted a hand-held crank for an automatic turret. It limited the engine thrust of Taiwan's Indigenous Defense Fighter, cutting that jet's range and payload. It has not provided Taiwan with the capability to allow its F-16s or anti-submarine warfare helicopters to communicate directly with its E-2C Hawkeye tactical warning and control system aircraft.

While the United States won plaudits for ensuring that Taiwan stopped a nascent nuclear weapons program in the 1980s, it raised eyebrows for forcing Taiwan to mothball the development of the Sky Horse missile, similar to those that now threaten the island from 100 miles away across the Taiwan Strait. And it severely limited contact between Taiwan's military and the Pentagon.

Chinese military exercises in 1996 helped spark a reconsideration of U.S. military policy toward Taiwan. Those exercises, during which China fired missiles near Taiwan's two major ports, prompted the Clinton administration to dispatch two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region as a sign of support for Taiwan. They also marked the start of a quiet but intensive study by the Pentagon of Taiwan's defensive needs. "We let our American friends understand the real situation of Taiwan's armed forces," said Gen. Tyson Fu, who at the time was the head military intelligence officer. Taiwan opened secret command and control installations to U.S. experts who conducted site surveys and prepared reports on Taiwan's air force, army and navy.

The results of these visits were sobering for the Americans.

"Before we came, we thought we'd find Israel; instead we found Panama," said one U.S. officer. A Pentagon report predicted that the balance of military power would swing to China's favor by 2005.

The missile tests and the American visits also prompted changes in Taiwan.

Until 1996, Taiwan's military was focused on defending against a traditional invasion, according to Joseph Wu, a security expert at National Chengchi University. But as China increased its options, including missiles and submarines, Taiwan's preparedness planning "suddenly got very complicated," Wu said.

Reform of Taiwan's military thus became mandatory, said Shuai, the former general, but progress has been painstakingly slow.

For decades, Taiwan's military had two guiding principles. The first was that it had to keep Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in power, so it needed an army to crush any dissent. Second, it had to prepare to retake mainland China, so it needed many army officers to lead conscripts. To this day, of Taiwan's 350,000 troops, 80,000 are officers, Shuai said.

Taiwan dumped the idea of retaking the mainland years ago and has since become a democracy, but its army has resisted attempts to change. The army, for example, fought off plans to reduce its manpower during reform attempts in 1993. And it has retained what one former U.S. military officer called a "tank fetish," even though tanks are all but useless in Taiwan's mountainous terrain.

The army also has meddled in procurement by other services. In 1992, army Gen. Hau Po-tsun, then the military's chief of staff, determined that the navy should buy French-made Lafayette destroyers, even though the navy preferred a cheaper destroyer made by South Korea, partially because it was compatible with U.S. equipment, according to Roger Hsieh, a special Justice Ministry adviser. Hsieh is investigating payoffs and kickbacks worth as much as $500 million involving the French deal.

Taiwan's military reforms began to take flight during the tenure of air force Gen. Tang Fei as defense minister. But when Chen Shui-bian was elected president last year, he chose Tang, a high-ranking member of the Nationalist Party, to be Taiwan's premier as a sign of continuity with the long-ruling party whose candidate he had defeated.

At the time, many hailed the move. Now, Shuai and others regret Tang's departure from the Defense Ministry. "We wasted a whole year," he said, adding that earlier this year he quit the forces in frustration. "No one wants to study how to re-engineer ourselves. They only care about rank and power."

Some success has been registered. Earlier this year, Taiwan's fractious legislature passed two laws that could deepen military reforms. One law lays out clearly that Taiwan's chief of staff must bend to the will of the civilians at the Defense Ministry, something that has not happened in the past. The second aims to reorganize the military, eliminating duplication of dozens of departments.

But other issues remain. Absorbing Western weapons is not an easy task. Hsieh said some deliveries of U.S. weapons to the air force "are still in boxes." And Taiwanese sources said four of the 150 F-16s have been lost in crashes, along with two French-made Mirage 2000s. Chen Chao-ming, the commander of Taiwan's air force, recently acknowledged that "we do not have enough combat pilots."

The morale question has worried some Americans. Many Taiwanese military officers go to China after they retire, sparking concerns about intelligence leaks. Last year, a senior intelligence official familiar with Taiwan's spying, Lt. Gen. Pan Xixian, traveled to China just days after he retired, breaking government regulations and prompting intense speculation in Taiwan. His whereabouts are unknown.

A Taiwanese lieutenant colonel, wearing a tailored flight suit and walking around Chiayi with the swagger of a top gun, offered another reason for concern. Trained in the United States, he had mastered the clipped English-language patois of a gutsy air force warrior. But when the conversation switched to Chinese and turned to the recent collision of a U.S. surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter, the F-16 pilot revealed another side:

"Communist China is the only one in the world who can talk back to the United States these days," said the officer, with obvious pride at Beijing's tough stance over the April 1 crash. "You've got to give it credit for that."

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

Pentagon seen clearing merger of big ship builders

Excite News
April 25, 2001
By Kristin Roberts
http://news.excite.com/news/r/010425/15/arms-newportnews-antitrust

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Pentagon is widely expected to clear the proposed $2.1 billion merger between the two remaining U.S. builders of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, eliminating prospects of any future competition between former rivals.

Defense Department officials recognize the peculiarities of the situation faced by General Dynamics Corp. and Newport News Shipbuilding Inc., according to antitrust lawyers, industry consultants and Wall Street analysts.

With only one major customer -- the U.S. military -- and declining demand for nuclear submarines, there is simply not enough business to go around.

"Let's face it, there's only one buyer in these kinds of situations," said Richard Steuer, chairman of the antitrust practices group at Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler in New York. "So its incumbent on the Defense Department to convince the DOJ (Department of Justice) it can work with that type of situation."

Defense industry experts have speculated for months that the Bush administration would be more open to further consolidation than its predecessors.

What's more, Virginia Republican John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who was a strong opponent of a General Dynamics-Newport News combination in 1999, is not expected to oppose the merger this time, according to a Senate source.

"Clearly, from the top there is an attitude that we've got to let defense companies do more to ensure their future viability," said Phil Finnegan, industry analyst at Teal Group, a Virginia-based aerospace and defense research firm. "There is a new administration, which is likely to have a less stringent antitrust policy."

COMPETITION VS. COST SAVINGS

While both General Dynamics and Newport News develop nuclear vessels for the U.S. military, neither company makes the same product. They do not even bid on the same programs.

The companies stopped competing against each other for Pentagon programs in 1991, with the contract for the Seawolf submarine. Since then, General Dynamics has focused on nuclear submarines, producing attack subs and the last of the Trident ballistic missile subs. Newport News has focused on nuclear aircraft carriers.

They already work together through a joint venture to build the new Virginia-class attack submarine.

"Our businesses are complementary, as opposed to competitive," said Nicholas Chabraja, General Dynamics' chairman and chief executive. "These companies cry out to merge together. It's a natural phenomenon and a logical next step."

General Dynamics previously tried to merge with Newport News in an unsolicited, 1999 bid valued at about $1.8 billion. That offer was squashed after concerns it would have created a monopoly builder of attack submarines and would leave only one company in charge of nuclear work.

It also came toward the end of a nearly decade-long consolidation phase that brought the number of top defense contractors down to six from 20.

Antitrust experts in Washington said General Dynamics' new proposal has a much better chance of winning approval from the Pentagon and the Justice Department because -- unlike the first time -- it's not a hostile takeover and won't face opposition from Newport News.

In 1999, executives at Newport News contradicted General Dynamics' contention that the merger would save the Pentagon money. They argued that Newport News could cut costs just as effectively on its own.

Now, executives from both General Dynamics and Newport News say they've cut costs and can only continue trimming as a consolidated concern.

NEGOTIATING WITH THE CUSTOMER

Officials at the Pentagon also may be more receptive to the idea of consolidation at a time when the Bush Administration is both struggling to cut costs and build up the U.S. military.

General Dynamics' CEO would not set a target on total cost reductions from the deal. He stressed that there were no plans to close shipyards or reduce staff, which tempers labor concerns in Virginia, the home state of both companies.

The new General Dynamics would be able to trim administrative costs, reducing expenses on shared design technology, for example. That, in turn, lowers the cost of buying equipment and warfare technology for the U.S. government.

"What these two companies are going to do is say, 'We can save you lots of money right away,"' said William Kovacic, an antitrust specialist at George Washington University Law School. "I think that message may be more attractive to the Department of Defense today than it was two years ago."

"I think the key question is going to be what kind of cost-saving story can they tell," he said.

Antitrust regulators at the Justice Department rarely oppose a merger the Pentagon recommends because without the support of the Defense Department, regulators probably could not prevail in court. "DOJ has a hard time opposing transactions if DOD will not back them up," Kovacic said.

---

Chic, little mini-nukes in our future?

San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/04/25/ED232400.DTL

Boston -- AND YOU always thought it wasn't easy being green. It took Bush less than a week to change into a costume colorful enough for a St. Patrick's parade and an Earth Day charade.

Early in this administration's growing season, the Bush folk had shocked environmentalists down to their grassroots. He rejected the global warming treaty, lusted after the Arctic refuge and chose arsenic as his favorite beverage. Now, the administration has taken its hands off the regulations for toxic lead and wetlands and retreated on arsenic. On Thursday, the president signed a treaty reducing pesticides and industrial chemicals.

Frankly, I am happy to see any hint of celadon in Bush country. But how did we manage to overlook the greatest environmental danger of all -- the mushroom cloud over the green space?

Did you miss the small news report revealing that the Defense Department is mulling the development of mini-nukes? These are what supporters describe so benignly as "precise," "clean," low-yield" and "usable."

The story went through a news cycle and into oblivion. It's proof that we don't (like to) think much these days about that instant global warming, the conflagration that preoccupied the Cold War psyche. I share this reluctance. Like everyone in my duck-and-cover generation, I breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the Cold War, thinking we needn't worry about nuclear weapons anymore. Now, every day brings another blast from the past.

Today, says Joe Cirincione, director at Carnegie's Non-Proliferation Project, "The No. 1 concern is still Russia. Not because it's strong, but because it's weak." In its post-Cold War chaos, Russia not only has the most nuclear missiles and materials, but also a crop of broke and alienated nuclear scientists.

Our biggest security bang for the buck has been the $500 million targeted to dismantle and secure Russian nuclear weapons and materials as well as to help their scientists find jobs. But the Bush budget would cut $100 million out of that piece of self-protection. Instead, the same budget substitutes self-defense by fantasy. Funding for the Star Wars project would go up to $5.5 billion.

And those chic little mini-nukes? If you think a heavenly missile defense is a flight of science fiction, try an underground attack warhead.

In an imaginary world, mini-nukes, operating with "pinpoint accuracy," could "take out" Saddam Hussein's bunker without taking out Baghdad. Well, let's not even talk about pinpoint accuracy. Even if it hit the spot, a Federation of American Scientists report predicts, the so-called earth- penetrating warheads could only go 20 feet down, spreading radiation hundreds of miles wide.

Mini-nukes can't "safely" hit the bull's-eye of, say, a chemical warfare lab. But they could do lethal damage to such ancillary targets as treaties against nuclear testing and proliferation. Most importantly, minis would loosen the taboo, and erase the bright line between nuclear and other weapons.

Whether making policy around energy or bombs, our new leaders seem to prefer acting alone. Yet, if there is anything that tribes and nations have in common, it's self-preservation. In fact, two great threats -- environmental pollution and nuclear war -- make us understand we are one world.

Here, we share both a planet and the capacity to destroy it. Even after Earth Day, peace is also colored green and humans are the most endangered species.

---

Nanotechnology has us in its sights

USA Today
04/25/01
By Kevin Maney
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20010425/3262942s.htm

TORONTO -- In the 1960s, when I was a little tyke, I couldn't get to sleep one night. I'd seen something on TV. It made me scared about nuclear missiles raining down on our ranch house.

My father came up, sat on my bed, and explained that if the Russians shot missiles at us, we'd shoot up anti-missile missiles to stop them. I wanted to know what would happen if they had anti-missile missile missiles. He said that our side had anti-missile missile missile missiles. It went on like that for a while.

Of course he was lying through his teeth. But it worked on me.

Every generation is afraid of the technology it creates, much the way every generation thinks its teenagers listen to amoral, grating music. It's part of life. Something about the technology seems beyond comprehension and beyond control. In the 1940s, the first computers sparked anxiety over what the press called ''electronic brains.'' Today, nanotechnology gets people worried about runaway micromachines that could replicate themselves until they cover the Earth like a spa mud treatment on a naked backside.

But every generation figures it out. We didn't do so well building anti-missile missiles, but we used diplomacy, politics, economics and communications networks to make sure nukes didn't vaporize my house, not to mention my Hot Wheels collection, which would've been a major loss. When pushed into a box by our technology, we have always used ingenuity to get out of it.

So, what if we can't do that anymore?

Maybe we've finally created technology -- or, more accurately, a global system based on technology -- that's too complex for human beings to understand or control. Maybe we're standing on the edge of a huge mess that we can't clean up. Maybe there's just not enough of a supply of ingenuity to meet the demand for it.

This is what I'm hearing from Thomas Homer-Dixon, the slender, reserved guy with close-cut graying hair who's sitting across from me in a hotel lobby. He's the director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto, and author of The Ingenuity Gap, a book that's sold well in Canada but hasn't had much visibility in the USA.

The book is a wide-ranging, big-think tour that alights on ozone holes, a plane crash, human brain evolution, complexity theory and a lot of stops in between. Basically, he describes an age of runaway complexity. The Internet, global economies and jet travel make it worse by creating network effects -- technologies and systems all over the world link to create overlapping webs of complexity. We are finally creating systems that are as complex as something like weather. Think how bad we are at understanding, predicting or controlling that slice of nature.

''So, our ingenuity requirements are going up,'' Homer-Dixon says. Then he assembles evidence of overload on the people who might solve our problems, from government officials to scientists. ''We are starting to reach our cognitive thresholds, and the one thing that hasn't changed is this,'' he says, tapping his head with both hands. ''We're coming up against those limits.''

One example Homer-Dixon uses of runaway complexity is the world financial marketplace. In 1977, he says, $18 billion of currency was traded every day. Today, it's $1.5 trillion -- almost a hundredfold increase in less than 25 years. The markets are all linked by computer networks and run on instant information. An event in one part of the world will cause reactions upon reactions everywhere else, and no one can understand or predict those reactions. It's becoming almost impossible to stop market meltdowns, and no solutions seem to be in sight.

Now, it's easy to argue with Homer-Dixon. Even he agrees. ''Very sophisticated people say, 'Oh, we'll figure it out.' '' And this is true. Ray Kurzweil, Peter Cochrane and a lot of other technologists say that, sure, we're creating systems that no human can deal with. But we're also creating machines that we use as tools to manage complexity.

One example is a fighter jet, a hugely complex piece of equipment. Its flaps, rudder and ailerons are adjusted hundreds of times a second by the on-board computer to keep the jet stable. No human could control it. If the computer breaks, the jet is toast.

In his book, Homer-Dixon describes genetic programming, in which code is set up to evolve quickly and essentially write itself, supposedly making software that's more effective than anything humans could write. Cochrane worked on that when he headed British Telecom's labs.

But the argument also goes in a circle. We have to create ever more complex machines to control ever more complex systems, so when the machines get too complex, do we have to create machines to create the machines? It starts sounding like my dad on the bed. At some point, we're clearly in over our heads.

Is there a solution? Yeah, well, probably not. This is where Homer-Dixon just isn't Silicon Valley enough. He says we ought to think about ''taking our foot off the accelerator.'' Say what? Try telling that to Bill Gates, or any student coming out of a U.S. MBA program. It might seem like a good idea to slow technology development, but that's like telling football players to hit a little less hard so they don't hurt each other as much. Right.

Homer-Dixon is a sharp guy, though. He knows that's not a solution that will get very far right now. Yet, he says, ''Either do something proactively, or something will introduce a major breakdown, and that will slow us down.'' He adds: ''I don't know the answer, but I don't think blithe optimism is the way to go.''

I don't know. Worked for me in the '60s.

--------

General Dynamics bids for Newport News again

Excite News
April 25, 2001
By Kristin Roberts
Reuters
http://news.excite.com/news/r/010425/18/arms-newportnews

NEW YORK - General Dynamics Corp. Wednesday said it would buy rival Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. for $2.1 billion in cash, creating the only U.S. builder of aircraft carriers and submarines for the U.S. Navy.

The move comes amid a renewed push to consolidate the defense industry, following Northrop Grumman Corp.'s $3.8 billion purchase of shipbuilder Litton Industries last year. The latest deal, if approved by regulators, would leave only the new General Dynamics and the new Northrop Grumman as the two contractors for U.S. military ships.

Under terms of the transaction, General Dynamics will pay $67.50 for each of Newport News' 31.9 million outstanding shares and assume about $500 million in debt. The bid, which marks General Dynamics' second try at acquiring Newport News, represents a 23 percent premium to Newport News' closing stock price of $55.05 Tuesday.

After the announcement, Newport News shares jumped $9.05, or 16 percent, to $64.10 on the New York Stock Exchange, surpassing a 52-week high of $57.75. Shares of General Dynamics fell $1.38 to $72.73. Both stocks have climbed over the past year, outperforming the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

General Dynamics said the boards of both companies have approved the deal, which is not expected to involve the closing of any shipyards or worker layoffs.

The companies expect to complete the merger in the third quarter, and said they see no major regulatory hurdles in their way.

"Our businesses are complementary, as opposed to competitive," said Nicholas Chabraja, General Dynamics' chairman and chief executive. "These companies cry out to merge together. It's a natural phenomenon and a logical next step."

SECOND GO AT MERGER

The planned acquisition would be the second attempt by General Dynamics to buy Newport News. The first bid, announced in 1999, foundered amid concerns that it would have created a monopoly builder of attack submarines and would leave only one company involved in building nuclear-powered vessels.

The earlier proposal was valued at about $1.8 billion, which Newport News Chief Executive William Fricks said fell short of the true value of his company.

It also came at the end of a nearly decade-long industry consolidation that brought the number of top defense contractors down to six from 20.

Both General Dynamics and Newport News said the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Navy were unlikely to have antitrust concerns, as the companies no longer compete on the same projects.

Competition ended in 1991, when they last battled over a contract for the Seawolf submarine, Chabraja told analysts and investors at a meeting in New York. Since then, General Dynamics has built the attack submarine and the last of the Trident ballistic missile submarines, while Newport News has focused on nuclear aircraft carriers.

The companies have already formed a joint venture to build the new Virginia-class attack submarine.

"We believe that the political climate for this is very good," General Dynamics' Chabraja said.

Still, some Wall Street analysts questioned whether the Pentagon would allow the merger to clear this time around.

Salomon Smith Barney analyst George Shapiro said the companies also had no products in common in 1999, when General Dynamics first tried to buy Newport News.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S CALL

Industry experts have speculated for months that the Bush administration would be more open to defense mergers than its predecessors. General Dynamics declined to say whether it had discussed the transaction with the Pentagon, but said the companies would not have proposed the combination if they did not believe their customer would be receptive.

"This is something General Dynamics' management has clearly wanted for a long time," said Heidi Wood, analyst at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. "It's a strong strategic fit. I think this is the administration that's going to let them do it."

General Dynamics' offer comes less than a month after Northrop completed its acquisition of Litton Industries, the largest builder of non-nuclear ships for the U.S. Navy. It also comes as European regulators scrutinize General Electric Co.'s proposed acquisition of Honeywell International Inc.

HIGH PRICE, TOUGHER TERMS

The acquisition agreement includes a $50 million breakup fee and a clause that precludes Newport News from shopping around for other bids.

The companies stated firmly they have no plans to cut staff or close shipyards after the acquisition. The deal should boost earnings immediately, as the new General Dynamics cuts costs such as administrative expenses.

The tender offer for Newport News shares is scheduled to begin within the next seven business days.

Last week, General Dynamics posted a 15 percent jump in first-quarter profits, driven by the strength of its combat systems and civilian aerospace operations.

Newport News on Wednesday beat Wall Street's targets, with a 14 percent increase in quarterly profits. It also boosted its profit targets for the year by 10 percent.

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

Poll: More support nuclear power
Bush energy task force likely to push for increased role

MSNBC
April 25, 2000
Soledad O'Brien
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.msnbc.com/news/564225.asp?cp1=1

WASHINGTON, April 25 - Americans have grown slightly more comfortable with nuclear power over the past two years, an Associated Press poll suggests, with half now saying they support using nuclear plants to produce electricity. Nuclear power, which produces 20 percent of the nation's electricity, is the focus of renewed interest, with a Bush administration energy task force expected to conclude next month that increasing nuclear power is essential to meet the nation's energy needs.

FIFTY PERCENT supported nuclear power, and a majority of the supporters, 56 percent, said they wouldn't mind a nuclear plant within 10 miles of their own home. Three in 10 opposed nuclear power, and the remainder said they didn't know.

Two years ago, 45 percent said they supported nuclear power, and fewer than half of those supporters said they would want a nuclear plant nearby.

Already, the nation's 103 nuclear reactors have increased their power output by 25 percent over the past decade along with a steadily improving safety record. They have become more competitive in cost because of rising natural gas prices and growing concern about pollution from fossil fuel- burning power plants.

REASONS OFFERED

In the new poll, some admitted that concerns over energy shortages and fears of pollution have affected their support for nuclear power.

"They're threatening to start up those plants in California and that's going to bring more smog and pollution," said Verna Clark, 72, a retired hospital worker from Tucson, Ariz. "I've been liking nuclear power better and better because as time goes by they're getting more and more skilled at handling it."

But concerns remained strong about how to handle radioactive waste from the power plants.

Almost half said they don't believe nuclear waste can be safely stored for many years, about the same level as two years ago. The number who thought it could be stored safely was up slightly to almost four in 10.

The poll of 1,002 adults was taken April 18 through Monday and had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The poll was conducted for the AP by ICR of Media, Pa.

AGE, LOCATION VARIATIONS

Support for nuclear power was lowest and fears of nuclear waste were highest among young adults.

"I'm pretty opposed to nuclear energy," said Liza Lionetti, 25, an Internet company employee from Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. "The biggest issue is the waste products. We bury them and we poison the ground."

The sentiment for nuclear power increased steadily as the age of poll respondents went up.

"I think it's a safe way to produce energy," said Mike McDonald, 46, a computer consultant from Sparta, Mich. "It's better than global warming," he said, referring to the view of many scientists that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are causing the Earth to warm up.

The support for the nuclear option now being considered by the Bush administration was strongest among men and those older than 65.

Among the regions, support for nuclear power was strongest in the energy-starved West, 55 percent. Support for nuclear power tended to increase with education levels. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to support it, and men were more supportive than women.

SHIFTING OPINIONS

No new nuclear plant has been ordered and completed since 1973 and while utilities are determined to run their current reactors longer, no new orders are expected anytime soon.

In 1989, an AP poll showed that a clear majority, 55 percent, supported nuclear power. But the sentiment for nuclear power dwindled in the 1990s, before the latest renewal of interest.

The slightly improved climate for nuclear power hasn't eased the doubts of some, although two-thirds said they think nuclear power is safer now than it was 10 years ago.

The numbers who think a nuclear accident at a power plant is likely has dwindled slightly from half two years ago, to just over four in 10 now.

---

The evil of nuclear is the ignorance around it

Excite News
April 25, 2001
By Ashley Pingree Daily Utah Chronicle U. Utah
http://news.excite.com/news/uw/010425/university-94

(U-WIRE) SALT LAKE CITY -- It is as deadly as smoking 1.4 cigarettes, eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter, or spending two days in New York City. What am I talking about? The amount of radiation I am likely to receive per year as a nuclear radiation worker. Yet when I tell people of my part-time job in a nuclear research lab, they immediately ask "aren't you afraid of all that radiation?"

It is no wonder that my generation has been bred to fear all things radioactive. We grew up with cartoons like Spiderman and the Toxic Crusaders. Kids were made to believe that any amount of "evil" radiation could morph them permanently into inhuman creatures.

On April 26, 1986, our minds were made up about nuclear power as news broke about the deadly accident at Chernobyl. I was five years old, and at that age it was easy for my parents to impress upon my mind that anything attached to the word "nuclear" was bad.

I don't want to peg myself as a nuclear cheerleader -- this column is not intended to start a campus-wide love affair with nuclear power. Nor is it trying to tell you what to do with nuclear waste, or how to solve the national energy crisis. This column, like any decent opinion column, is intended to make people think.

Does your neck fuzz stand on end every time you hear the word "nuclear"? If it does, why should it? Do Americans really believe that a nuclear winter is imminent, or have we all just been ingrained with an unreasonable paranoia about this technology? Think about the term "nuclear weapon." If you find the word "nuclear" more frightening than the word "weapon," then there's a problem.

Currently the public is transfixed by the controversy over whether to store spent fuel rods on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians Reservation. Forget the political debate over whether the Goshutes have a right to use their land as they see fit, or to earn a living for that matter.

The primary argument is over safety. One reporter at the Salt Lake Tribune always makes me scowl because every time she covers the Goshute story she reminds us that high-level waste "is considered deadly for at least 10,000 years." Well yes, it is deadly -- if you take a bath in it -- what most news articles fail to mention is that high-level waste is stored in indestructible casks so that it will never be "deadly" to anyone.

You can drop them on 10-inch spikes, burn jet fuel on them for 30 minutes at a time, or hit them with a freight train, and they won't crack. Casks like this have been transported through Utah en route to other states on a weekly basis for years now.

Many critics argue that the most dangerous aspect of waste disposal is transportation, but when was the last time you heard about a Utah town being vaporized because a train carrying nuclear waste derailed?

Another key argument against waste disposal is that mankind isn't capable of building a facility that will hold up for thousands of years until its radioactive contents have decayed. Other nations have found a way around this problem by reprocessing spent fuel so that the only waste they have to bury consists of fission products that decay within 300 years.

Why is this still a problem for the United States? Because 25 years ago, Jimmy Carter signed a Presidential Directive prohibiting spent-fuel reprocessing.

The motive behind it was to diminish the world supply of weapons-grade plutonium (one of the products of reprocessing is purified Pu-239). The idea isn't totally moronic, but how does one nation's ban on reprocessing stop plutonium from falling into the wrong hands if everyone else in the world is doing it?

Also, when it comes to dangers in the nuclear industry, the workers most at risk are miners -- reprocessing allows for less mining, and thus, fewer mining accidents.

While waste disposal will always be a complex issue, it is important to understand the benefits associated with it. Nuclear power plants are responsible for nearly 20 percent of the U.S. energy supply.

Established nuclear plants generated power at a cost of 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour last year. In Utah we paid 8 cents per kilowatt-hour, because our energy comes from coal and natural gas.

Nuclear power plants have a downside in that it can cost billions of dollars to build one. However, once design and building costs are taken care of, the economics are clearly in nuclear's favor.

Accidents have always been a primary concern in the nuclear industry, however reforms in the regulation of nuclear plants have made them much safer than back in the days of Chernobyl. Even in 1986, the only way for such a severe accident to occur was by significant human error. Nuclear power plants are like automobiles-they are both extremely useful technologies that only become dangerous when the people behind the controls are irresponsible.

And in a time when you can't go two minutes without hearing about George W. Bush's environmental policy, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, nuclear power's greatest selling point is that it is clean. Nuclear power plants do not have any dangerous emissions; that green radioactive gas you see on the Simpsons is a myth. It is this point that has environmentalists grinding their teeth.

While everyone wants to hate nuclear power, they cannot deny that it is more eco-friendly than the use of fossil fuels, and more efficient than alternative energy sources.

I am going to have a Levar Burton moment now and say "... but you don't have to take my word for it!" Because if this column has been sufficient to completely reverse all of the negative feelings you may have about nuclear power, then you're a moron.

If you've ever felt passionately about any cause, then you know how frustrating it is to deal with people who just won't listen. People who will not allow any new speck of knowledge into their minds because they think they already know everything.

We owe it to ourselves to dissolve the unfounded stigmas in society's collective mind, and get down to facts. Because the fact is, nuclear power isn't all that bad, and if we can benefit from it, then our fears are only hurting us.

-------- MILITARY

Bush Says Use of Force Is 'an Option' in Defense of Taiwan

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25CND-PREXY.html

WASHINGTON, April 25 - President Bush said today that the United States is prepared to defend Taiwan if it is attacked by China. But there was immediate and sharp disagreement over whether his remarks represented a change in policy.

In a taped interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Mr. Bush said the United States had an obligation toward Taiwan. Pressed on whether that meant use of American military force, he said the United States would do "whatever it took" to help the island defend itself.

And in an interview with The Associated Press, Mr. Bush said American military force was "certainly an option" if China attacked Taiwan, which it regards as a renegade province.

But hours later, in a live midday interview with the Cable News Network, Mr. Bush said his statements meant only that "I'm willing to help Taiwan defend herself, and that nothing has really changed in policy, as far as I'm concerned." The President deflected the suggestion by John King, the C.N.N. White House correspondent, that Mr. Bush's "whatever it took" phrase represented a dramatic change in American policy.

At the State Department, spokesman Phillip Reeker said there had been no change in policy. "Our policy hasn't changed today. It didn't change yesterday. It didn't change last year. It hasn't changed, in terms of what we have followed since 1979 with the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act," Mr. Reeker said.

Under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 the United States is obligated to provide Taiwan with equipment to defend itself. Whatever else the United States might do to defend Taiwan has been left deliberately vague by previous administrations.

Mr. Bush said during the campaign that he would adopt a clearer foreign policy, and he told The Associated Press that his remarks should not be seen as startling. He said, too, that he hoped Taiwan does not declare its independence. He said Taiwan and China should settle their differences peacefully.

During the interview with C.N.N., Mr. Bush said he hoped and expected that relations between the United States and China would continue to be peaceful. So it remained unclear whether Mr. Bush had inadvertently strayed beyond the diplomatic ambiguity that has characterized relations between Washington and Beijing on the subject of Taiwan in recent years or whether he deliberately sounded tough early in the day so he could sound more conciliatory later.

In the series of interviews timed to mark his first 100 days in office, Mr. Bush said he still favors full trading relations with China, which he said would mean exporting American values as well as American goods. And he expects that the lingering tensions over the recent spy-plane episode will be resolved.

Mr. Bush said relations between Washington and Beijing are difficult and likely to remain so, given the vast differences between them, but that "we'll find areas where we can agree."

On C.N.N., Mr. Bush seemed to try hard not to let his tough words sound like a naked threat, stating several times that he hoped Congress would not revoke the normal-trade status it granted China last year and that there are areas of peaceful, constructive dialogue that can be explored.

"Open markets create more opportunities for freedom," Mr. Bush said.

The White House has followed a stern but cautious approach to China, as reflected most recently in the decision to sell Taiwan some of the weapons it wanted to bolster its defenses but to not sell it - at least right away - some of the most advanced weaponry it had sought.

Mr. Bush touched upon several domestic issues during the C.N.N. interview and took pains to sound bipartisan and conciliatory. He said he will continue to push for "meaningful" tax relief but would not be pinned down on whether he would absolutely insist on the $1.6 trillion in tax cuts he originally advocated over the next decade.

When the interviewer noted that Senator Edward M. Kennedy has seemed warm to some of Mr. Bush's education-reform ideas, and that the Massachusetts Democrat could hardly be described as a "compassionate conservative," the President laughed and said, "He is a compassionate man, however, and very open-minded - for which I'm grateful."

---

Bush says U.S. force an option to defend Taiwan

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 12:18 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-04-25-bush-taiwan.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday that U.S. military force is "certainly an option" if China invades Taiwan.

The president also cautioned Taiwan not to provoke an attack by declaring independence from Beijing. "I would certainly hope that Taiwan would not do such a thing," Bush said in an interview with The Associated Press.

And the president said he believes the United States and China will work out their differences peacefully. "I believe the difficulties can be resolved," he said.

Bush spoke on the heels of China's detention of 24 U.S. airmen and his decision to sell arms to Taiwan.

His remarks on Taiwan were an unusually blunt warning to China that the United States is willing to use its military might to uphold the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. That law requires Washington to provide Taiwan with "such defense articles and defense services ... as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability."

China considers Taiwan a breakaway province that must be reunited with the mainland.

For decades, U.S. administrations have been purposely vague on whether the United States would actually go to war with China over Taiwan, as opposed to arming Taiwan well enough to enable the island to defend itself.

Bush, who promised a more plain-speaking foreign policy during the 2000 campaign, didn't mince words when asked if he was willing to use military force if China attacked Taiwan. "It's certainly an option," he said.

He did not directly respond when asked if his position would change in the event that Taiwan declares independence.

"I will certainly hope that Taiwan would not do such. Our policy is a one-China policy - that the two nations can resolve their disputes peacefully," Bush said. "And we need to work with the Taiwanese so that does not occur - the breach of the one-China policy."

Asked again if military force is an option, Bush said, "It's certainly an option. ... The Chinese have got to understand that is clearly an option."

In an interview broadcast earlier in the day on ABC's "Good Morning America," Bush was asked if the United States has an obligation to defend Taiwan. "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that," he said.

With the full force of the U.S. military? "Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself," Bush replied without elaboration.

The most recent use of the U.S. military in defense of Taiwan was in 1996, when President Clinton sent warships into the region after China began shelling in the direction of the island.

The destroyers and submarines Taiwan will be able to buy from the United States under Bush's plans will allow the island to upgrade its defenses against the expanding reach and sophistication of China's air and naval forces.

In Beijing, Vice Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told U.S. Ambassador Joseph Prueher on Wednesday that the arms sale should be canceled on grounds it would seriously affect U.S.-Chinese cooperation on arms control and damage ties between the two nations, state television reported.

Taiwan will not be getting destroyers equipped with the advanced Aegis radar and battle management system, but can buy four older Kidd-class destroyers with less capable radars. China had cautioned Washington that a deal involving the Aegis system would have grave implications.

Bush said he did not expect the arms deal to cause further damage to already strained U.S.-Chinese relations.

He told The Washington Post that "the China relationship is maturing" and that "people are beginning to understand what I mean by strategic competitors - that it's not necessarily a bad thing."

"I say the Chinese are beginning to understand what the means. That there's areas where we can agree, like trade, and there's areas where we won't agree, and that is the defense, the serious defense of Taiwan."

The Post also reported Wednesday that Bush said he will end the annual review of arms sales to Taiwan, ending a policy used by the United States since 1982 to provide the island with weapons. Instead, in what could be seen as a conciliatory gesture to China, the Bush administration will consider arms sales on an "as-needed basis," avoiding a yearly flap with the Chinese over the weapons sales.

On "The Early Show" on CBS, Bush acknowledged that one area of disagreement with China will be "the extent to which the United States upholds its obligations under the Taiwan Relations law and ... I've upheld our obligations in a very serious fashion, providing equipment for Taiwan so she can defend herself."

"I'm going to fully implement, I'm going to abide by the spirit of the Taiwan Relations law," he said on NBC's "Today." He pledged to make decisions "that will help Taiwan defend herself and we will help Taiwan defend herself. That the spirit of the Taiwan Relations law and I will continue over my time as president to review Taiwan's defensive needs and if I think it's in our country's interest sell (weapons) to them."

Meanwhile, Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, released a statement Wednesday thanking the United States for the latest arms package.

"I want to thank the U.S. government, Congress and our friends, for their concerns about the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan's security," said Chen, who was elected one year ago.

-------- arms sales

Bush Vows Taiwan Support But Officials Say No Change in Policy

ABC News
April 25, 2000
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/taiwan010425.html

WASHINGTON, April 25 - In the strongest and most specific promise of military support for Taiwan from a U.S. president, President Bush said the United States would do "whatever it took" to defend the island if it were ever attacked by China.

In an interview aired on ABCNEWS' Good Morning America today, Bush was asked if the United States has an obligation to defend Taiwan. "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that," he said in the interview, which was taped on Tuesday.

Asked if his commitment would be backed up with the full force of the U.S. military, Bush replied: "Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."

Shortly after these comments though, administration officials were scrambling to clarify them. State Department spokesman Philip Reeker told reporters there was no change in change in U.S. policy toward Taiwan.

"We expect any dispute to be resolved peacefully. The president's said that. We expect, hope, believe that peaceful resolutions are possible. He said that the Chinese have to hear that we'll uphold the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act," Reeker said.

In interviews with CNN and The Associated Press today, Bush also softened his stance, only saying military force is "certainly an option" if China were to invade Taiwan.

He also reiterated Washington's commitment to the one-China policy, and did not say the use of U.S. military force would be considered if Taiwan were to declare independence.

"A declaration of independence is not the one-China policy, and we will work with Taiwan to make sure that that doesn't happen," he told CNN. "We need a peaceful resolution of this issue."

The comments follow the administration's notice to the Taiwanese government that it could buy new military hardware - but not the U.S. Navy's most advanced radar technology - to fend off a potential threat from China.

The potential sale is being viewed as a strong commitment by Bush to Taiwan, which China has long viewed as a renegade province.

'Going a Lot Farther'

Bush's comments appear to mark a significant change in policy regarding U.S. rhetoric on the Taiwan issue.

Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, Washington is pledged to provide Taiwan with "such defense articles and defense services ... as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability." But a U.S. president has never articulated that the United States would actually undertake military action, as opposed to arming Taiwan to defend itself.

Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said, "I don't think any American president has ever committed carte blanche like that before."

The change in tone has drawn some fire. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., took the president to task today for not adhering to "strategic ambiguity" in his comments on Taiwan.

"We have been deliberately vague about the circumstances under which we would come to Taiwan's defense, not only to discourage Taiwan from drawing us in by declaring independence but also to deter a Chinese attack by keeping Beijing guessing," he said on the Senate floor.

Bush's words come a day after a U.S. delegation, led by Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Fred Smith, delivered the U.S. arms sale decision in a secret three-hour meeting with Taiwanese officials at Fort McNair, a U.S. Army base in Washington.

While China lodged a formal protest with the United States on Tuesday against the announced weapons sale, Chinese officials declined to respond to Bush's statements today.

At the meeting, the Taiwanese were told Bush had decided he would not - at least for now - let Taiwan buy super-sophisticated naval destroyers this year. Both Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell had recommended that Bush forgo sales of missile destroyers with advanced Aegis systems.

Fearing an invasion from mainland China, the Taiwanese government has been asking for the most high-powered new destroyers and radar gear. While the $1 billion Aegis-equipped ships will not be in Taiwan's shopping cart this year, the White House is signaling that if China further increases its saber rattling toward Taiwan, the situation could change.

"The president believes very strongly that the best way to promote peace and stability is to make certain that Taiwan has the means necessary to secure its defense needs," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said today, explaining the decision. "And this decision was made on the president's determination on how best to secure the peace and to provide Taiwan with the means necessary to defend itself."

The sale will not be everything Taiwan wants, but it will amount to the largest arms sale to the nation in nearly a decade - a fact that has angered mainland China.

Chinese Ambassador Yang Jiechi this morning delivered a formal protest of the decision to U.S. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, said Reeker, the State Department spokesman.

Relations with China have suffered a major setback in recent weeks, with Beijing's 11-day detention of the crew of a U.S. surveillance plane that made an emergency landing on China's Hainan Island after a collision with a Chinese fighter jet. The pilot of the Chinese aircraft was lost.

Many lawmakers, especially Republicans, had been pressuring Bush to provide Taiwan with more and better weapons. The lawmakers say the surveillance plane incident demonstrated a need to counter Chinese aggressiveness and expansionism.

Taiwan's Shopping List

The United States will sell the following to Taiwan, according to the White House:

Four Kidd-class destroyers ready by 2003.
12 P-3C Orion aircraft.
Eight diesel submarines designed to counter blockades and invasions.
Paladin self-propelled artillery system.
MH-53E minesweeping helicopters.
AAV7A1 Amphibious Assault Vehicles.
Mk 48 torpedoes without advanced capabilities.
Avenger surface-to-air missile system.
Submarine-launched and surface-launched torpedoes.
Aircraft survivability equipment.

The United States also will give Taiwan a technical briefing on the Patriot anti-missile system the island has been developing.

ABCNEWS' Ann Compton, Vic Ratner and Tamara Lipper and ABCNEWS.com's David Ruppe contributed to this report. Shopping list compiled by The Associated Press.

Weapons Systems Facts

Diesel Submarine

These have not yet been constructed but are expected to be built on a German or Dutch design and manufactured in one of those countries.

The subs would be intended primarily for anti-blockade operations and to counter China's growing fleet of modern subs and ships.

They are expected to be able to carry MK-48 torpedoes, but probably will not have a land-attack missile capability.

Kidd-class Destroyer

Initially built for the shah of Iran but acquired by the U.S. Navy in 1979, and then decommissioned in 1998.

Geared for general warfare and capable of operating offensively to deal with simultaneous air, surface and subsurface attacks.

P-3C Orion Aircraft

Land-based, long-range surveillance aircraft, primary used in antisubmarine or antisurface warfare.

Can also carry a mixed payload of weapons internally and on wing pylons.

Paladin M109A6 Self-Propelled Artillery System

Used by military forces in the United States, Israel and Kuwait, this cannon artillery system can fire up to eight rounds per minute or three rounds per 15 seconds.

Has a range of 214 miles with a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour.

MH-53E Minesweeping Helicopter

Minesweeping version of the extremely versatile CH-53E, one of the world's largest and heaviest helicopters.

Six of these aircraft were used during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. It has proved to be an excellent mine-countermeasures platform.

AAV7A1 Amphibious Assault Vehicle

Designed to provide armor protection, command, control, and repair capabilities while transporting troops and cargo from ship to shore.

Able to negotiate 10-foot plunging surf, and all kinds of terrain, with a top speed of 45 mph.

MK-48 Torpedo

A heavyweight torpedo designed to combat fast, deep-diving nuclear submarines and high-performance surface ships, carried by all Navy submarines.

They can use active and/or passive homing, and can conduct multiple reattacks if they miss the target.

Avenger Missile System

Lightweight, highly mobile and air transportable surface-to-air missile systems, typically mounted on the back of a Humvee.

Includes eight Stinger missiles in two turret-mounted launch pods and can fire from a moving or stationary position.

---

Experts Say Taiwanese Need More Than Arms
Army Corruption and Weak Leaders Cited

International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
John Pomfret Washington Post Service
http://www.iht.com/articles/17929.htm

CHIAYI AIR BASE, Taiwan In his well-tailored flight suit, the lieutenant colonel had the familiar swagger of a "top gun" flying the U.S.-made F-16 Falcon. He had been trained in the United States and, in English, had mastered the clipped patois of an air force warrior.

But when the conversation turned to the recent collision involving a U.S. Navy spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet, the pilot revealed another side, something of concern to Taiwan's political leaders and to the United States.

"Communist China is the only one in the world who can talk back to the United States these days," said the officer with obvious pride at Beijing's tough stance over the April 1 crash. "You've got to give it credit for that."

With the decision by the Bush administration to authorize the sale of billions of dollars worth of armaments to Taiwan, the United States has placed itself firmly behind Taiwan in its standoff with China.

But on this air base, home to a wing of 70 F-16 jet fighters, and throughout Taiwan's military as well, there is a decided ambivalence about a possible confrontation with China.

The issue of morale, born of Taiwan's conflicted identity, is just one of the problems bedeviling Taiwan's military as it seeks security in the face of China's modernizing military less than 160 kilometers (100 miles) away.

Taiwan's armed forces do not only need weapons, officers here acknowledge, they also need major reform.

Morale, corruption in the arms procurement process, a weak leadership, the undue influence of the army over the navy and air force, lax training and problems in integrating weapons systems from around the world constitute just some of Taiwan's troubles, military experts say.

"The next five years are critical," said Shuai Hua-min, a two-star army general and one of the fathers of military reform in Taiwan. "We need to reform our organization, get a new defense system and deal with the threat from the People's Republic of China, all at once."

Since 1979, when Washington broke relations with the island of 23 million people, switching to Beijing instead, Taiwan's military in many ways has faced the challenge alone from a modernizing Chinese military.

The United States provided Taiwan with weapons - $21.5 billion worth from 1987 to 1997. But it also took what some U.S. officials now say are unnecessary steps to weaken Taiwan's ability to use those weapons or develop its own systems.

Among other moves, the United States sold Taiwan a tank but substituted an automatic turret with a hand-held crank. It limited the thrust of the engine of Taiwan's Indigenous Defense Fighter, thereby cutting back on that jet's range and payload.

It has not provided Taiwan with the capability to allow its F-16s or anti-submarine warfare helicopters to communicate directly with its E-2C Hawkeye tactical warning and control system aircraft, thereby complicating the targeting of weapons.

While the United States won plaudits for ensuring that Taiwan stopped a nascent nuclear weapons program in the 1980s, it raised eyebrows for forcing Taiwan to mothball the development of the Sky Horse missile, which is similar to the ones that now threaten it from across the Taiwan Strait. And it severely limited contact between Taiwan's military and the Pentagon.

Chinese military exercises in 1996 helped spark a reconsideration of U.S. military policy toward Taiwan.

Those exercises, during which China fired missiles near Taiwan's two major ports, prompted the Clinton administration to dispatch two aircraft carrier battle groups as a sign of support for Taiwan.

But it also marked the start of a quiet but intensive program of study by the Pentagon of Taiwan's defensive needs.

"We let our American friends understand the real situation of Taiwan's armed forces," said General Tyson Fu, who at the time was the top military intelligence officer.

Taiwan opened secret command and control installations to American experts who conducted site surveys and prepared reports on Taiwan's air force, army and navy.

The results of these visits were sobering for the Americans.

"Before we came we thought we'd find Israel; instead we found Panama," said one American officer. A Pentagon report predicted that the balance of military power would swing to China's favor by 2005.

The missile tests and the American visits also prompted changes in Taiwan. Until 1996, Taiwan's military was focused on defending against a traditional invasion, according to Joseph Wu, a security expert at National Chengzhi University.

But as China increased its options, with missiles for terror tactics and submarines for a naval blockade, Taiwan's plans for preparedness "suddenly got very complicated," Mr. Wu said. Reform of Taiwan's military became mandatory, said General Shuai. The problem: Progress has been painstakingly slow.

---

Getting It Right on Taiwan

New York Times
April 25, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/opinion/25WED1.html

American arms sales to Taiwan have been a delicate issue since President Nixon signed the Shanghai communiqué in 1972. China opposes the sale of military equipment to the island, but Taiwan's defenders are quick to criticize any American president perceived as exposing the island to Chinese aggression. President Bush, for whom relations with China have provided a tense introduction to superpower diplomacy, has chosen a course of diplomatic caution by assembling an arms sales package that sends appropriate signals in both directions. Taiwan will not get the advanced American radar and missile defense systems it sought, at least for now. However, Washington will strengthen the island's navy and increase its ability to cope with a future Chinese blockade. Instead of letting tensions surrounding the accidental downing of an American spy plane off the Chinese coast dominate the deliberations, Mr. Bush followed the consensus advice of senior State Department, Pentagon and White House officials.

Careful decisions about which weapons systems to make available and which to withhold are essential to balancing the delicate triangular relationship of Washington, Beijing and Taipei. As China upgrades its military capacities, Washington must honor its commitment to provide adequate defensive weapons to Taiwan. But it needs to avoid sales that would be likely to raise tensions or upset the military balance across the Taiwan Strait.

Beijing will be particularly unhappy about the inclusion of eight diesel submarines in the Taiwan package. Previous administrations refused to sell these on the grounds that they could be used for offensive as well as defensive purposes. Taiwan, though, is unlikely to consider these old-fashioned, conventionally powered vessels any match for China's much larger submarine fleet. Beijing would be wise not to make too much of a fuss over the submarines and recognize Washington's restraint in more significant areas.

Most important is the administration's decision not to sell Taiwan four destroyers equipped with the Aegis battle management radar system this year. No Aegis destroyers could have been delivered before the end of the decade, but their sale now would have precipitated a dangerous crisis between Beijing and Taipei. The mainland's concerns are that the Aegis could become a basis for a future missile defense system and that supplying such sophisticated equipment to Taiwan's poorly trained Navy could lead to closer operational links between American and Taiwanese forces. The administration will reconsider the Aegis request in future years. Washington's decisions then will be influenced by whether or not Beijing presses forward with its missile buildup opposite Taiwan.

Instead of the Aegis ships the White House is offering four Kidd-class destroyers, which can be delivered quickly and will strengthen Taiwan's naval capacity without giving Beijing legitimate grounds for alarm. It is also willing to sell 12 Orion PC-3 submarine-hunting aircraft and a variety of other air, ground and naval systems.

Over all, it is a balanced package that honors Mr. Bush's desire to help Taiwan's democratic government without plunging it into a new and needless confrontation with Beijing.

---

China Expresses Concern Over Arms Sale to Taiwan

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By ERIK ECKHOLM
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25CHIN.html

BEIJING, April 24 - The Chinese government expressed serious concern today over reports that the United States would permit the sale of 4 naval destroyers, 12 antisubmarine planes and 8 diesel submarines to Taiwan, but made no specific threats of retaliation.

At a news conference here, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Zhang Qiyue, said China "reserves the complete right to take further actions," and repeated recent statements that American sales of advanced weapons would be "a grave violation of China's sovereignty, gross interference in China's internal affairs and would increase tensions across the Taiwan Strait."

In Washington, China's ambassador, Yang Jiechi, delivered a formal protest to the State Department.

Beijing says it is committed to "peaceful reunification" with Taiwan, which has developed its own democracy and identity since Chiang Kai-shek's defeated Nationalist forces fled there in 1949. But Beijing has also threatened war should Taiwan formally declare independence or refuse indefinitely to rejoin some form of "one China."

A commentary in Wednesday's edition of the Liberation Army Daily, the military newspaper, is filled with harsh accusations and threats of future conflict, but does not mention specific retaliatory steps.

"Each time a hoard of new weapons is sent to Taiwan, the `Taiwanese independence' forces swell dramatically," the article says, "bringing a larger and larger threat to peace between the two sides of the strait."

After Chinese warnings in recent days that a large arms package could have a "devastating" effect on relations with the United States, the initial reactions seemed almost temperate. On one point, the Chinese leaders must certainly have felt relieved: Washington had decided against providing - for now anyway - the sophisticated, destroyer-based Aegis defense system. Beijing fears that the advanced system for tracking and destroying multitudes of incoming missiles and aircraft could blunt the effect of its own growing force of missiles aimed at Taiwan, and that it could be part of a larger theater missile defense in the future.

Chinese officials had repeatedly singled out Taiwan's Aegis request as a red flag, hinting at grave but never specified consequences if the sale was approved. Washington officials concluded that there was no compelling reason to sell Aegis- equipped destroyers now, since it could take a decade to build and field such ships, while the four Kidd-class destroyers being offered could enter Taiwan's navy within three years.

American experts also note that keeping the Aegis in reserve provides a bargaining chip as the United States urges Beijing to slow or halt the buildup of ballistic missiles facing Taiwan.

Still, the Bush offer does break into what Beijing had labeled dangerous new ground by authorizing the sale of eight diesel submarines.

Taiwan, which now fields just four aging submarines, two of them for training only, has long sought to bolster its forces to counter Beijing's growing underwater fleet. Previous American administrations have refused to sell submarines, arguing that they could be used as offensive weapons, while the United States, under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, is committed to providing only defensive weapons.

But recent American military analyses have concluded that Taiwan needs attack submarines to fight off Chinese subs before they can destroy Taiwan's warships and enforce a blockade of Taiwan's ports. Also, the Bush administration came into office with a desire to demonstrate its resolve by offering weapons to Taiwan beyond those promised by the Clinton administration.

A third weapon that China had described as posing an extreme threat but not included in the sales is the upgraded Patriot antimissile system, or PAC-3. Taiwan already has several batteries of the PAC-2 model but wants the more advanced version.

Bush Strong on Defending Taiwan

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) - President Bush said today that the United States had a duty to aid Taiwan in case of attack by China and would do "whatever it took" to help the island defend itself.

In remarks taped for broadcast by ABC Television for its "Good Morning America" program on Wednesday, the president appeared to go beyond traditional promises of political and material support, which have deliberately been left vague.

Mr. Bush was asked if Washington had an obligation to defend the Taiwanese in the event of attack by China. "Yes, we do," he said. "And the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would."

Pressed on whether that meant invoking the full force of the American military, he said, "Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend" itself.

---

People in Streets of Taiwan Are Underwhelmed by Arms Sales

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By MARK LANDLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25TAIW.html

TAIPEI, Taiwan, April 24 - Politicians here expressed satisfaction today at the menu of weapons being offered to Taiwan by the United States. But on the streets of the capital there was little response to a decision that had been anticipated with hope and worry.

In part, that is because there were few surprises: people expected President Bush to defer the sale of the Aegis combat radar system, while offering Taiwan many other items on its shopping list.

But beyond that, the military hardware issue is less momentous today than it would have been a few years ago. With capital flowing from this island's sputtering economy to a booming China at an accelerating rate, Taiwan's giant neighbor suddenly seems more of a threat commercially than militarily.

"Five years ago political tensions animated the relationship between Taiwan and China," said Yang Chao, editor of The Journalist, a magazine about politics. "But now Taiwanese people feel the existence of mainland China, almost physically, by the weight of the trade relationship."

This has left people feeling vulnerable, not to an assault by Chinese ships or troops, but to the pressure of doing business with an emerging economic powerhouse. American-made destroyers cannot prevent companies in Taiwan from building chip factories outside Shanghai.

"As long as China is not shooting missiles at us, there is a tendency to view it as an economic opportunity," said Wu Yu-shan, a political science professor at National Taiwan University. "The problem is that companies now believe that you have to invest outside Taiwan to survive."

The flow of investment to China coincides with a painful economic slowdown here. Exports are falling, output is slowing and the unemployment rate of nearly 4 percent is at its highest level since 1985. That has made Taiwan's many small-time stock traders extremely nervous.

"We don't really care which weapons the U.S. sells Taiwan," said Wei Chi-jiang, who was trading shares at a retail brokerage here. "What we care about is China's reaction. Almost all of Taiwan's investment has shifted to the mainland, so we really care about how they react."

Mr. Wei's comments were echoed by his fellow stock traders. Noting that Taiwan's leading companies have huge investments in China, they said it was more important to preserve the status quo than beef up Taiwan's security. Several expressed relief that Mr. Bush had not offered to sell their military the Aegis system because it would have provoked China.

"The U.S. shouldn't sell overly advanced weapons to Taiwan," said Joe Chao, a theater owner. "That could be terribly dangerous."

Mr. Chao said the issue was especially sensitive because of the election last year of Chen Shui-bian as Taiwan's president. The Chinese government is deeply suspicious of Mr. Chen, a longtime opposition leader, because his party formally espouses independence for Taiwan, which Beijing views as rightfully a part of China.

"It might be O.K. to sell weapons to a K.M.T. government," Mr. Chao said, using the initials for the Kuomintang, the Chinese name of the Nationalist Party, which ruled Taiwan before Mr. Chen took office. "But China doesn't think this government is stable."

Such views are common among business people. But the ties between Taiwan and the mainland extend beyond commerce. Tourists from Taiwan are streaming into the mainland, as are graduate students eager to study literature, economics and Chinese medicine at universities there.

"Many of my former students are now at Beida," said Professor Wu, using the nickname for Beijing University. "These are the kinds of societal links that are being forged, even as the political tension remains."

Professor Wu noted, though, that the muted reaction to the American decision was somewhat misleading. If the White House had suspended or radically scaled back the weapons program, he said, it would have been a rude shock to an island that depends on Washington to protect it.

Indeed, several people said they believed that Mr. Bush was likely to be more supportive of Taiwan than the Clinton administration simply because he had offered a more formidable array of weapons.

"It's good news," said Ling Shiang-shing, 36, an insurance saleswoman. "I'm glad that someone is willing to sell weapons to us."

President Chen has so far declined to comment on the decision. But members of his Democratic Progressive Party said it would raise the sagging confidence of investors - perhaps even persuading them keep their money here.

"The local business community can feel that the U.S. stands behind us," said Parris Chang, a former adviser to Mr. Chen on security issues. "That kind of confidence may stem the flow of capital to China."

---

Military Analysis: U.S. Weapons Help Taiwan Stave Off Threat

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25MILI.html

LONDON, April 24 - The array of weapons President Bush has offered Taiwan will substantially improve the island's ability to cope with one of the main worries: the threat of a Chinese blockade.

Separated from Taiwan by 100 miles of choppy sea, China does not have the ability to mount an amphibious invasion. But China could mount at least a partial blockade and pummel the island it views as a breakaway province, separated by the civil war of the 1940's, with short- range ballistic missiles.

Neither action would guarantee China a victory. But China's hope is that the threats will frighten Taiwan into accepting Beijing's sovereignty or, at least, stop Taiwan's drift toward independence.

So the Bush administration's decision to give Taiwan the chance to buy submarines, P-3 maritime patrol planes, Kidd-class destroyers and mine-sweeping helicopters is a calculated effort to strengthen Taiwan's navy and help the island stand up to China's political pressure.

"Taiwan needs to urgently strengthen its naval capabilities," said David Shambaugh, a specialist on the Chinese military at George Washington University and the Brookings Institution. "Given the tangible threats that the Chinese military can present to Taiwan - particularly a naval blockade or quarantine and missile threats - this is a sensible and timely package."

When the arms sales debate began, Beijing put the United States on notice that it would find the sale of three types of weapons particularly provocative: submarines, destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar system and Patriot PAC-3 antimissile batteries.

With Mr. Bush's decision, China lost outright on the first demand and may yet lose on the rest, as the Bush administration did not reject, but simply deferred, the sale of the Aegis or Patriot PAC-3.

Taiwan did not get everything it wanted. But China's military deployments and bellicose statements made the political pressure in Washington to go ahead with a sizable arms package all but unstoppable.

Mounting an airtight blockade would not be easy for China, given its Navy's logistical limitations. China, for example, has only a handful of ships to deliver fresh supplies of fuel, water and ammunition to its fleet.

But China has sought to improve its navy by buying two Russian-made Sovremenny destroyers, which are equipped with sea-skimming Sunburn missiles. China also deployed two Russian-made Kilo-class diesel submarines, expanding its already sizable submarine force.

China has also brandished its missile threat by deploying some 300 CSS-6 and CSS- 7 missiles within range of Taiwan - a force that American intelligence projects will grow at a rate of 50 a year.

Beijing's strategy also aims to make the United States think twice about sending its aircraft carrier battle groups into harm's way in the event of a crisis in region.

For Taiwan, weapons are only part of the answer. Taiwan's defense would be greatly improved by better command and control, the retention of more noncommissioned officers and more funds to maintain existing weapons.

But Taiwan needs some arms to keep up with the Chinese. And its isolation and limited military industry means it turns to Washington, which is committed to providing Taiwan with the means to defend itself.

In recent weeks, Taiwan's broader military needs often seemed to be forgotten in the debate around the Aegis system - opposed by China as a potential platform for a regional antimissile defense, and supported by pro-Taiwan legislators in the United States for the same reason.

In fact, the United States Navy has yet to develop a sea-based antimissile defense using the Aegis, and upgrading it to serve as a theater missile defense would have required a future decision by Washington.

Deferring the Aegis could shift the onus to Beijing: if China does not want Taiwan to have the system, Washington can argue, it should restrain its military buildup.

Even so, the arms offered by the Bush administration will substantially enhance Taiwan's military.

The eight new diesel subs are probably the most potent weapon the United States has agreed to sell. For years, Taiwan has had submarines denied on grounds that submarines were potentially offensive weapons.

The sale of four Kidd-class destroyers - originally intended for the Shah of Iran and now in dry dock - will help protect Taiwan's fleet against aircraft and antiship missile attack. They are equipped with a powerful sonar, the SQS-53, which can uncover subs, and they can carry sub-hunting helicopters.

The United States is offering 12 P-3 planes, which will improve Taiwan's ability to patrol at sea and hunt for subs.

Taiwan military experts project that the Kidd-class destroyers can be delivered in about three years, compared with the eight years or longer for Aegis-equipped destroyers. The submarines, however, may be more of a problem. The United States does not currently build diesel submarines and would have to obtain the designs or parts from Germany or the Netherlands.

With good reason, Washington did not agree to sell M-1 tanks. Even Taiwan military experts cannot make a good case for the tanks. Nor did the Bush administration agree to sell Jdams satellite-guided bombs or HARM missiles, which home in on the beams of air defense radars. They were deemed to be too provocative because they could be used against mainland targets.

As for antimissile technology, Taiwan has not asked to buy the Patriot PAC-3 antimissile system because the interceptor has yet to be developed.

There is no easy way to protect Taiwan from China's missile threat. The quickest response is for Taiwan to build fortified bunkers for its supplies of fuel and munitions and to buy repair equipment for its runways. That way, Taiwan could keep its air force flying and maintain its edge in the skies even after a missile attack.

Indeed, Taiwan officials say the island's basic strategy is to hold out for, say, a few weeks and hope for help from Washington - something to which the United States is not formally committed but a notion which it bolsters with each new promise to sell weapons.

---

Arms package leaves Taiwan open to Chinese missiles

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
Published 4/25/01
Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010425-85104700.htm

The sale of warships, submarines and aircraft to Taiwan will bolster the island´s defenses but still leaves it vulnerable to short-term intimidation or attack by Chinese aircraft and missiles, defense specialists said yesterday.

A senior White House official said the eight diesel submarines approved for sale to Taiwan by President Bush will be equipped with Harpoon anti-ship missiles, making them effective weapons against China´s warships should they try to blockade the island as part of a forcible reunification bid.

Four 1970s-era Kidd-class destroyers also will provide a major upgrade in Taipei´s naval power.

"Our assessment is Taiwan has got an immediate need to upgrade its air-defense capabilities," said the official. "The Kidds will represent a significant upgrading of their capability."

The official said sales of more advanced warships equipped with Aegis battle-management radar were deferred because Taiwan needed immediate help.

Kidd-class ships are equipped with two Mark 26 guided-issile launchers that can fire anti-aircraft and anti-submarine missiles, and eight firing tubes for Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

The ships also have advanced fire-control and tracking radars that in some cases are as good as the equipment on Aegis ships, although without the phased-array radar on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

The arms have been offered for sale as part of the annual package presented to Taiwanese government officials yesterday at meeting at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Southwest, D.C.

The submarines are a high priority item for the Taiwanese military and were approved this year because of China´s buildup of submarines, including the eventual deployment of four Russian-made Kilo-class submarines, in addition to more than 60 other submarines.

Other defense analysts said the Kidd destroyers, which could be delivered by 2003, fall short of helping Taiwan to deal with China´s growing short-range missile force being deployed opposite the island.

"The decision to sell submarines is brave but long overdue," said Rick Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military. "The combination of a delay in providing Aegis ships and the reluctance to sell so-called offensive weapons that Taiwan truly requires for its defensive needs is very troubling."

The Bush administration rejected sales this year of Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which are satellite-guided bombs, and of High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles. Those arms are seen as offensive.

Larry Wortzel, a former U.S. military attache in China, said the sale of up to 12 P-3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft also will help Taiwan counter a Chinese blockade, which he said is "one of the major threats" facing Taipei.

"I think it´s the proper package to meet Taiwan´s near-term defense needs," said Mr. Wortzel, now at the Heritage Foundation.

Mr. Wortzel said dealing with the Chinese missile threat is going to be harder. "The missile threat cannot be met in the near-term anyway," he said, noting that the administration has suggested the Aegis ships might be sold later.

"That says to me they are going to start construction" on new Aegis-equipped warships.

Administration officials have said the Pentagon is considering building four new Aegis missile destroyers for the U.S. Navy that could be transferred to Taiwan if China continues its buildup of short-range missiles.

Mr. Fisher said the anti-submarine weapons and counterblockade arms are a good first step. But Taiwan really needs Aegis for a future "truly effective missile defense" and the other arms to be able to knock out China´s short-range missiles and air-defense missiles on the mainland.

"Clinton did not sell Taiwan one system of strategic significance in terms of the balance on the strait," Mr. Fisher said. "The submarine sale would be a strategically significant system, but it is not nearly enough."

A congressional Asia specialist said the arms package is good but "should have been much betterOn the most sensitive items, they blinked."

"There is nothing in the arms package that can help Taiwan defend against missiles," the aide said. "What is needed is JDAMs and HARMs so Taiwanese pilots can take out" Chinese missiles.

Al Santoli, a national security adviser to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, said the arms will improve Taiwan´s defense capabilities but leave the island vulnerable to missile attack for some years.

"What do we do to help the Taiwanese protect against and deter an attack on Taiwan from right now to the next five years during a totally unpredictable situation in China?" Mr. Santoli said.

He also pointed out that limited arms sales to Taiwan have not tempered China´s arms purchases from abroad.

---

No Aegis shield for Taiwan

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
Published 4/25/01
Helle Bering THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20010425-191281

So there. No Aegis destroyers for Taiwan. As it turns out, the Pentagon did not like the idea much, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the recommendation to sell less advanced, decades old Kidd-class destroyers to the Taiwanese instead. All sorts of reasons have been given in the past few weeks since news of the administration´s impending decision was carefully leaked to the press: The four ships requested by Taiwan would take eight to 10 years to deliver. They would be too costly anyway, and the Taiwanese do not have anywhere near the expertise to operate and maintain them.

Countering these arguments is not difficult. For instance, with that much lead time, surely the Taiwanese navy could train its people to run the Aegis system. Secondly, Taiwan is certainly not short of funds, being the only country in East Asia to weather the economic crisis.

The U.S. decision was a purely political one. President Bush did not want to antagonize China at this time. In fact, the Chinese government had promised to raise all sorts of trouble if Taiwan received access to the advanced radar technology carried by the Aegis vessels.

It is hard, therefore, not to conclude that China won the first round with the Bush administration, particularly after holding the crew of the American EP-3 surveillance plane captive for almost two weeks, not a glorious moment for this country. Mr. Bush did a good job of playing it cool during the crisis, but is there any reason to keep on playing it cool? The Chinese most certainly are not.

Still, the fact that Taiwan will not have its own Aegis destroyers in the Taiwan Strait obviously does not mean that the United States cannot. Just as our surveillance planes patrol international air space though obviously at some risk our Aegis cruisers can patrol the seas. In fact, the argument is often made that they are the most promising part of a global missile defense system; Europeans and Russians have been known to argue that they represent the best way to counter ballistic missile threats from rogue states, by their ability to shoot down rockets in the boost-phase. It is also argued that the Aegis system does not interfere with the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, to which the Russians and others cling with the tenacity of a drowning man to a raft.

We are already at a stage where missile defense is far more than a theoretical concept, falling short in implementation, though you would not know this from press accounts celebrating the failures.

As noted in a recent issue of American Enterprise magazine by Thomas Mackubin Owens, not only do we now have very serviceable theater missile defense systems to protect out troops (including the PAC-3 version of the Army´s Patriot missile), but boost-phase interception of ballistic missiles is very doable today. The Aegis system, which can protect ships and harbors from short-range ballistic missiles is such an example. This brings down missiles in the first stage of their flight, where they are slowest, easiest to hit and still over the territory of their origin. Boost-phase interception would be one part of a three-stage national missile defense if when the United States develops one.

Writes Mr. Owens, "All of these various systems are promising, and between them they have already achieved six successful intercepts in tests. Together the several approaches can provide multi-layered protection."

These are good reasons for the Chinese to not want Taiwan to have the Aegis system. It takes the teeth out of their most potent weapons, now arrayed in growing numbers in the provinces closest to Taiwan. As an invasion from the sea is unlikely to succeed against the island nation, raining missiles on the Taiwanese is a threat in case they should move towards independence. Or, as may just as well be the case, China gets impatient waiting for peaceful unification to take place.

It´s too bad the Bush administration took the easy way out this time. Taiwan deserves that security guarantee. Furthermore, it could be a stepping stone in American missile defense plans.

E-mail: hbering@washingtontimes.com

---

China infuriated by arms package offered to Taiwan

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
Published 4/25/01
Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010425-28582114.htm

U.S. officials yesterday offered Taiwan a smorgasbord of submarines, destroyers and sub-hunting aircraft in an arms deal that China´s military warned would have "suicidal results" for Taiwan, although congressional Republicans lauded the deal.

The offer was made during a Washington meeting of U.S. and Taiwanese officials, who spent three hours discussing the largest sale of American weapons to the island in a decade.

Later yesterday, President Bush publicly pledged to defend Taiwan in terms stronger than any previous president.

In an interview taped for this morning´s "Good Morning America," Mr. Bush said the U.S. had an obligation to do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself," and did not back off when pressed about whether that meant U.S. military force.

China, which considers Taiwan a breakaway province, promptly lodged a formal protest over the arms sales, saying the weapons would dramatically heighten tensions across the Taiwan Straits.

"China has consistently opposed the sale of weapons to Taiwan," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhang Qiyue. She added that China viewed the deal "with serious concern."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer shrugged off China´s concern, saying simply "we differ." He also pointed out that China has been amassing missiles near Taiwan, which the United States has pledged to protect.

"When the president made his decision on providing defensive weapons to Taiwan, it was based on his assessment and the assessment of his national security team about the threat that is posed to Taiwan by China," Mr. Fleischer said. "And that includes all the military operations of China, including the missiles that are located across the strait."

The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, Taiwan´s de facto embassy in Washington, thanked the Bush administration for the arms package.

"We welcome the decision by the United States, which was made in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and Taiwan´s security needs," said the statement, referring to a 1979 U.S. law that requires the president to help Taiwan defend itself.

"We believe that this decision by the United States is conducive to the security of Taiwan, peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and constructive dialogue between the two sides in the future," added the statement, which pointed out that China has never renounced the use of force against Taiwan.

While the package of arms did not include the most potent weapon under consideration -- the Aegis naval air defense system -- it contained far more firepower than anything the Clinton administration ever offered. Thus, it was enough to satisfy even staunch conservatives on Capitol Hill.

"With this decision, President Bush has made it crystal clear that the United States will not allow communist China to dictate our foreign policy and that we are once again committed to our democratic allies in Taiwan," said Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the House whip.

Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the deal, but complained that it did not do enough to punish China, which held 24 Americans as virtual hostages for nearly two weeks this month.

"The sale of Aegis destroyers is also justified in light of the outrageous actions of the leaders in Beijing," the North Carolina Republican said.

House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt, who has been increasingly hawkish since Mr. Bush took office, also questioned why Mr. Bush did not offer the Aegis-equipped destroyers. He also groused that China has not yet returned a downed U.S. reconnaissance plane and that the U.S. military has not resumed surveillance flights off the coast of the communist nation.

Yesterday´s deal infuriated both the civilian government and military leadership in China. An article in the People´s Liberation Army Daily sent an unmistakably bellicose message.

"Arms purchase can only make the Taiwan Straits situation more turbulent, bring more serious dangers to regional peace and stability, and lead to suicidal results," the article said. "If anyone thinks that with mere weapons can decide the fate of a nation, we will tell him that no one can stand in the way of the 1.2 billion Chinese people."

The article added: "And the People´s Liberation Army, with the sacred mission of safeguarding China´s sovereignty and territorial integrity, will not permit one inch of land to be split from China."

Civilian Chinese authorities were less incendiary in their rhetoric, but equally dismayed. The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Yang Jiechi, delivered a formal protest to Marc Grossman, undersecretary of state, said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker.

"They did raise this in the form of a protest," Mr. Reeker said. "One could call it a formal protest based on what they had read and seen in the press."

The Pentagon emphasized that yesterday´s offer does not necessarily mean Taiwan will buy all the weapons in the package.

"The Taiwanese will take this list back home and they will discuss it within their government, within their military in the weeks and months ahead, and make an assessment as to whether or not the individual items on the list are affordable," said Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman.

China considers the submarines "offensive" weapons, not "defensive."

"I would disagree with that and say that the spirit in which we would preapprove them for sale to the Taiwanese was as a system that would meet the legitimate defense needs of Taiwan," Adm. Quigley said.

Asked whether the United States has formally notified China of the arms deal, Mr. Fleischer said, "I think they´ve heard about it," drawing laughter from the White House press corps.

This article is based in part on wire service report

---

SuperBra offers support, easy access

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
4/25/01
Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010425-82958865.htm

It is one item that does not appear in the fancy lingerie catalog . . . yet.

But in the perplexing world of ladies´ unmentionables, the SuperBra is the foundation undergarment that may win a coveted spot in history. It is the world´s only combined brassiere and firearm holster, designed by a female security specialist for female gun owners who had been resigned to carry their personal weapon in a purse or waist pack.

"If a woman is attacked, the purse is the first thing taken from her. A good place to conceal a weapon is in the chest area," said Paxton Quigley, a high-profile Beverly Hills security specialist with some show biz in her veins.

A former talk-radio host, Miss Quigley recently tutored three former female contestants of CBS´ "Survivor" in self-defense, a process taped for the syndicated show "XTra."

"They said their training was harder than anything they did on 'Survivor,´" she said. The "new bra holster is equal parts Victoria´s Secret and Guns & Ammo magazine," according to one media account.

It is priced at $30, available in black or white and features a soft plastic holster that can accommodate a .38 caliber snub-nose revolver. There is no preoccupation with frills or underwiring here; the most important concern is whether the woman in question shoots with her left or right hand. The garment is configured to match, and can conceal a pepper spray cannister, besides.

"Which is what interested 'Ripley´s Believe It or Not.´ The producers didn´t want to feature anything about women and guns, but the pepper spray met their approval," said Miss Quigley, who wryly noted that the syndicated TV show completely retaped the segment to eliminate any mention of firearms. Television apparently wants to keep the guns and gore for movies and cop shows.

The infamous bra holster, though, is the stuff of waggish press dreams. Over the years, the media has offered gleeful accounts of undergarments as crime clues and even murder weapons, like the "best clue in Ohio drug bust concealed in woman´s bra" story that the Associated Press covered last year.

While Miss Quigley seriously advocates responsible gun ownership, the jokes are beginning to multiply.

"A new bra made for holdups, not push-ups," noted an April 10 account on "Court TV," which added that the bra could "boost the confidence and more of wearers."

One online humor site features a fictitious "Personal Security Bra," woven of bullet-resistant Kevlar fiber with "integrated holsters for mace, knife and .22 pistol."

Miss Quigley, who has written two books on gun safety and self-defense for women, is philosophical about it and continues to offer the SuperBra as practical equipment rather than boudoir flimsy, right along with a product line that includes foaming pepper spray, gun-storage vaults and door locks.

Female gun owners don´t have all that many options, either.

"We´ve been told by many women that finding a comfortable holster is very similar to the search for a comfortable bra," a notice for equipment supplier Concealed Carrier explains.

Still, the company only offers pants, waist, thigh and belt holsters for women, asking the prospective customer: "Will it be a basic holster to protect your gun, a holster for the gun range or strictly a concealment holster?"

Meanwhile, Miss Quigley, who has given self-defense training to about 7,000 women since 1990 and taught actress Geena Davis to shoot for the movie "Thelma and Louise," vouches for her product.

"Women like the idea of comfort and its ease of access," she said.

Though Miss Quigley has trademarked the name "SuperBra" with a capital B, this isn´t the only "super bra" out there.

Both name and concept are oddly popular. Already, lingerie manufacturers like Gossard, Bendon and Panache offer sports bras called "Superbras." The "Holster Bra" from D´Aquino Intimo, has nothing to do with guns. It is instead a "feminine, sporty new bra for active life styles," and even has its own Web site.

There´s also a Superbra recording label that features primarily high-energy "techno" dance music. Needless to say, some gun holsters are actually called gun "bras" in the trade.

Australian scientists, in the meantime, are at work on the world´s first "Smart Bra," which uses futuristic, "self-adjusting fibers" and sensors to expand, stiffen or contract the garment in certain areas as a woman moves.

"It will be the first time intelligent polymer systems have been completely integrated into fabric structure," said one researcher, who estimated that the first Smart Bra prototypes would be available in about two years.

-------- drug war

U.S. Sends Experts to Assess Drug Program or Afghans

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25AFGH.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 - In a first cautious step toward reducing the near-total isolation of the Taliban, the Bush administration has sent two American narcotics experts to Afghanistan as part of an international team assessing how to help farmers who have ended opium poppy cultivation, United Nations officials said today.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed that he had approved the trip in a letter last week to Secretary General Kofi Annan. Although experts have no plans to meet the Taliban's leadership, they will meet with farmers and local Taliban officials.

United Nations narcotics officials reported earlier this year that it appeared that the Taliban, a militant Islamic group that controls most of Afghanistan, had all but wiped out poppy crops under a ban announced last year. American drug experts have begun their own survey and expect to have final results by early summer. Until this year, Afghanistan was the world's largest producer of opium, the source of much of the heroin sold in Europe.

The United Nations Drug Control Program had met resistance from the Clinton administration to any projects to assist Afghans in a drug- eradication program. American policy had been to isolate the Taliban and punish them through United Nations sanctions because of their refusal to turn over Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born Islamic militant wanted in connection with bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. The United States may now have a less rigid policy.

"The United States is prepared to fund a United Nations International Drug Control Program proposal in Afghanistan to assist former poppy cultivators hard hit by the ban," General Powell wrote to Mr. Annan on April 16. "However, we want to ensure that assistance benefits the farmers, not the factions, while it also curbs the Afghan drug trade. I have authorized U.S. participation in a U.N.D.C.P.-led mission to Afghanistan to assess the potential for assistance and the cooperation of local authorities."

United Nations narcotics officials say that while it is too soon to talk about a long-term program with the Taliban, there is an urgent need to help farmers now approaching the "hunger season" if opium poppy planting is not to resume.

General Powell's decision to support a visit to the country by experts is being welcomed by the United Nations as an important step in garnering wider international support for a program that envisages the introduction of alternative crops, agricultural aid and help in establishing industries in rural areas.

The two Americans - James Callahan, the State Department's director of Asian and African narcotics programs, and Thomas Schrettner, a Drug Enforcement Administration officer based in Islamabad, Pakistan - are part of a team of drug specialists and diplomats from Belgium, Britain, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands.

Their visit to Afghanistan is taking place as Mr. Annan reiterates his warning to the Security Council that the future of Afghanistan is very bleak, given the prolonged war there and a recent drought. In a report to the council on Monday, he drew attention to qualms United Nations officials have about sanctions when more than half a million Afghans have been displaced by hunger and many have died of starvation, cold or malnutrition-related illnesses.

Sanctions, he wrote to the Council, "cannot be an end in themselves." He also said that the decision by the United States to shut down the Taliban's office in New York had led to Taliban threats to close United Nations offices in Afghanistan and the disruption of peace talks that began last year. Increasingly, he said, the group is dominated by "more radical elements."

Today United Nations officials announced a new round of talks with the Afghan leadership. In Berlin, Ruud Lubbers, the high commissioner for refugees, said he would travel to Afghanistan, and called for a cease-fire between the Taliban and their armed opponents so that the needs of refugees could be assessed and aid distributed.

---

U.S. Suspends Drug Surveillance Over Colombia

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/world/crash-peru-colombia.html

WASHINGTON, April 25 (Reuters) - The United States has suspended its aerial drug interception program over Colombia since the mistaken attack on a U.S. missionary plane flying over Peru on Friday, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday.

The United State suspended the aerial surveillance program over Peru last week after a Peruvian Air Force plane shot at the missionaries in their small plane over eastern Peru, killing an American woman and her child.

``The intercept program has been suspended also in Colombia,'' State Department spokesman Philip Reeker told his daily briefing.

``We have a variety of programs as part of our overall counternarcotics support with countries ... in the region, but pending this investigation we suspend that aspect of these programs, that special aerial intercept program,'' he added.

Under the Peruvian program, personnel contracted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency fly over the country, monitoring flights by small planes that might be carrying cocaine. When they find a suspect plane, they give the details to Peruvian authorities.

Over Colombia, planes manned by U.S. personnel and paid for with U.S. government money perform a similar function.

A spokesman for SOUTHCOM, the U.S. military headquarters responsible for surveillance flights from Ecuador, Curacao and El Salvador, said its operations were not affected.

``The military counterdrug operations in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility are routine and ongoing,'' said spokesman Steve Lucas at SOUTHCOM headquarters in Miami.

While it may own the aircraft, the Pentagon is not involved in running the flights carried out by the CIA with contracted personnel in Peru and Colombia.

A U.S. official, who asked not to be named, said the difference was that in the case of operations out of Ecuador, El Salvador and Curacao, the local air forces do not have the authority to shoot down suspect planes.

NO SPECULATION ON EFFECT OF SUSPENSION

Reeker declined to speculate on the effect the suspension would have on drug interdiction efforts in Colombia, the world's biggest producer of cocaine and the focus of a massive U.S. aid program to combat the drugs trade.

In the case of Peru, U.S. officials have said aerial surveillance is only one aspect of the drug interception effort, which continues on the ground and on rivers.

The United States plans to send an investigation team to Peru to find out what went wrong. But Reeker said Washington had not yet named the members or decided when they should go.

U.S. officials have blamed the Peruvian Air Force for the mishap with the missionary flight, saying the CIA contractors on the tracking plane tried to restrain them.

The three Americans operating the surveillance flight were not required to be fluent in Spanish and their skills were limited in that language, while the Peruvian liaison officer was required to be bilingual, a CIA spokesman said.

``They had limited Spanish capability,'' he said.

``However, one of the roles of the Peruvian Air Force officer who flies on the aircraft is he serves as a communications bridge between the American crew and Peruvians on the ground and in the air,'' the CIA spokesman said. ``That officer is supposed to be bilingual and their language capabilities are tested periodically.''

---

U.S. Contends Peru Military Did Not Check Plane Number

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By JAMES RISEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25PLAN.html

WASHINGTON, April 24 - A Peruvian Air Force plane flew close enough to a small plane carrying a missionary family to obtain the aircraft's tail number, but American officials concluded that it failed to check records of the number with Peruvian officials on the ground, an American official said today.

The official said that C.I.A. contract personnel on a nearby American surveillance aircraft tracking the small plane urged the Peruvians to obtain the tail number.

Since the downing of the small plane last Friday, which left an American woman and her baby daughter dead, American officials have said the Peruvian jet opened fire on the missionaries' plane without carefully following established procedures. American officials say tapes of the episode, which have not yet been released by the United States government, show that C.I.A. contract personnel raised questions with the Peruvians about their procedures before the Peruvian pilot opened fire.

But there has been disagreement between Peru and the United States over the precise sequence of events. Gen. Pedro Olazábal, spokesman for the Peruvian Air Force, would not answer questions about the operation today, saying, "No one has all the information now of what really happened and no one can judge yet."

The American surveillance aircraft was staffed by three C.I.A. contract employees and one Peruvian Air Force officer, who acted as the liaision with the Peruvian Air Force. The American plane was part of program to interdict drug running aircraft flying in the area. Under the program, Amerian surveillance aircraft identify suspected drug planes and turn the information over to the Peruvians, who intercept the planes.

Under certain conditions, the Peruvian military can open fire and shoot down the planes. Since March, 1995, the Peruvians have shot down, forced down or strafed more than 30 aircraft, and have seized more than a dozen on the ground, according to United States officials.

But in the wake of the Friday shooting, the Bush administration has suspended the flights while the incident is investigated and the program is reviewed, officials have said.

United States officials have recognized the risks involved in the air interdiction program for years. In 1994, the program was briefly halted while its legal status was debated. The 1995 defense authorization act clarified the legal status, and President Clinton issued a formal determination in December 1994 covering the air interdiction program in Peru.

An American official said the small plane was flying on a straight and level course and was not making any kind of evasive maneuvers. The crew of the American surveillance plane asked Peruvian officials to find a flight plan filed for a plane flying in that location, but none could be found, a United States official said.

The pilot of the plane, Kevin Donaldson, was shot in both legs but still managed to land the plane. Veronica Bowers and her infant daughter, Charity, were killed. Her husband and another child survived. The bodies of Mrs. Bowers and the baby were brought back to the United States today.

George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, testified about the shooting today in a classified hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

A United States official said that it is standard practice after detecting an aircraft for either the American surveillance plane or a Peruvian jet to try to fly close enough to obtain the registration number. The American plane did not draw close enough to do so, the official said, for fear of alerting the aircraft to its presence, because it might have escaped over the border. A Peruvian fighter subsequently took off and flew near the small plane and obtained the tail number, the American official said. But the United States does not have any evidence that the fighter gave the registration number to the ground to obtain the plane's identity.

"There is no set procedure on who checks out the tail number," the American official said.

The American crew was becoming increasingly concerned by the actions of the Peruvians, and contacted their chain of command in Peru, the official said.

The Americans did not recommend going to what is called phase 3, under which a Peruvian pilot begins a series of steps to try to identify the other plane. Following those steps, suspect aircraft can be fired upon but only after warning shots are ignored and after the Peruvian plane has gained permission of the regional commanding general of the Peruvian air force.

The superiors of the American crew were asking questions of the air crew as the Peruvians were moving into phase 3. Shortly after that, the Peruvians opened fire.

An American investigation of the episode is expected, but details of who will conduct that inquiry are still to be worked out.

------

RUSSIA: AMERICAN'S TRIAL OPENS

New York Times
April 25, 2001
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25BRIE.html

EUROPE: The trial of an American on drug charges opened in Voronezh, in central Russia. John Tobin, left, a 24-year-old Fulbright scholar, faces up to 15 years in jail if convicted. He denies any wrongdoing and says marijuana found in his apartment was planted by the police. The security force also says he was training to be a spy, but admits there are no grounds to prosecute him. (Reuters)

---

A Mother, a Child and a Drug War

New York Times
April 25, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/opinion/L25PERU.html

The Editor:

Re "Peru's Reckless Shooting" (editorial, April 24):

At this time of deep sorrow for Peruvians and Americans over the accidental shooting of an American missionary plane, wrongly detected and intercepted as a drug-carrying plane, we should wait for the results of the joint investigation before making charges based on presumptions.

We Peruvians, having expressed at all levels and in all possible ways our consternation and regret for this terrible tragedy, await the investigation to show us how procedures should be revised to keep the effectiveness of the program while guaranteeing that this tragedy will never occur again.

CARLOS ALZAMORA Ambassador of Peru Washington, April 24, 2001

•To the Editor:

Our country mourns the loss of an American woman and her 7-month- old child in the downing of a small plane over Peru (front page, April 23). Although the downing was a mistake, it serves only to underscore what is obviously a misguided and often brutal anti-drug campaign. Add this mother and child to the growing list of people who have lost their lives or their freedom for a dubious cause.

For years, our government has dominated the public discussion about how to deal with drug use with a large budget aimed at encouraging further criminalization. One hopes that the story of the mother and child killed in the hopeless campaign to end drug use in this country will awaken America to the perils of declaring "war" on a civilian health problem.

JOHN VAN AMBURG Philadelphia, April 23, 2001

•To the Editor:

Re "Peru's Reckless Shooting" (editorial, April 24):

You are right to call for an unbiased review of the joint United States-Peru aerial interdiction program that led to the tragic death of a missionary and her infant daughter. But your standard for resuming the program, minimizing the risk to innocent fliers, is much too low.

The question arises, How many casualties are prevented by the interdiction program? No one has offered any evidence that even a single life has been saved. Cocaine is as plentiful and cheap as ever, and the enormous profits generated by the drug trade guarantee that for every smuggler who is foiled, another will take his place.

It's time that we applied the same cost-benefit analysis to drug policy that the Bush administration applies to all other government regulations. The costs are known: billions in tax dollars and the loss of innocent life. Where are the benefits?

MICHAEL ST. HIPPOLYTE Brooklyn, April 24, 2001

---

Peru shooting of missionary plane questioned

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 03:19 AM ET

By Barbara Slavin and Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-04-25-peru-questions.htm

WASHINGTON - The Peruvian air force moved from a warning phase to shooting at a suspicious aircraft in only 90 seconds, a decision that led to the death of an American missionary and her daughter, U.S. officials said Tuesday. "It appears that this plane was just shot out of the air very quickly," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who represents the district of victims Veronica Bowers, 35, and her 7-month-old daughter, Charity. "If there had been any serious following of the rules of engagement, this would not have happened." The CIA briefed members of Congress on Tuesday. Pending an investigation, the drug tracking program has been suspended.

"There are a lot of questions," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was briefed by CIA Director George Tenet. "Did the Peruvians follow their own procedures, and if not, why not?"

A senior U.S. intelligence official said the pilot of a Peruvian Air Force fighter jet that shot down the missionaries" Cessna 185 floatplane over the Amazon River did not follow steps worked out with U.S. counternarcotics officials to prevent civilian casualties.

The Peruvian pilot did not pull up along the missionary plane and rock his wings or make hand gestures to indicate that the plane should land, the U.S. official said. It was unclear whether the Peruvian fired warning shots, another required step. Peruvian officials have said the missionary plane refused signals to land and tried to evade the military jet.

Peruvian Air Force Gen. Pedro Olazabal said the two countries will conduct a "profound" review of procedures.

A CIA drug-tracking plane first raised suspicions about the missionary craft. U.S. officials said the CIA was debriefing three Americans who were aboard that plane.

During Friday's incident, Americans radioed U.S. counterparts on the ground in northern Peru to voice their objections at the Peruvians" haste, but there was not enough time to stop the fighter jet from shooting the civilian plane, U.S. officials said.

Tenet told the Senate committee that he hoped to complete a preliminary investigation in 48 hours, Shelby said. Some U.S. officials have been pushing for release of a videotape from the CIA tracking plane to bolster the agency"s claim that it did no wrong.

Florida Sen. Bob Graham, the top Democrat on the committee, said a transcript was still being developed of the conversations in the cockpit.

The CIA plane was about a mile away from the missionary plane and did not record its tail number. U.S. officials said CIA spotters are reluctant to approach drug-running planes if they are close to the border and could easily escape.

However, according to Hoekstra, who attended a separate briefing with CIA officials on Tuesday, the missionary plane was 100 miles from the Brazilian border at the time of the incident. He said it would have taken the prop plane 45 minutes to reach the border, so there was no reason to fear the plane"s escape.

Ultimate responsibility for checking planes' identities and deciding whether to shoot rests with the Peruvians, U.S. officials said.

Friday's shooting came four years after the Peruvians shot down another plane, skipping 'phase two' warning steps entirely, U.S. officials said. In that case, the plane was smuggling drugs. Afterwards, Peruvians involved in the drug-spotting operation were required to sign documents saying they would scrupulously follow procedures and were made to undergo training every two weeks, U.S. officials said.

Hoekstra said the CIA briefers essentially confirmed the account provided by the survivors of the downed plane. "They were totally taken by surprise," he said.

Contributing: Jessica Lee in Washington and Sibylla Brodzinsky in Lima.

---

Pilot pleaded to Peruvian controllers: 'Save us'

USA Today 04/25/2001 - Updated 08:25 AM ET
By Jessie Halladay, USA TODAY
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-04-25-peru-pilot.htm

WASHINGTON - With an airplane riddled by bullets, a cabin aflame and his leg shattered, pilot Kevin Donaldson screamed to Peruvian flight controllers for help. "It was one huge blast," Donaldson told USA TODAY on Tuesday. "I just called - screamed - to the tower that they were killing us, and I proceeded to dive (the plane) as fast as I could to the river."

Donaldson, 42, whose Cessna 185 was shot down Friday in Peru, recounted the ordeal by phone from his bed in a Pennsylvania hospital. The missionary says that despite his training and experience, only God could have saved his life.

"That was beyond my abilities," he said. "I feel that the Lord lowered that airplane to the ground."

Missionary Veronica Bowers, 35, and her 7-month-old daughter, Charity, were killed after the plane, belonging to the New Cumberland, Pa.-based Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, was shot down by a Peruvian Air Force jet. U.S. and Peruvian officials say the jet mistook it for a drug-trafficking plane.

Jim Bowers, Veronica's husband, and the couple's 6-year-old son, Cory, survived the crash.

Bowers first saw the jet from his co-pilot's seat, Donaldson says. But Donaldson said he heard nothing on the civilian radio frequency in his plane.

Five minutes later, the jet was spraying bullets at the plane. It took about 90 seconds for the plane to plunge into the Amazon River. It stayed afloat briefly, but its left landing pontoon, punctured with gunfire, began taking on water.

"We just wanted to get away from the flames and hoped that (the plane) would flip over so the flames would go out, which is what happened," Donaldson said.

Seeing Jim Bowers struggling to keep his now-dead wife and infant daughter afloat in the river, Donaldson says he told Cory to get on his back.

Even without full use of his legs, Donaldson managed to keep himself and Cory afloat. Minutes later, the flames died out, and the group hung onto the wreckage of the now-flipped-over plane.

Pain, numbed only slightly by shock and adrenaline, filled Donaldson's body. He and his fellow missionary began to pray as they waited for help.

"We cried out, literally, to God to save us," Donaldson said, his voice tired. Eventually, Peruvian villagers in a dug-out canoe came to their aid.

The victims' bodies were returned to the United States on Tuesday. A funeral is set for Friday in Fruitport, Mich.

---

Foreign inspectors sweep Afghanistan for poppy

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 12:57 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-04-25-afghanistan-drugs.htm

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Inspectors from skeptical foreign governments began crisscrossing Afghanistan on Wednesday to check claims that the world's main producer of opium, the sticky sap used to make heroin, has wiped out the crop in less than a year.

Fields of green poppy pods, a major cash crop in the war- and drought-stricken country, were banned in July by the ruling Taliban militia's hardline leader, the reclusive Mullah Mohammed Omar.

The United Nations Drug Control Program sent its own inspectors and concluded in March that the plants were gone. But countries battling heroin addiction are doubtful, and on Wednesday they sent a team of 15 investigators, including two Americans, to see for themselves.

Two groups of inspectors will tour southern Afghanistan's Kandahar and Helmand provinces, as well as eastern Nangarhar province. The regions produce 80% of all poppies grown in the country.

Last year's opium harvest in Afghanistan was 4,000 tons - about 72% of illegal production worldwide. Eighty% of the heroin produced from Afghan opium was sold on the streets of Europe and about 20% went to the United States.

Since the ban, production has stopped, said Sandro Tucci, a spokesman for the U.N. Drug Control Program in Vienna.

"We are 100% convinced that the poppies have been eliminated," Tucci told The Associated Press Wednesday in a telephone interview.

Tucci said the foreign inspectors also want to see the ban's effects on farmers and poor laborers who used to collect the sap by slitting open the pods.

Afghanistan's farmers are destitute because of the war and drought, having lost most of their crops and much of their livestock. Poppies were one of their few cash crops.

Farmers could sell a kilogram, or 2.2 pounds, of fresh opium for about $30 last year, a U.S. State Department report said in December. It takes about 10 kilograms of raw opium to make one kilogram of heroin.

No alternative crop was given to the farmers, and they have received virtually no international assistance. Lack of funds forced the U.N. Drug Control Program to shut down in eastern Nangarhar province last year.

"We did not give them an adequate alternative. We expect this will cause additional humanitarian problems in Afghanistan," Tucci said.

While U.S. government officials have been barred from Afghanistan since 1998 because of security concerns, the anti-narcotics mission is the second foray into the country by Americans in recent weeks.

Last week U.S. officials went on a humanitarian mission to parts of western and northern Afghanistan to see firsthand the plight of millions of Afghans driven from their homes by drought and war.

The United States is a leading proponent of sanctions against Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to press it to hand over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden for trial.

But Tucci said the United States was also one of the first countries to respond to UNDCP warnings of a "looming catastrophe" for Afghans deprived of opium income.

------

USA Today
04/25/01
States
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Iowa

Ottumwa - Many drug dealers are being arrested because stores are turning them in for buying ingredients to make methamphetamine. As a result of an alliance between Southern Iowa retailers and drug task force teams, about half of all area meth busts now originate as tips from store clerks. Just buying the ingredients is a felony.

Vermont

Essex Junction - A student journalist at Essex High School is grabbing some headlines with a story about two classmates who are struggling with heroin. Senior Carrie Baker didn't use the girls' names. The principal wants to know whether the girls need help but says he doesn't want to pressure Baker into revealing their names.

-------- europe

Conservatives oppose European defense force

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
4/25/01
David R. Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010425-88105092.htm

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was "hoodwinked" into supporting a European defense force that has the potential to create serious strains within the NATO alliance, the top foreign policy spokesman for Britain´s opposition Conservative Party said in an interview.

Francis Maude, the shadow foreign minister for the Conservatives, said the Labor government of Mr. Blair "genuinely thinks it can have it both ways -- taking the lead on a separate European defense force while preserving the trans-Atlantic tie."

"But the devil is in the details, and we have seen some very worrying things in the details that have already come out," Mr. Maude said.

The Conservative lawmaker was in Washington this week for meetings with top officials of the Bush administration, who have supported -- with reservations -- a French-led proposal for a European Union-organized force that could carry out missions that the United States and the NATO alliance as a whole have declined to undertake.

Because of its long-standing "special relationship" with the United States, Britain´s participation in the European defense force has constantly been cited by backers as proof that the idea is not anti-American.

Mr. Maude said his party did not oppose the idea in principle, but he argued that recent proposals for a separate military planning staff and training regimen have exposed the force´s potential to divide the EU from the United States.

He said that NATO´s deputy commander -- by tradition a European officer -- would be the logical choice to head such a force if it were truly integrated into NATO. Instead, plans now call for an independent European commander for the force.

"We feel that the agenda here is to gradually turn the EU into a competing superpower to the United States," Mr. Maude said in an interview Monday afternoon.

"We find the whole impulse here very dangerous," he added. "We don´t see Europe as a competitor to America. We like to think we´re on the same side."

Polls suggest Mr. Maude´s Conservatives face an uphill battle in unseating the Labor government, with Mr. Blair widely expected to call a general election in early June. The prime minister enjoyed a close personal and ideological relationship with former President Bill Clinton, and he has attempted to create comparably close ties with President Bush.

Mr. Maude said he did not expect foreign policy issues to play a major role in the upcoming elections, but noted that the Conservatives´ more Euro-skeptic stance is one area where the party enjoys strong popular backing.

-------- korea

North Korea vows anti-U.S. struggle

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
4/25/01
World Scene
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010425-67166301.htm

SEOUL -- North Korea´s 1.1 million-strong military vowed yesterday to stage an "all-out struggle against U.S. imperialists, " saying Washington is preparing for another war against Pyongyang.

"The provocative policy of the new U.S. administration is reversing the inter-Korean reconciliation to a state of confrontation," said Kim Yong-chun, chief of the general staff of the People´s Army.

"It is the invariable strategy of the United States to stifle the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea by means of war and invade and dominate Asia, taking the whole of Korea as a springboard," he said in a speech at a ceremony to mark the 69th founding anniversary of the army.

-------- puerto rico

Governor of Puerto Rico Sues to Block Navy Training Exercise

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/national/25VIEQ.html

SAN JUAN, P.R., April 24 - Gov. Sila M. Calderón of Puerto Rico filed a federal lawsuit in Washington today to block a Navy training exercise that is scheduled to begin on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques as early as Friday.

Governor Calderón also signed into law a Noise Prohibition Act that is intended to outlaw Navy shelling by setting a maximum noise level of 190 decibels, and she wrote to the White House and the Pentagon asking that the planned maneuvers be put on hold.

Ms. Calderón said that if she did not receive a favorable response, she would seek a temporary restraining order against the Navy on Wednesday.

"The legal actions that my administration takes today respond directly to the need to use all the resources permitted me under law to fulfill my primary responsibility: to safeguard the health and security of all Puerto Ricans," Ms. Calderón said.

The United States has used Vieques, a 33,000-acre island off eastern Puerto Rico, as a bombing range for more than 50 years. The death of a civilian security guard in a botched bombing run two years ago set off continuing protests.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court, seeks to force the Navy to comply with the new noise-limit law and the 1972 Federal Noise Control Act, which gives states authority to control noise levels.

But under the federal law, the Navy could seek a waiver from the White House.

Ms. Calderón declined to say what the Puerto Rican government would do if the Navy was granted a waiver by President Bush.

"I am not going to speculate about what the Navy can and will do," the governor said. "We are doing everything we can, using all our legal resources."

Ms. Calderón said Pentagon officials promised her in February that training on Vieques would not resume until a federal review of studies on the health impact to Vieques residents are completed. She issued a study last week saying the bombing put the island's children at risk of developing coronary disease.

At a briefing in Washington today, an Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, said Defense Department lawyers would review the new noise ordinance. But Admiral Quigley said the Pentagon planned to go ahead with the training scheduled to begin this weekend by a Navy battle group.

"Our intentions are to train starting as early as the 27th," he said.

Admiral Quigley said military officials and Puerto Rican law enforcement officials had agreed on a plan to handle threatened protests intended to halt the exercise. He declined to elaborate, except to say that local law enforcement would play a role, as it has during previous protests.

---

Judge to Consider Vieques Bombing

Associated Press
April 25, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Navy-Vieques.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A last-minute exchange of court documents prompted a federal judge Wednesday to delay ruling on a request to stop the U.S. Navy from resuming bombing exercises on Puerto Rico's Vieques Island.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler also wanted more time to examine a ruling by another federal judge in Puerto Rico who denied a similar injunction request in a lawsuit filed on the island.

Puerto Rican officials had filed a lawsuit asking Kessler to issue a temporary injunction against the shelling of a naval training ground located on Vieques.

The Justice Department and the Puerto Rican government spent Wednesday filing responses to court motions. Among those motions was a request by the Justice Department to transfer the case to U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, where there are citizens' lawsuits pending.

Kessler said she would decide Thursday whether to transfer the case, a normally easy decision that ``is not so straightforward in this case.''

Puerto Rican researchers have linked naval gunfire, along with pollutants released during military exercises, to heart disease and other health problems among some Vieques residents.

Puerto Rican Gov. Sila Calderon said the lawsuit filed Tuesday was prompted not only by fears for the well-being of the people of Vieques but for ``the health and security of all Puerto Ricans.'' The Navy had announced plans to resume training exercises on the island Friday.

Puerto Rico filed the complaint immediately after Calderon signed legislation banning loud noises along the island's shores. The new law cites the U.S. Noise Control Act of 1972, which allows states -- or, as in Puerto Rico's case, U.S. territories -- to set noise-control laws.

The Justice Department asked the court to deny the motion, saying the law cannot be applied to noises produced by military weapons and arguing that the United States doesn't have to adhere to it because it singles out noise produced by the Navy.

``The act was designed solely to stop the United States military training at Vieques,'' said John Cruden, acting assistant attorney general, in a motion filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court here.

The plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are the Navy, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, acting Navy Secretary Robert Pirie and Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations.

According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government broke a pledge to withhold bombing drills until the Department of Health and Human Services could complete reviews of medical studies conducted by Puerto Rican researchers.

Pirie's predecessor, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, made the promise to Calderon in January, and Rumsfeld reaffirmed the commitment during a meeting with her in March, the lawsuit said.

But the Navy, it said, ``apparently impatient that the study had not been completed,'' contracted the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health to complete a ``quicker analysis'' of the research.

Weeks later, the Navy announced its plans to resume bombing drills as early as Friday.

The Navy owns two-thirds of Vieques, and the bombing range covers 900 acres on the island's eastern tip. Bombing has been suspended since March on the eastern part of Vieques.

A group of Vieques residents led by the Roman Catholic bishop of Caguas, Ruben Gonzalez Medina, plan to deliver a letter to Pope John Paul II this weekend asking him to appeal to President Bush to end the naval training on Vieques.

Statements by ex-President Clinton, secretaries of Defense, Navy on suspension agreement: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/facilities/vieques/

Puerto Rico Web site: http://welcome.topuertorico.org/government.shtml
Vieques island Web site: http://welcome.topuertorico.org/city/vieques.shtml

---

Judge considers stopping bombing on Vieques

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 12:08 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-04-25-navy.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge scheduled a hearing Wednesday to consider a request to stop the Navy from holding bombing exercises this week on Puerto Rico's Vieques island.

The injunction request was filed in U.S. District Court by Puerto Rican Gov. Sila Calderon, who said concern for "the health and security of all Puerto Ricans" forced her to take the action.

The request was to be heard by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler.

Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance, a Pentagon spokesman, said he could not comment on the matter until the litigation was resolved.

On Tuesday, Calderon filed a lawsuit to stop the bombing exercises, naming as plaintiffs the Navy, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, acting Navy Secretary Robert Pirie and Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations.

Navy spokesman Jeff Gordon called the motion "a grave development in the relationship between the U.S. Navy and the commonwealth government." He expressed confidence that the naval training on Vieques poses "no health or safety risk to the civilian population on the island."

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. Craig Quigley said the Navy plans to resume its training exercises Friday on Vieques. He said he did not know what the Defense Department would do if an injunction were issued.

"We'll have to see what the final language of the legislation says and have our lawyers take a look at it and see what their advice is," Quigley said Tuesday at a news briefing.

Opposition to the Navy's use of Vieques erupted after a jet dropped two errant bombs in 1999, killing a civilian Puerto Rican guard.

The Navy owns two-thirds of Vieques and the bombing range covers 900 acres on the island's eastern tip. Bombing on the eastern part of Vieques has been suspended since March.

The U.S. military says the range offers an isolated environment where the Navy can practice amphibious invasions, ship-to-shore and air-to-shore shelling.

Calderon said she asked President Bush and Rumsfeld to permanently end the Navy exercises on Vieques.

-------- space

Russia Wins Fight to Be First Space Travel Agent

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By WARREN E. LEARY
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/science/25NASA.html

WASHINGTON, April 24 - The partners building the International Space Station agreed today to allow an American millionaire to visit the station as the first space tourist, but only if his activities and those of the resident crew were restricted.

The 18 nations building the station, represented by the space agencies of the United States, Russia, Europe, Canada and Japan, signed an agreement exempting the American, Dennis Tito, from current guidelines that do not allow for nonastronauts to visit the station.

The agreement, reached after weeks of negotiations between Russia, which had unilaterally approved Mr. Tito's trip, and the rest of the partners, ends an often-acrimonious debate over who controls access to the station.

Mr. Tito, 60, a former NASA engineer who is now chief executive of Wilshire Associates, a financial consulting firm based in Santa Monica, Calif., has agreed to pay the financially pressed Russian Aviation and Space Agency up to $20 million to fulfill a lifelong dream of going into space.

A Soyuz spacecraft carrying Mr. Tito and two Russian astronauts is scheduled to lift off on Saturday from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on the 10-day flight. The mission is to replace a Soyuz lifeboat craft on the station with a fresh ship, which will have the visitors staying aboard the station for six days before returning to Earth in the old craft.

To be approved for the flight, Mr. Tito signed an agreement last week to pay for anything he might damage or break during the mission, and agreed to legal provisions that he and his heirs would "hold harmless" the space station partners for anything that happens during the flight, including his injury or death.

In agreeing to allow the visit by Mr. Tito, managers of the $60 billion space station project adopted many of the restrictions recommended by a National Aeronautics and Space Administration task force headed by Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, a former astronaut who is retired from the Air Force.

Concerns about safety and the possibility that Mr. Tito's presence will distract the three-member station crew require special restrictions during the visit, General Stafford said in a conference call with his panel today.

"There is no doubt that this will have an impact on the activities up there," he said.

General Stafford's group recommended that Mr. Tito receive a special, detailed safety briefing upon arrival on the station and that he not be allowed in the American portions of the research outpost without being escorted by one of the crew.

The panel also called for Mr. Tito to sleep in or near the Soyuz spacecraft in case an emergency arose when the crew was asleep. "It should be made clear to Mr. Tito that his activities are limited to the Russian modules, due to his lack of adequate training on the U.S. modules," General Stafford said.

Mr. Tito has trained in Russia for about eight months for his flight, originally planned for the aging Mir space station, which was deliberately destroyed last month to prevent an uncontrolled crash to earth. Russian experts certified that their paying crewman was well trained on the Soyuz and the Russian hardware that makes up about half of the existing station.

But when the Soyuz crew went to the Johnson Space Center in Houston last month for training on American equipment, NASA officials refused to let Mr. Tito participate after he declined to agree to many of the conditions approved in today's agreement. His Russian crewmates, the mission commander Taigat Musabayev and the flight engineer Yuri Baturin, boycotted the training for one day as a protest but returned and completed the course without Mr. Tito.

General Stafford said the Russian space agency must guarantee to all of the partners "that it is fully liable for the flying of Mr. Tito and that in the future this type of unilateral decision will never happen again."

In response to the visit, the panel recommended that the station crew restrict many of its scheduled activities, including shakedown exercises of the giant robotic arm being installed this week by the crew of the shuttle Endeavour.

The space station crew, which has served one month of a planned four- month tour, comprises Yury V. Usachev, the Russian commander, and two Americans, Col. Susan B. Helms of the Air Force and James S. Voss, a retired Air Force colonel. The crew indicated earlier that it would not mind having a visitor aboard.

Dr. Michael A. Greenfield, NASA's safety administrator and a member of the Stafford group, said there were concerns about how much training Mr. Tito got in Russia and how a nonprofessional might react in a true emergency. Michael Hawes, NASA's deputy associate administrator for the station project, said in another telephone news conference that some of the work restrictions might be lifted during Mr. Tito's stay if the crew and ground controllers determined that his presence was not too disruptive.

The space station partners have not estimated how much work could be lost because of a work slowdown or its financial cost to the project, Mr. Hawes said. Mr. Tito's agreement is solely with the Russians, he said, and at no point in the latest talks did the issue of sharing profits with the other partners come up.

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

China and the U.N.

New York Times
April 25, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/opinion/L25CHIN.html

To the Editor:

In "Of Human Wrongs" (column, April 23), William Safire does not mention that the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the 53-nation group that declined to consider a United States resolution criticizing China's human rights record, passed resolutions condemning human rights violations in Cuba and Russia. In fact, the China resolution was the only "country resolution" that wasn't taken up and passed by the commission.

Without co-sponsors, the American effort was seen as just another dispute in an already fractious relationship between Washington and Beijing, an argument over "American values" versus "Asian values," not a question of whether or not international standards are being violated.

As a member of the United Nations, Israel could have co-sponsored the China resolution and used its influence to help pass it. It joined all of America's other "unwavering" allies in declining to do so.

JOHN KAMM San Francisco, April 23, 2001 The writer is executive director of the Dui Hua Foundation, a human rights group focused on China.

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

Bob Kerrey Reveals His Role in Deaths of Vietnam Civilians

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By AMY WALDMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/nyregion/25CND-KERREY.html

Bob Kerrey, a former United States senator who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his military service in Vietnam, has acknowledged that a combat mission he led there three decades ago caused the deaths of 13 to 20 unarmed civilians, most of them women and children.

Days before an investigation of his role in the incident was to be published in The New York Times Magazine, Mr. Kerrey began describing his version of the events in interviews with other newspapers and television networks today.

He first spoke publicly about the incident - which occurred on Feb. 25, 1969, in the Mekong Delta - in a speech a week ago at the Virginia Military Institute.

"I have been haunted by it for 32 years," he said in his April 18 speech .

The magazine investigation was carried out jointly with "60 Minutes II," the CBS News program. After Mr. Kerrey began granting other interviews on the incident, The Times's posted the article - which is the cover story of this Sunday's magazine - this afternoon on its Web site (www.nytimes.com). CBS plans to show its report on Tuesday.

During the course of an investigation that lasted more than two years, Mr. Kerrey, 57, who is now the president of New School University in Manhattan, granted three lengthy interviews to Gregory L. Vistica, the writer of the magazine article, in addition to several dinners and shorter conversations by telephone and e-mail.

Mr. Vistica also contacted the other six members of the squad of Navy SEALs that Mr. Kerrey led on a mission into Vietcong territory in 1969. Three refused to discuss the events of that night in any detail. One provided an account that differed from Mr. Kerrey's on some respects, but over time has come into line with his.

A third member of the squad offered a starkly different version of events, under which Mr. Kerrey ordered the killing of the civilians because he felt it was the only way for his men to retreat safely.

Mr. Vistica, a former reporter for Newsweek magazine, had originally begun reporting the story for Newsweek, which decided not to publish it after Mr. Kerrey decided not to run for president in 2000. Mr. Vistica did more than a year of additional reporting before The Times Magazine published the story.

In television interviews today, Mr. Kerrey was more emphatic in denying that his unit knowingly killed women and children than he had been in the interviews with The Times over the last two years. In one interview broadcast tonight, he described the incident as "a firefight."

As reports about the incident begin circulating today, the reaction from two of Mr. Kerrey's former Senate colleagues who also served in Vietnam was one of sympathy and understanding.

Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, told C.N.N.: "My heart goes out to Bob Kerrey at this moment. All of us involved in wars do things we're proud of and things we're not so proud of."

On the Senate floor this afternoon, Senator John Kerry , a Democrat from Massachusetts, offered his public support to Mr. Kerrey.

"He obviously feels anguish and pain about those events," Senator Kerry said. "I don't feel they should diminish for one moment the full measure of what he gave to this country."

Although Mr. Kerrey's public discussion of what happened was described as a single incident, The Times Magazine article examines the killing of two different groups of civilians that night.

At the time, Mr. Kerrey was a 25-year-old lieutenant who had arrived in Vietnam only a month earlier. On Feb. 25, 1969, he led a group of six Navy Seals - known as "Kerrey's Raiders" - on a mission to capture a Vietcong leader who was supposed to be having a meeting in the area that night.

On a moonless night, the squad was dropped off by boat. They moved in, and encountered a hooch, or thatch hut. Mr. Kerrey says those inside were killed by his men, but he did not know who they were and did not participate. Two other members of his unit say at least some women were present, and one says there were children. Both say Mr. Kerrey helped kill one of the men.

The squad then moved on, and encountered another set of hooches. Here, Mr. Kerrey says, they came under fire, and returned it - then discovered that the dead were all women and children.

"The thing that I will remember until the day I die is walking in and finding, I don't know, 14 or so, I don't even know what the number was, women and children who were dead," he told The Times Magazine.

But another member of the squad, Gerhard Klann, said the Seals rounded up women and children from the edges of the hooches, then debated what to do with them. Feeling they could not safely escape either by releasing them or taking them prisoner, they opened fire on them after Mr. Kerrey gave the order, Mr. Klann said.

As part of the investigation by CBS and The Times, a cameraman for "60 Minutes II" returned to the village to interview residents. A Vietnamese woman who said she was a witness to the events of that night, and two people who said they were relatives of the civilians killed gave accounts consistent with Mr. Klann's version of events. .

Another member of the squad, Mike Ambrose, told The Times Magazine that he strongly disagrees with Mr. Klann's memory of events.

In The Times Magazine article, Mr. Kerrey concedes that his memory, across three decades, may be faulty. But he said in an interview today with The New York Times that he had talked to all of the men in his squad, and only Mr. Klann has a sharply different memory than him of what occurred.

Still, Mr. Kerrey said, "I don't begrudge Gerhard his memory." He added, "Mine's bad enough."

And all of the men, he said, agree on certain significant facts - that it was a free fire zone, that the enemy was operating in the area, and that "there was every reason to believe that the people who died were Vietcong sympathizers at least."

He added: "Some in my squad feel I've gone soft for even being haunted by this, but I am."

After the incident, the commander of Mr. Kerrey's squad reported that the Seals had killed 21 Vietcong. At least one villager, an elderly man, complained to American military officials about the killings, but there was only a minimal investigation, according to the magazine article.

Mr. Kerrey was awarded a Bronze Star for the mission; the citation also refers to the killing of 21 Vietcong. But Mr. Kerrey has seldom talked about that honor, and his most recent official biography does not mention the award. Mr. Ambrose told the Omaha World-Herald that he was unaware Mr. Kerrey had earned a Bronze Star for that night's events.

Less than a month later, on March 14, 1969, Mr. Kerrey led his Seals on another mission, and lost part of his right leg when a grenade exploded at his feet. In 1970, he was awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military commendation.

He spent months in a military hospital, and after his recovery he returned to Nebraska and opened a successful string of health clubs and restaurants. In 1982 he was elected governor of Nebraska, and in 1988 he was elected to the United States Senate.

He served two terms in the Senate before choosing not to run again last year. He was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992 and had contemplated running against Al Gore for the party's nomination for president in 2000, but decided against it.

His war experience, and the loss of his leg, have become an integral part of his political profile. He is routinely introduced as a hero.

He told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published today, "This is killing me. I'm tired of people describing me as a hero and holding this inside."

Mr. Kerrey said today in the interview with The Times that he was writing a book about his experience in Vietnam.And he said he would continue talking publicly about what happened in Thanh Phong. Two things, he said, made him feel it was right to continue speaking about the incident.

One was the reaction of his son and daughter - who are just about the age he was when he went to Vietnam. He said they told him, "We still love you."

"Mercy is a powerful thing to give another person," he said. "Love can be healing."

The other thing, he said, was the speech at the Virginia Military Institute to a group of R.O.T.C. cadets attending a leadership seminar. In that speech, he said of what transpired: "It was a not a military victory; it was a tragedy, and I had ordered it. How, I have anguished ever since, could I have made such a mistake? Though it could be justified militarily, I could never make my own peace with what happened that night."

The incident, he said, illustrated why military leaders needed to provide training not only in how to kill, but how to cope with killing.

"When contemplating war we must abandon euphemism and answer the question: does the cause justify sending young men out to kill other human beings?"

When he finished speaking, Mr. Kerrey received a standing ovation. Men his age, he said, came up to him to tell him they had had similar experiences.

He also said that while attending a conference last weekend at the United States Military Academy at West Point, discussed the incident at Thanh Phong with Gary Solis, who is a war crimes expert and teaches the rules of war at the academy.

"It's the first time I had read the rules of war," Mr. Kerrey said. "I certainly wasn't trained in them."

---

One Awful Night in Thanh Phong

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By GREGORY L. VISTICA
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/magazine/25KERREY.html

Senator Bob Kerrey's hands trembled slightly as he began to read six pages of documents that had just been handed to him. It was late 1998; the papers were nearly 30 years old. On the face of it, they were routine "after action" combat reports of the sort filed by the thousands during the Vietnam War. But Kerrey knew the pages held a personal secret -- of an event so traumatic that he says it once prompted fleeting thoughts of suicide.

Pulling the documents within inches of his eyes, he read intently about his time as a member of the Navy Seals and about a mission in 1969 that somehow went horribly wrong. As an inexperienced, 25-year-old lieutenant, Kerrey led a commando team on a raid of an isolated peasant hamlet called Thanh Phong in Vietnam's eastern Mekong Delta. While witnesses and official records give varying accounts of exactly what happened, one thing is certain: around midnight on Feb. 25, 1969, Kerrey and his men killed at least 13 unarmed women and children. The operation was brutal; for months afterward, Kerrey says, he feared going to sleep because of the terrible nightmares that haunted him.

The restless nights are mostly behind him now, his dreams about Vietnam more reflective. One of those, which he says recurs frequently, is about an uncle who disappeared in action during World War II. "In my dream I am about to leave for Vietnam," Kerrey wrote in an e-mail message last December. "He warns me that the greatest danger of war is not losing your life but the taking of others', and that human savagery is a very slippery slope."

Kerrey -- who left the Senate in January and is now president of the New School University in New York -- says he has spent the last three decades wondering if he could have done something different that night in Thanh Phong. "It's far more than guilt," he said that morning in 1998. "It's the shame. You can never, can never get away from it. It darkens your day. I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could happen to you, and I don't think it is. I think killing for your country can be a lot worse. Because that's the memory that haunts."

Kerrey laid the documents down. He was clearly unsettled not just by their contents but also by the realization that four members of his Seals team had already spoken about the mission. I had heard about Thanh Phong indirectly from one of those men, Gerhard Klann. Klann, the most experienced member of Kerrey's Seals squad, had been so disturbed by his memories of that night that he confided in a commander who, many years later, told the story to me. That in turn spurred the search for the documents. Those were found after a three-month examination of thousands of pages of classified and unclassified Seals reports and communiqués that had been boxed up since the war in the Navy's archives.

The after-action reports provided the first concrete evidence of the terrible events, which Kerrey had hardly addressed even in private conversation, and he reacted testily when asked about it. "There's a part of me that wants to say to you all the memories that I've got are my memories, and I'm not going to talk about them," he said. "We thought we were going over there to fight for the American people. We come back, we find out that the American people didn't want us to do it. And ever since that time we've been poked, prodded, bent, spindled, mutilated, and I don't like it. Part of living with the memory, some of those memories, is to forget them. I've got a right to say to you it's none of your damned business. I carry memories of what I did, and I survive and live based upon lots of differentm mechanisms."

This first meeting came at a complicated time for Kerrey, who was just days from announcing whether he would make a second run for the presidency and challenge Vice President Al Gore for the 2000 Democratic nomination. Handsome and charismatic, a crafty politician with a keen intellect, Kerrey was widely regarded as an attractive candidate. He was an outspoken Democrat with a strong appeal for independents. There was the glamour of his much-publicized love affair while governor of Nebraska with Debra Winger, the actress. And he was a war hero. Though he rarely wore it, he was a recipient of the Medal of Honor -- awarded to him after he lost part of a leg during his last mission in Vietnam.

Kerrey knew that a race against an incumbent like Gore would be an uphill, nasty struggle. It was mostly this fact, he said, and doubts about his commitment to wage such a difficult campaign, that persuaded him to drop out, which he did just before Christmas. A little more than a year later, he would startle even his friends by announcing that he would not seek a third term in the Senate, despite overwhelmingly favorable poll numbers.

In an interview in January, Kerrey said that his actions in Vietnam had no bearing on his decision to drop out of elective politics, presidential or otherwise. He said he left politics simply because he wanted to pursue other challenges -- particularly in education -- while he was still relatively young.

Over the last two and a half years, Kerrey has spoken at length in three separate interviews -- as well as in numerous telephone calls and several e-mail messages and over dinners -- about what happened in Thanh Phong. After his initial reluctance, he talked willingly, and at times almost confessionally, about the events of Feb. 25, 1969. He did so "not because a public accounting will help me," he wrote in the December e-mail message, "but because it just might help someone else."

It became clear as he talked that he was still wrestling with the events of that night, fighting the vagaries of memory to reconstruct what happened in Thanh Phong and what he could have done to prevent it. He has spoken to very few people about the incident. As this article's publication neared, he began to talk to others, and first spoke publicly about his version of it 11 days ago in a speech to cadets at the Virginia Military Institute. He says the men in his Seals team have only recently begun to discuss Thanh Phong with one another.

Kerrey says he isn't afraid to accept responsibility for the incident or to own up to his role in it. "The only motivating fear I have is that someday I will face my maker. The opinion of other human beings matters, but the less it motivates me the better." He is under no illusions about the repercussions. "It's going to be very interesting to see the reactions to the story. I mean, because basically you're talking about a man who killed innocent civilians."

In the winter of 1969, a couple of days after the New York Jets won the Super Bowl, a military plane lifted off from the sprawling North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado, Calif. Crammed inside were Kerrey and his gung-ho team, on their way to do battle in Vietnam.

Seals (the name stands for Sea-Air-Land units) commandos began as underwater demolition teams in the Second World War. During the Vietnam era, they evolved into special forces units, trained to operate behind enemy lines, collect intelligence and carry out assassinations. Officially, Kerrey's group was called Delta Platoon, Seals Team One, Fire Team Bravo. Unofficially, they would be dubbed Kerrey's Raiders, in honor of their enthusiastic commanding officer, who was ready to take on Hanoi, as he has said many times, with "a knife in my teeth." Only two of the men, Mike Ambrose and Gerhard Klann, had previous experience on Seals teams in Vietnam. The others -- William H. Tucker III, Gene Peterson, Rick Knepper, a medic named Lloyd Schreier and Kerrey himself -- were flying into the unknown.

Delta Platoon was assigned to the Navy's Task Force 115, based at Cam Ranh Bay and commanded by Capt. Roy Hoffmann, a favorite of Adm. Elmo Zumwalt Jr., the Navy's top man in Vietnam. Hoffmann was a cigar-chomping officer who brandished an M-16 assault rifle and wore a revolver when he visited troops in the field. "He was the classic body-count guy," Kerrey says. "Bunkers destroyed, hooches destroyed, sort of scorekeeper."

For several weeks, Kerrey and his team operated in the relatively safe environs of Cam Ranh Bay, the Navy's largest base in what was then South Vietnam, about midway up the coast. Then they began looking for a true war mission. They moved south to Cat Lo, a regional Navy command post where one of Hoffmann's senior deputies, Paul Connolly, would oversee their missions. The Navy kept a fleet of "swift boats" a few miles away, in the port of Vung Tau -- 50-foot, aluminum-skinned crafts equipped with two .50-caliber machine guns and twin 480-horsepower Detroit Diesels -- that moved Kerrey's squad on missions in the Mekong Delta.

Vung Tau was the stepping-off point for operations in the "Thanh Phu Secret Zone," a remote section of the Mekong Delta, about 75 miles southeast of Saigon. A lush, tropical region of palm and banana trees, rice paddies and mangrove swamps, it was considered among the most dangerous parts of Vietnam. Five of its eight villages -- including Thanh Phong -- were said to be under the control of the rebel Vietcong forces, according to David Marion, then an Army captain who occupied one of the more sensitive posts in the region.

Marion was the senior American military adviser to Tiet Lun Duc, who, as the Thanh Phu district chief, was the top Vietnamese official in the area. Duc, a 45-year-old military officer trained at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, arrived three months before Kerrey did, determined to drive out the Vietcong by almost any means. Marion says that Duc, whose predecessors had been far more relaxed, came in with the attitude " 'If you are my friend, you will do fine. You support me and the government of Vietnam, we get along O.K. You do not, you're Vietcong, you die.' And those were the rules."

Duc wasn't the only one who wanted to get tough with the Vietcong. In the summer of 1968, Hoffmann complained to his superiors in Pearl Harbor that the prevailing rules of engagement were too constrictive. "This was war," Hoffmann said in an interview last month. "This wasn't Sunday school." He made what he said was a pro forma request for looser rules, which was granted.

Previously, Hoffmann said, military personnel had not been permitted to fire unless they were fired upon. Under the new rules, he said, they could attack if they felt threatened. "I told them you not only have authority, I damned well expect action," Hoffmann recalled. "If there were men there and they didn't kill them or capture them, you'd hear from me."

Duc also re-established much of the Thanh Phu district as a "free-fire zone," which allowed combat pilots and Navy warships to attack any "targets of opportunity," including people and villages, without prior command authority. Peasants in free-fire zones were urged to relocate to government refugee centers, called "strategic hamlets." It was a difficult task, Marion said last month, because "they had been there for generations. They weren't going to leave, and basically they didn't care who was in charge." Those who didn't move to the strategic hamlets were labeled as Vietcong or as enemy sympathizers.

Typically, Navy seals undertook kidnap or assassination missions, looking to eliminate Vietcong leaders from among the local population. These were called "takeouts," Marion says, as in, "come out with me, or you die." Within weeks of Kerrey's arrival in Cat Lo, American and Vietnamese intelligence reported that the senior Vietcong leader in Thanh Phong, the "village secretary," was planning a meeting in the area. Effectively the mayor of the hamlet, the village secretary was a prime target, and Kerrey's squad began planning a "takeout" mission -- their first real action.

Thanh Phong was a village of between 75 and 150 people on the South China Sea. Too small to have a well-defined center, or even a school, it consisted of groups of four or five hooches -- the thatch huts peasants lived in -- strung out over about a third of a mile of shoreline. On Feb. 13, 1969, according to Seals after-action reports, Kerrey's team entered a section of Thanh Phong, searched two hooches and "interrogated 14 women and small children," looking for the village secretary. They departed on a swift boat the next day, then returned to the general area later that night only to abort because of a malfunctioning radio.

In interviews this year, Kerrey says he can't recall going to Thanh Phong that first time, about two weeks before the night of the killings. Yet the after-action reports from these two visits contain Kerrey's name, the date and the location. And in the 1998 conversation, Kerrey clearly recalled this earlier mission to Thanh Phong, when his Seals team found villagers "asleep with no men in the area." If the reports and Kerrey's first recollections are correct, then they must have had a pretty good idea of the situation they would face when they went back.

Kerrey's squad would not return until Feb. 25, when intelligence sources again indicated that the village secretary would be holding a meeting, this time with a Vietcong military leader. A day or two before the fatal mission, Kerrey says, he flew over Thanh Phong with a naval intelligence officer and saw no women or children.

On Feb. 25, the district chief, Tiet Lun Duc, issued a blunt warning to the area's villagers. This was in response to an atrocity, Marion says, in which two Vietcong were said to have thrown a grenade into a hooch at 2 a.m., killing a 5-year-old and wounding a number of others. Reading from an official daily log he kept while in Vietnam, Marion quotes Duc as saying: "We want people to be government of Vietnam. Come out with us, and we will take this area back. You who do not come out, we will consider you to be Vietcong. You are the enemy. You will die."

An exact reconstruction of the events surrounding Kerrey's mission that night, 32 years after the fact, may not be entirely possible. Memories can be vague, and the trauma of such an intense episode can cause the mind to block out or alter major details. "It's entirely possible that I'm blacking a lot of it out," Kerrey said in an interview this month. Even so, official Navy records, Army radio logs found at the National Archives and interviews with some of Kerrey's team members leave no doubt that sometime close to midnight on Feb. 25, 1969, the tiny hamlet of Thanh Phong was visited with terrible and indiscriminate killing by Fire Team Bravo.

There are starkly different versions of what happened on the raid. In Kerrey's, the killings were by and large carried out in self-defense. By his own admission, however, his memory is faulty. "Please understand," he said in an e-mail message last December, "that my memory of this event is clouded by the fog of the evening, age and desire."

Another version, given by Kerrey's most experienced commando, Gerhard Klann, is far more troubling. It is consistent with the accounts given in interviews with one Vietnamese woman who claims to have witnessed the whole tragedy and with two people who say they are relatives of the victims. The interviews in Vietnam were conducted by producers for "60 Minutes II."

Mike Ambrose, today an executive with a Texas deep-sea-diving firm, offers another account, one that alternately supports Kerrey and Klann (who now lives in Pennsylvania, where he works in a steel mill). None of the others on the team would speak in any detail about the incident. Gene Peterson, who is retired from the Los Angeles Police Department, where he was a detective, and Lloyd Schreier, who runs a ranch in eastern Oregon, said simply that they did nothing wrong. William Tucker, who works on a ground crew for American Airlines in Dallas, didn't want to talk, either. He did say that as they were leaving Thanh Phong on the swift boat after the killings, he turned to Kerrey and said, "I don't like this stuff." Kerrey, he says, replied, "I don't like it, either." Rick Knepper, who retired after 30 years with the Seals, also declined to comment, saying: "My time in Vietnam was too hard to talk about. Please leave me alone."

Kerrey says it was a moonless night when his raiders quietly took up positions on the shore not far from Thanh Phong. After being dropped off by swift boat, they sat motionless for a while, adjusting to the darkness and listening for possible enemy fighters. The blackness of the night gave them good cover.

As they moved out, Kerrey says, they followed their regular patrol routine. Ambrose, as "point man," went first, with Schreier, Kerrey and Klann close behind, followed by Knepper and Peterson. Tucker brought up the rear. They were armed with M-16 rifles, 9-millimeter side arms, knives, phosphorous grenades, disposable rocket launchers and a heavy machine gun that Klann carried, called a stoner.

They were closing in on the village when they came upon a hooch that hadn't shown up on their intelligence reports. Kerrey says he remembers Ambrose and Klann coming back to him and one of them saying, "We've got some men here, we have to take care of them."

In an interview this month, Kerrey, while taking responsibility for the killings, says he did not specifically order them. "Standard operating procedure was to dispose of the people we made contact with," he said. "Kill the people we made contact with, or we have to abort the mission." Kerrey said he viewed the Vietnamese, who he thought were men, as "security, as outposts. It does not work to merely bind and gag people, because they're going to get away." They used knives, Kerrey says, evidently to avoid betraying their presence with gunshots. Kerrey says he never saw who was inside the hooch and denies doing any of the killing himself. He also doesn't recall finding any weapons.

With the first hooch taken care of, the team then began moving along a dike that would take them into Thanh Phong. They crept along for about 15 minutes until they arrived at a group of four or five hooches, Kerrey says, identifiable only by the faint yellow light flickering inside.

At this point, Kerrey said in the 1998 interview, "we took fire from the target." An after-action report says the team "received several rounds from about 100 yards." Speaking this month, Kerrey said he couldn't be absolutely certain that shots were fired. "I don't know if it's noise," he said. "In fact, there is some dispute. Ambrose is certain we took fire." And in the fog of war, it's often hard to tell what is happening. "I was thinking there were a thousand guys over there," he said in January. "What do I know? The first thing I do is direct Knepper to return fire with a LAW," a disposable launcher designed to shoot rockets that pierce armor and explode. Then, Kerrey says, he gave the order for his men to open fire as they advanced on the hooches. Before the firing stopped, according to one of the Seals' after-action reports, the commandos had expended 1,200 rounds of ammunition.

The barrage lasted for only a few minutes as they made their way into the cluster of hooches. "The thing that I will remember until the day I die is walking in and finding, I don't know, 14 or so, I don't even know what the number was, women and children who were dead," Kerrey said in 1998. "I was expecting to find Vietcong soldiers with weapons, dead. Instead I found women and children." Sometime later, Kerrey says, they saw several people running away and took them out as well; according to one after-action report, there were seven killed. In the dark, they could not see if the dead were men or women.

It was not only a grisly scene but also a confusing one. It was no secret in Vietnam that hooches had earthen bunkers beneath them or nearby. At the first sign of trouble, the peasants would roll into the bunkers and hide. Often, they would just sleep in them.

Kerrey remembers finding the bodies in a group, though he doesn't know why they were clustered together. Maybe, he suggests, somebody had rounded them up. "Maybe there were guys in there that made them get into that position then got out themselves," Kerrey says. "But I don't know. It's significant that there are no men in the village. It's not a small item."

If Kerrey's story is accurate, then someone would have to have roused the women and children, gathered them into a group in the middle of the village, retreated to safety and then fired a few shots at Kerrey's squad. Another possibility is that upon hearing rifle fire the villagers did not dive into their bunkers -- as they were trained to do -- but for some reason ran into open ground and gathered together in a group.

In either case, it is hard to imagine that gunfire from 100 yards -- no matter how intense -- could kill every single member of a group of 14 or 15 people. Some would be expected to survive, particularly when the squad was shooting in the dark and in apparent panic.

But, as Kerrey says, memory is always a liar. That is what happened on Feb. 25, 1969, as he remembers it.

Gerhard Klann tells a much different story. Klann has long been haunted by memories of that night and confided in a former Seals captain in the 1980's in hopes of getting the killings off his chest. But Klann was reluctant to discuss the incident with me, ignoring two letters and numerous telephone calls over a period of about six months. After I drove out to his home in western Pennsylvania, however, he relented and began to tell his story, providing key information that helped to unearth the documents in the naval archives.

Klann, who immigrated to this country from Germany as a child, comes from a long line of German military men. He says he has come forward now to "cleanse my soul" of a deed that goes against his "moral fiber" as a soldier. He served with distinction in a 20-year Seals career and was among the first to be handpicked for an elite counterterrorism team known as Seal Team Six, which was established in 1980 while Americans were being held hostage in Iran.

Klann was known as a brawling, hard-drinking sort -- he was demoted once for fighting. (His former classification was later restored.) People who know him say they have never detected any animus for Kerrey, and he is repeatedly described by associates in positive terms, though two did mention alcohol. "He coped with the memory of that night with excessive drinking," says his former commanding officer, who adds, "I never saw alcohol interfere with Gerhard's duty."

In 1999 Klann was stopped by a trooper for alcohol-related reasons, which Klann says was an isolated incident following the death of a close friend. Klann objected vehemently to The Times's publishing this fact, which is in the public record. In anger, Klann said that if it was published, he would disavow his version of the Thanh Phong killings, despite his having described it in numerous interviews with The Times and with "60 Minutes II."

Klann's version of events in Thanh Phong was independently supported by an interview with a Vietnamese woman, Pham Tri Lanh, that was conducted by a "60 Minutes II" cameraman who was not familiar with Klann's account. Klann and Lanh -- who repeated her account in subsequent interviews with producers for "60 Minutes II" -- tell a story that agrees on the basic sequence of events and several of the critical details. The divergence from Kerrey's account begins with the first hooch, the one that hadn't shown up on the intelligence reports.

Klann says that at the first hooch -- where, in Kerrey's recollection, he was told there were only men -- were an older man, a woman about his age and three children under 12. Ambrose says that he saw an older man near the entrance and two women and two men inside. "I motioned for Klann to take him out," Ambrose says of the older man. Klann, in an interview with "60 Minutes II," says Kerrey gave the order to kill.

Klann says he grabbed the man, placed his hand over his mouth and took him away from the children so they couldn't see what he was about to do. "I stuck him here," he says, pointing to a spot just below his rib cage. "Then I did it again," pointing to his upper back. The man turned and grabbed Klann's forearm, the one with the knife, and pushed it away. "He wouldn't die. He kept moving, fighting back." Klann says he signaled for assistance and, as Ambrose watched, Kerrey came over and helped push the man to the ground. Kerrey put his knee on the man's chest, Klann says, as Klann drew his knife across his neck.

Klann says he doesn't remember exactly what happened next. He says that while he was taking out the man, some of the other squad members killed the rest -- the woman and the three children.

Kerrey, in all his interviews until this month, said he had no memory whatsoever of the killing of the old man. But when told about the recollections of Klann and Ambrose, Kerrey added to his account. He now says he remembers Klann having trouble with someone but insists he had no role in the violent death. "He was having difficulty killing one of the people that he was trying to kill."

Kerrey says he thinks he knows who came to Klann's assistance but refuses to "finger" him. "We were all near the first hooch, but I'm not killing these people. I'm 100 percent positive," Kerrey said in the interview this month. "I don't want to lay anything off on anybody. I'm a lieutenant in charge of this platoon, and I take responsibility."

Klann was adamant that it was Kerrey who held the old man down; and Ambrose, in an interview in 1998, was certain of it, too. But this month, Ambrose had second thoughts. "Maybe it was Bob," he now says.

As for the four others killed that night at the first hooch, Kerrey says that it was Klann and Ambrose who did the killing. The rest of the men "were back with me," he said in a telephone call this month. Ambrose refused to return repeated calls for comment on this aspect of Kerrey's account.

The Vietnamese woman, Pham Tri Lanh, says that she witnessed all the killings. Then 30 years old and the wife of a Vietcong fighter, she says that she quickly snuck up on the scene at the first hooch after hearing cries. "I was hiding behind a banana tree, and I saw them cut the man's neck, first here and then there," she says. "His head was still attached at the back." She says that she also saw the commandos kill what she remembers as a woman and three children with their knives.

Lanh says the man and woman were the grandparents of the three young children. A woman claiming to be a relative of these victims took the "60 Minutes II" producers to a graveyard where a man named Bui Van Vat, his wife, Luu Thi Canh, and, in three small graves, their grandchildren -- two girls and a boy -- are buried. The date on the adults' gravestones, which were erected 10 years after the fact, is Feb. 24, 1969. (There is no further evidence that these five were in fact killed by Kerrey's squad.)

When the killing in the first hooch was done, Ambrose says, "me, Klann and Bob talked. 'Do we abort or do we go on?' There was plenty of noise in the first location. I felt compromised." The noise, apparently, was the screaming of the victims. Ambrose says that he recommended turning back to the extraction point but was overruled by the other team members, who wanted to get the village secretary.

About 15 minutes later, the team arrived at the cluster of hooches. But here, again, Klann's and Kerrey's versions diverge markedly. Kerrey says that they were shot at and returned fire from a distance of 100 yards or more. But Klann says that the squad rounded up women and children from a group of hooches on the fringes of the village. Klann says that they questioned them about the whereabouts of the village secretary. A quick search of the hooches turned up nothing.

Klann says that the commandos were in a quandary over their captives. They were deep in enemy territory with 15 or so people they felt they could not take prisoner. Yet, if they let the people go, they might alert enemy soldiers. "Our chances would have been slim to none to get out alive," Klann says.

They debated their options, Klann says, and finally decided to "kill them and get out of there." Lanh, who had been checking to see that her children were safe, says she crept close enough to witness what happened next. Klann says that Kerrey gave the order and the team, standing between 6 and 10 feet away, started shooting -- raking the group with automatic-weapons fire for about 30 seconds. They heard moans, Klann says, and began firing again, for another 30 seconds.

There was one final cry, from a baby. "The baby was the last one alive," Klann says, fighting back tears. "There were blood and guts splattering everywhere." Klann does not recall the men firing at the people who, in Kerrey's memory and the after-action reports, tried to run away after the initial massacre.

Klann, a large man at 6-foot-2 and about 230 pounds, pauses a moment, once again reliving the night's events. Pointing to his heart, he says: "I have to live with this in here. I still can't get it out of my mind. I'd take it back if I could, everybody would."

While Klann's version accounts for why the women and children died in a group, it, too, suffers from inconsistencies. It is not clear, for example, why the squad thought that noisily gunning down 13 people in a settled area would improve their prospects of making their retreat undetected. It also isn't clear why, having questioned the villagers two weeks before, releasing them and retreating without incident, they this time felt that releasing the captives would pose a danger.

Klann provides one clue to the Seals team's thinking on the second point. The first time in Thanh Phong, they were just asking questions. On the second visit, they had already killed the people at the first hooch and may have been concerned about leaving witnesses who could place them in the vicinity that night. "We had already compromised ourselves by killing the other people," Klann says.

When asked in 1998 about Klann's account of the events of that night, Kerrey said, "It's not my recollection of how it happened." But, he added: "I'm not going to make this worse by questioning somebody else's memory of it. But you would operate independently in this kind of situation. I mean, it would not surprise me if things were going on away from my line of sight that were different than what I was doing."

When asked again earlier this month, and after reassessing his memories, Kerrey began to qualify his original story. "It's possible that a slight version of that happened," Kerrey says, responding to Klann's account. "It's possible that some additional firing occurred after the main firing. Yeah, that's possible. But, boy, it's not my memory of it."

(Later, after that interview and as we were departing, Kerrey attacked Klann's credibility. He said that Klann was angry that Kerrey hadn't helped him get a Medal of Honor for his mission in Iran. "It's every man for himself now," Kerrey said. Klann, who says he harbors no ill will, says Kerrey urged him this month not to talk about Thanh Phong. Kerrey denies it.)

Ambrose, in a recent interview, "wholeheartedly" denied Klann's contention that the team rounded up the villagers and slaughtered them. Though he says his memory of the night has dimmed, he remembers bursting into one of the hooches to find only women. When he left the hooch, he says he remembers that "we took a round somewhere near the back by Knepper and Peterson. Somebody yelled incoming. Once we received fire, we immediately fired."

Then, he says, things got out of hand. "It got ridiculous pretty much once the guns got going. I was in survival mode. It was dark, you're not seeing much but movement and shadows. You couldn't tell if they were women or men." He says they were shooting from 20 to 50 feet, and when they stopped, he realized the dead were women and children.

Once the squad had been extracted from Thanh Phong, says William Garlow, the swift boat's commander, he and one of the squad, possibly Kerrey, each radioed an after-action report to Connolly, their operational commander in Cat Lo. The message from Kerrey's squad made no mention of civilians, saying only that they had killed 21 Vietcong. This report was sent to Hoffmann and to various other commanders. Within a day of the mission, however, reports from villagers about "alleged atrocities" in Thanh Phong began to surface in the radio communications at Marion's Army headquarters, and Marion's office began a preliminary investigation.

Army radio logs found at the National Archives include a transmission from 8 p.m. on Feb. 27, 1969: "Be advised an old man from Thanh Phong presented himself to the district chief's headquarters with claims for retribution for alleged atrocities committed the night of 25 and 26 February 69. Thus far it appears 24 people were killed. 13 were women and children and one old man. 11 were unidentified and assumed to be VC. Navy Seals operating in the area. Investigation continues." This is just a message, not an official report, so the number of dead varies from other totals.

Connolly says he responded to Army inquiries that the killings were accidental, that Kerrey's team shot people who were running and that they couldn't tell gender or age in the darkness. Connolly says, however, that he never asked Kerrey about the killings. His response, he says, was based on conversations with various naval personnel, though he couldn't recall who.

By the time of the first Army messages about something dire happening in Thanh Phong, Kerrey and his Seals team were already hundreds of miles away. Garlow's boat had transferred them to the Coast Guard cutter PT Comfort, which whisked them out of the area and back up the coast to Hoffmann's headquarters.

Though Hoffmann sent reports about the incident to his bosses, he says he cannot recall anything about what happened or even that it occurred. His messages, however, generated an "attaboy" letter of congratulation to Kerrey's Raiders from a senior Navy officer. Apparently, the matter ended there, without further investigations. For the mission, the Navy awarded Kerrey a Bronze Star. "I certainly have never bragged that I won a Bronze Star on that evening," Kerrey says. "I don't feel like I did anything heroic that evening. Quite the contrary."

Nine months later, news broke about the slaughter of at least 350 innocent villagers at My Lai by forces under the command of Lt. William L. Calley Jr. Calley, who would ultimately be convicted of the premeditated murder of 22 unarmed civilians, was sentenced to life at hard labor but served only three years under house arrest at Fort Benning. My Lai was a watershed, an event that finally convinced great segments of the American public that the Vietnam War was immoral, if not unwinnable. And in February 1970, about a year after Thanh Phong, a five-man Marine patrol entered the hamlet of Son Thang, about 20 miles south of Danang, and killed 16 women and children. The marines were charged with murder and prosecuted. Two of the accused, including the leader, were acquitted; one was given immunity and two were convicted of murder. Neither served more than 10 months in jail.

Gary Solis, a war-crimes expert at the United States Military Academy at West Point who wrote a book on Son Thang, says that atrocities were more common in Vietnam than we knew. While there were 122 convictions for war crimes in Vietnam, he says, "In my opinion, war crimes occurred that were never reported."

Did Kerrey and his men commit crimes of war, or were they just applying the basic rules of a dirty war as best they understood them? "Let the other people judge whether or not what I did was militarily allowable or morally ethical or inside the rules of war," Kerrey says. "Let them figure that out. I mean, I can make a case that it was."

The Army's Field Manual is explicit. Though it is an Army instruction, it represents United States policy regarding the law of armed conflict and is applicable to all the services. According to the manual: "A commander may not put his prisoners to death because their presence retards his movements or diminishes his power of resistance by necessitating a large guard, or by reason of their consuming supplies, or because it appears certain that they will regain their liberty through the impending success of their forces. It is likewise unlawful for a commander to kill his prisoners on grounds of self-preservation, even in the case of airborne or commando operations, although the circumstances of the operation may make necessary rigorous supervision of and restraint upon the movement of prisoners of war."

While there may be some room for interpretation in the policy, Walter Rockler, a semiretired lawyer in Washington who was a prosecutor at Nuremberg, says, "The basic rule is that in enemy territory you don't kill civilians, particularly unarmed civilians."

Kerrey insists that no matter what version is correct, his squad's actions would have been permitted under the rules then in effect. "Under the unwritten rules of Vietnam, we would have been justified had we not been fired upon," he said in 1998. "You were authorized to kill if you thought that it would be better. If you thought it would be better to bring them out, you were authorized to bring them out." This month Kerrey said flatly, "We were instructed not to take prisoners."

"Standard operating procedure" was widely understood to mean that, in a free-fire zone, any man was considered a "target of opportunity" and could be killed. Yet, there were other considerations. "It was quite clear what he wanted," Kerrey says of his commanding officer, Hoffmann. "He wanted hooches destroyed and people killed." Hoffmann agrees but says he never intended for his men to kill innocent women or children. But in Vietnam, he adds, it was hard to distinguish between guerrillas and noncombatants. Kerrey underscores that point. "There are people on the wall," he says, referring to the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, which lists the names of all the Americans who died in Vietnam, "because they didn't realize a woman or a child could be carrying a gun."

Kerrey has spoken generally about the practical problems officers face in these situations. The commander's first consideration, he said, is the safety of his men. "With seven men operating, one goes down and you've got two carrying him," he says. "It doesn't take much in the way of casualties to put you in considerable risk of losing everybody."

Several officers, even some under Hoffmann's command, said the rules then in effect allowed for too much violence. William Garlow says he and his fellow swift-boat commanders were ordered to shoot up villages almost at random. "We burned their hooches and killed their livestock," he says. Even one of Hoffmann's senior commanders in Cat Lo says the killing became indiscriminate. "I hated it," says the former officer, who requested anonymity.

Clearly, the official rules of war were abstract for a terrified Seals squad operating in the anarchy of the Vietnam War. We "were given a hell of a lot more latitude than we should have been. . . . " Kerrey said in 1998. "It was generally believed that you did what you had to do to protect your men. We were basically writing the rules as we went. My hope going in was that everything was fair game. Going out I did not believe that."

Bob Kerrey was a more cautious commander when he went on his next big operation. On March 14, 1969, Kerrey's Raiders were sent on another abduction mission, this time to snatch a small group of Vietcong on Hon Tam Island in Cam Ranh Bay. Kerrey says he had already decided that anybody they came upon would be taken prisoner. After scaling a 350-foot, near-vertical cliff, the men prepared their attack. But things went wrong almost from the start, partly because of Kerrey's determination to avoid a situation in which he would have to choose between killing and taking prisoners. Eventually the Vietcong realized the Seals were closing in and opened fire. In the ensuing intense battle, a grenade exploded at Kerrey's feet.

Lloyd Schreier, the Seals medic, dressed Kerrey's wounds as best he could and pumped him full of morphine. Kerrey was then flown by helicopter to the 26th Field Hospital at Cam Ranh Bay, then on to a Navy hospital in Philadelphia.

When Bob Kerrey awoke from surgery, he saw his mother and father sitting at the end of the bed. The surgeons had removed the lower part of his right leg below the knee. Kerrey had joined the Navy Seals, an elite corps that required irrefutable physical strength. Now he was disabled, physically and emotionally. And he was lost, confused and angry at his country.

He told the excruciating story of Thanh Phong to his mother, then to a minister and, later, to his first wife. His mother cried as she held her son, telling him that he would be O.K. And he would be, eventually. Yet, "I cannot be what I once was," he says. "Carefree, no nightmares, no pain, no remorse, no regrets, feeling in church like God was smiling warmly down upon me as if I was the most special thing on earth. That's what it was before, and that's not the way it is now."

When Kerrey learned that he would be awarded the Medal of Honor, he says he had severe doubts about accepting it. He didn't think he deserved it, he says, and he felt like a pawn in Nixon's war. "The medal was given to me within days of the invasion of Cambodia. . . . I felt like I was being used, . . . flagged. You know, to take the edge off the horrible experiences." But he accepted it, he says, for the sake of all members of the Seals.

After recovering from his wounds, he drifted for a bit in California, taking courses at Berkeley. Within a year he was home in Nebraska, getting involved in antiwar protests. He married, had two children, tried his hand at the restaurant business and, later, opened a health club. Before long he was a wealthy man. Then he surprised most everyone by running for governor of Nebraska. In 1982, as a political novice who supported gay rights in conservative Nebraska, he narrowly beat the incumbent, Gov. Charles Thone. But in 1985, with his poll numbers above 70 percent, he decided to step down after one term.

He returned to California and assisted Walter Capps, a fellow Nebraskan who was teaching a course on the Vietnam War at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The course became a gathering place where prominent veterans would come to talk about the war. Kerrey was still bitter about Vietnam and haunted by Thanh Phong. In a speech Kerrey gave to the class that was later published in a book that Capps edited, Kerrey compared life on the farm to his actions in Vietnam. "Around the farm, there is an activity that no one likes to do. Yet it is sometimes necessary. When a cat gives birth to kittens that aren't needed, the kittens must be destroyed. And there is a moment when you are holding the kitten under the water when you know that if you bring that kitten back above the water it will live, and if you don't bring it back above in that instant the kitten will be dead. This, for me, is a perfect metaphor for those dreadful moments in war when you do not quite do what you previously thought you would do."

In Santa Barbara Kerrey made another spur-of-the-moment decision, this time to run for the U.S. Senate from Nebraska. The incumbent had died, leaving the seat open to challenge in November 1988. Kerrey put together a series of patriotic, Reagan-style, morning-in-America-type commercials and stuck to positive themes. He won easily.

In the Senate, Kerrey had a reputation as a maverick whom few of his colleagues truly understood. For his entire political career, he held his secret. In his Capitol Hill office, he kept an easel where he sometimes made collages using newspaper pictures of people in agony. He wrote poetry and painted in watercolors. In the center of one landscape watercolor, Kerrey wrote in black marker the words of Emily Dickinson.

Remorse is Memory awake, Her companies astir, - A presence of departed acts At window and at door.

Its past set down before the soul, And lighted with a match, Perusal to facilitate Of its condensed despatch.

Remorse is cureless, -- the disease Not even God can heal; For 'tis His institution, -- The complement of Hell.

Gregory L. Vistica is the author of "Fall From Glory: The Men Who Sank the U.S. Navy" and was formerly the national security correspondent for Newsweek. He is co-producing a segment on Bob Kerrey and Thanh Phong for "60 Minutes II." The New York Times Magazine and "60 Minutes II" have coordinated reporting efforts on this story. "60 Minutes II" plans to air its segment May 1.

---

A Sexual Harassment Scandal Confronts the Marines

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By JAMES DAO
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/national/25MARI.html

FORT LEONARD WOOD, Mo., April 20 - When investigators arrested a Marine staff sergeant here last fall on charges of possessing child pornography, many of his fellow noncommissioned officers dismissed the incident as an isolated one involving a single bad marine.

But their easy calm has been shattered in the last week or so with the arrival of military criminal investigators who are looking into accusations that at least 19 NCO's were involved in misconduct that included assaulting and sexually harassing young Marine trainees at this sprawling base.

At the center of the inquiry is the marine arrested last fall, Staff Sgt. Howard W. Ross, 34, a divorced 16-year veteran of the corps who pleaded guilty at court-martial to having sexual intercourse with one female trainee, offering money to another to remove her clothes and dance for him, stealing from trainees and possessing child pornography. He has been sentenced to a year's confinement, has been reduced in rank to private and is likely to face additional charges.

Three sergeants who worked with Sergeant Ross are awaiting trial on charges that include assault, sexually harassing female marines, buying alcohol for under-age marines and being drunk on duty. Three others have left the corps under a cloud, while at least 12 have been reassigned to desk duty pending the outcome of the investigation.

Beyond tarnishing the Marines' carefully cultivated image as the most disciplined of the services, the case has focused renewed attention on the issues of sexual conflict and power in the military, where women remain a small minority in officer and enlisted ranks alike. That the corps largely escaped the kind of headline-grabbing sex scandals that afflicted other services in the last decade has made this inquiry no less wrenching.

"People expect us to be different," said Col. Walter E. Gaskin, who oversees the Marines' training programs. "So when we release these things to the public, we do so at the risk of looking like all the other services. But we're not. We're marines."

While Marine officials have described the misconduct at Fort Leonard Wood as very limited, however, the broad scope of the investigation - more than 400 marines have been interviewed in recent months - has caused some experts to see similarities to the scandal that gripped the Aberdeen Proving Ground five years ago.

At Aberdeen, an immense Army training base in Maryland, what initially appeared to be a case of one bad drill sergeant mushroomed into charges that as many as 10 male superiors had sexually preyed on dozens of women.

The number of noncommissioned officers who might have been involved in the misconduct here is "very disconcerting," said Christine Hansen, executive director of the Miles Foundation, which studies sexual violence in the armed services. "Some of the conditions that existed at Aberdeen exist at Fort Leonard Wood," she said.

Like the Army unit that experienced problems at Aberdeen, the Marine detachment at Fort Leonard Wood is somewhat geographically isolated and typically has a smaller proportion of women, 3 to 5 percent, than the service as a whole. Ms. Hansen said research had shown that sexual abuse or harassment was most common in military units with fewer women.

Marine officials bristle at the comparison, noting that no one at Fort Leonard Wood has been charged with rape, contrary to what occurred at Aberdeen, and that the majority of the accusations here involve male noncommissioned officers' fraternizing with male trainees at local bars.

"I don't want to minimize the sexual thing, but that is not the most disturbing thing that happened out there for us," Colonel Gaskin said, pointing instead to "a leadership failure" on the part of NCO's.

"They failed to exercise their positions of taking care of these marines," the colonel said, "of being role models."

The Marines remain the only service that keeps its basic training camps sexually segregated. But it has integrated its advanced training programs, as here at Fort Leonard Wood, an Army base in central Missouri where marines attend classes to prepare them for one of four military occupations: military police work, chemical weapons handling, engineering or truck driving.

It was in one team of the motor transport school, which trains 3,800 newly minted marines a year to handle five-ton trucks and Humvees, that all the problems occurred during a seven-month period last year, the corps says. (In a little-noticed episode in 1997, two Marine sergeants at the same motor transport school pleaded guilty to charges involving fraternization with trainees; one of those cases involved sex with a young Marine woman.)

As one of roughly seven noncommissioned officers who served as advisers and handlers for a team of 60 trainees, Sergeant Ross was authorized to enter barracks and meet with those trainees more frequently than even the instructors.

Though not the senior NCO in his unit, Sergeant Ross emerged as a forceful leader who encouraged a breakdown of discipline among his peers, Colonel Gaskin said. Investigators are now studying accusations that the group's senior enlisted marine, a master sergeant, ignored complaints about the misconduct, officials said.

The problems in the group, Team C, dated at least from last April and were publicly disclosed in October, when Sergeant Ross was arrested after buying child-pornography videotapes from federal investigators conducting a sting operation.

About the same time, a marine who had recently completed training at Fort Leonard Wood told her superiors at Camp Pendleton, Calif., that Sergeant Ross had harassed her by making sexually explicit comments to her. A few weeks later, a second Marine woman made similar accusations, prompting the Pentagon to open its wide-ranging inquiry.

The marines who were training in Team C during the seven months that the corps says the problems occurred have long since moved on. Several of the 12 women among the 365 Marine trainees now at the motor transport school said in interviews that they had not experienced or witnessed sexual harassment. But they complained of feeling isolated, or of receiving unwanted attention.

"You definitely get a lot of attention because of the low ratio of women," said Pfc. Heather Doyle, 21. "Every time I turn around, it's `Hey, Doyle. Over here, Doyle.' And some guys are always trying to help me. I have to say: `Hey, I'm a marine. I can do it myself.'"

For many Marine instructors at the base, the investigation has been nerve-racking and demoralizing.

"I wish it would just be finished so the students could be trained the way they should be," said Staff Sgt. Annette Jimenez, 31, one of seven women among the full-time staff of 138 at the motor transport school. "We feel we're being watched all the time."

Noncommissioned officers and trainees say they clearly understand the rules that prohibit officers and senior enlisted marines from socializing with, soliciting money from or making sexually explicit remarks to trainees. But they say those rules are easy to break in a place like St. Robert, the small town that borders the base and has streets lined with strip clubs, tattoo parlors and bars.

"Unless you go to St. Louis," said Staff Sgt. Robert Barnes, 33, "you can't avoid seeing students."

Several NCO's said some marines who had implicated instructors in interviews with the investigators might have been trying to get even with superiors who had given them poor evaluations.

"Some guys say it's just grudges against the instructors," said Sgt. Sergio Castillo, 23, an instructor in the motor transport school. "But you never know."

Others said female trainees had knowingly broken regulations by socializing with sergeants and so deserved some punishment themselves.

"I blame the students also," said Sergeant Jimenez, who knew the two women who filed the initial complaints and includes them among those she considers responsible. "Some of this was probably consensual. They should be held just as responsible as the men."

But Ms. Hansen, of the Miles Foundation, said such an outlook blamed the victim and failed to account for intense pressure on troops to obey their superiors, even if doing so involves sex.

"In the civilian community, your boss can make a request," she said. "In the military, it is an order."

---

Kerrey says squad killed civilians in Vietnam

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 02:25 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-04-25-kerrey.htm

OMAHA (AP) - Former senator and governor Bob Kerrey says he is haunted by a raid he led into enemy territory in Vietnam 32 years ago, in which only civilians - women, children and older men - were killed. Kerrey, who has not ruled out a run for president in 2004, received a Bronze Star for the Feb. 25, 1969, raid in the Mekong Delta. The award citation says 21 Viet Cong were killed and enemy weapons were captured or destroyed.

"The citation is different than what we reported" to military superiors, he told the Omaha World-Herald in an interview published Wednesday.

"I lived with this privately for 32 years," he said. "I felt it best to keep this memory private. I can't keep it private any more. My conscience tells me some good should come from this."

Kerrey talked about the raid publicly for the first time last week in a speech to ROTC students at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va. He said he decided to give his account after hearing that another member of his squad was offering a different version.

"I went out on a mission and after it was over I was so ashamed I wanted to die," Kerrey told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published Wednesday. "This is killing me. I'm tired of people describing me as a hero and holding this inside."

He received the Medal of Honor for a separate mission.

Kerrey ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992 and served two terms in the Senate after one term as governor. He is currently president of the New School University in New York.

Kerrey said the mission on which the civilians were killed took place on a moonless night. Shots were fired at his squad and his men returned fire.

"But when the fire stopped, we found that we had killed only women, children and older men. It was not a military victory. It was a tragedy and I had ordered it," Kerrey said in his ROTC speech.

Kerrey said he and the six squad members each have different memories of the night. He said another squad member has been saying they rounded up a bunch of people and shot them, which Kerrey emphatically denied.

Kerrey believes Viet Cong were likely firing upon his crew from behind the civilians, which would justify the killings from a military standpoint, but said he could not be at peace with it personally.

---

USA Today
04/25/01
States
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Indiana

Evansville - The Army Corps of Engineers ruled that large passenger boats no longer can moor on the riverfront, making Evansville the largest city in the Ohio River Valley not permitted to host boats such as the Delta Queen. Evansville officials are appealing the decision.

New York

Albany - The National Guard is being called in to help spruce up the grave of Chester Arthur, the nation's 21st president. Steps leading to the grave have tilted, and cracks are appearing between them. The grave is on a family plot and not entitled to federal money.

Oklahoma

Midwest City - Officials at Tinker Air Force Base will monitor six private wells near the base that state environmental officials found to be contaminated beyond federal limits. Tinker officials said they will provide water to affected homes that want it.

-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

Look to the Sun

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By DALE MAHARIDGE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/opinion/25MAHA.html

PETROLIA, Calif - As I write this, I can be assured of something most Californians could not: My computer won't flash off in a blackout. I'm at my home, using power from my own solar power system. I make all of my electricity and store it in batteries - enough to run lights, a computer, fax, power tools, a water pump.

The latest estimate is that California's failed experiment with deregulation will cost consumers $5 billion annually in increased rates. Watching the sun glint off my solar panels, I was moved to find out how many of them could be purchased for $1 billion. The answer is about one million 110 watt, 110 volt, utility-ready panels, the easiest kind for consumers to use. (My system uses five panels). At peak power output on a California summer afternoon - when blackouts are most likely to occur - those one million panels would produce about 100 megawatts of electricity.

What if California issued bonds now to buy solar panels, saving consumers from some of the six years of steep price increases they are expected to have to absorb? Raising $30 billion would purchase 30 million 110-watt solar panels. If the state then simply gave these panels to schools, businesses and homeowners, they would produce 3,000 megawatts - the output of three large coal-fired power plants.

It doesn't sound like much; California faces crisis when consumption goes over 40,000 megawatts. On 34 days last summer, usage exceeded that by several thousand. But with those extra 3,000 megawatts and reasonable conservation measures, like weatherizing and turning off lights after working hours, California would face no blackouts this summer. And the panels would produce power for 40 years with no coal or gas to purchase, little maintenance and no pollution.

Even if there were politicians willing to push for solar power, however, we couldn't put this plan into effect immediately. The total output of solar panels in the United States was only 77 megawatts in 1999, the latest year for which figures are available. And three-fourths of the panels we now make go overseas, mostly to Germany and Japan, which have aggressive solar power programs.

This is a situation where so-called big government is needed. If California announced it wanted to spend $30 billion on solar power, you can be sure manufacturers would gear up. And over time, the price of the panels would fall as the makers competed.

Rather than support the development of solar power, President Bush has proposed cutting funds for research on alternative energy. He's pushing coal and nuclear power. Implied in this policy is the notion that solar power is something exotic that doesn't really work. But it does work. If we rely solely on the free market to bring it to fruition, it could take decades for solar power to reach a level where it produces significant power. We can't wait that long.

Utilities argue that panels don't work at night. But they produce power in precisely the hours when air conditioners are roaring and the most power is consumed.

Even if we set aside the environmental argument for solar power, the economic one should be enough.

Dale Maharidge, visiting professor of us100communication at Stanford, won the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction in 1990.

-------- biological weapons

BIOLOGICAL-WEAPONS INSPECTIONS

New York Times
April 25, 2001
World Briefing
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25BRIE.html

THE WORLD: Nations that have ratified the 1972 convention on biological weapons were urged to break a six-year deadlock and set up a global inspection system. Tibor Toth of Hungary, chairman of the talks, submitted a compromise draft to help iron out divisive details, including the scope and intrusiveness of on-site inspections. Elizabeth Olson (NYT)

-------- environment

FOOT-AND-MOUTH IN HUMANS

New York Times
April 25, 2001
World Briefing
Warren Hoge
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25BRIE.html

BRITAIN:: The government is investigating three cases where humans may have contracted foot-and-mouth disease, but officials said the danger was no greater than that posed by mild flu. There has been only one confirmed case of human foot-and-mouth disease in Britain, in 1966. The news was a setback for tourism officials, who are concerned that visitors are staying away, confusing foot-and-mouth with mad cow disease, which clearly can be transmitted to humans and cause death. (NYT)

---

DEAL IN PCB CASE

New York Times
April 25, 2001
National Briefing
David Firestone
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/national/25BRFS.html

ALABAMA: Solutia Inc., formerly the chemical division of the Monsanto Company, agreed to pay $40 million to settle a lawsuit that accused it of knowingly allowing toxic PCB's to leak into the water supply of Anniston, Ala., for five decades ended in 1972. About 1,600 residents living near the company's chemical plant will receive an average of $12,000 each under the settlement, which was reached after several weeks of trial in federal court. Although the company did not admit fault, it agreed not only to those payments but also to others including $2.5 million to move several residents away from the plant and $3.5 million to a charitable foundation to help victims of PCB contamination. (NYT)

---

Nader, Updated: Still a Lightning Rod

New York Times
April 25, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/opinion/L25NADE.html

To the Editor:

Re "An Unrepentant Nader Sees a Positive Side of Bush Policy" (Public Lives column, April 23):

You report that Ralph Nader, the Green Party leader, thinks that the Bush administration's frightening environmental record is a positive thing, because it raised a "huge uproar" over environmental policy.

Let's examine this record: refusal to work toward reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, proposed cuts for energy efficiency and renewable energy, relentless pressure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and the withdrawal of a federal standard lowering the arsenic level in drinking water.

Would Mr. Nader assert that a Gore administration would have come anywhere near any of these proposals? They reveal as bogus Mr. Nader's assertion that there are few differences between the Democrats and the Republicans.

MIKE ALPERN Communications Director, Americans for Democratic Action Washington, April 23, 2001

•To the Editor:

Re "An Unrepentant Nader Sees a Positive Side of Bush Policy" (Public Lives column, April 23):

As a registered Republican who voted for Ralph Nader, I can say he didn't steal my vote from anybody, and I venture to guess that this holds true for the majority of Nader voters as well. It's the height of arrogance for Democrats to assert that Mr. Nader cost Al Gore the election. Mr. Gore lost because he couldn't defeat the weak Republican candidate.

Democrats and Republicans who voted for Mr. Nader did so because they thought that he was a better choice.

Third parties serve an important function in democracies. They force the major parties to be more responsive to minority dissenting opinions, and help keep the politicians of both parties on their toes. Fresh voices like Mr. Nader's keep democracy alive.

JAY QUICK Tucson, April 24, 2001

---

USA Today
04/25/01
States
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Missouri

Kansas City - A state insurance fund established to clean up pollution from leaking underground gasoline tanks is teetering on bankruptcy. As of the end of February, the fund had $86 million in claims and $40.8 million on hand to pay them. State Auditor Claire McCaskill said the problems result from the high number of tanks in Missouri and the high costs of cleanup.

South Carolina

Clemson - Health officials are monitoring three upstate lakes to try to keep fecal matter and other pollutants from getting into the water. Lakes Hartwell, Keeowee and Jocassee were targeted after high counts of fecal coliform bacteria were found in some tributaries.

Wyoming

Douglas - Prairie dog shooting will be temporarily banned in part of the Thunder Basin National Grassland in northeast Wyoming to protect the animal's endangered predator, the black-footed ferret, the U.S. Forest Service said. The May 14-Sept. 16 ban anticipates a permanent state ban later this year, said Mary Peterson, Forest Service supervisor of the grassland.

---

Political pollution House Editorial

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
4/25/01
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010425-62587336.htm

By almost any measure, this country´s environment is cleaner and safer than it was 30 years ago. There is less air and water pollution, less urban sprawl than expected and greater energy efficiency than ever. Only when measuring progress by political yardsticks is there a shortfall. So guess which category is getting all the attention of the media?

These days both print and broadcast outlets are filled with accounts of President Bush´s poor environmental record. Environmental activists denounce him as the friend of polluters in both news stories and in advertisements. Talk-show hosts pummel Cabinet officials who attempt to defend him. Interestingly, the environment itself is only a bit player, however, in such disputes. Here progress is measured by more conventional Beltway tools: public opinion surveys, political appointments and agenda, regulations issued and budgetary spending.

When Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry attacked Mr. Bush regarding energy development, he highlighted the president´s proposal to spend less on subsidies for so-called renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. The fact that renewables provide for about 2 percent of U.S. electricity needs and aren´t competitive with the costs of more reliable energy sources coal and natural gas is irrelevant to him. Government spending is his measure of environmental progress.

Likewise many critics have lambasted Mr. Bush´s decision to review a regulation to reduce the amount of arsenic in drinking water. To re-assure Americans that Mr. Bush isn´t out to poison anyone, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Christine Todd Whitman has rushed to the media to say that whatever the results of the review, the current limit on arsenic to 50 parts per billion will become even more restrictive, perhaps as low as 10 parts per billion. Analysts at the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Review have found, using EPA´s own numbers, that this reduction would save perhaps 10 statistical (i.e. imaginary or hypothetical) lives at a cost of about $65 million per life. Wouldn´t it make more sense to spend such sums on real people with real health risks rather than on the imaginary kind? Regulating arsenic and other chemicals to produce zero exposure might make sense were there no costs to such idealism. But there are costs.

The Bush administration ought to consider bringing the environment back into this debate. The recent release of the Pacific Research Institute´s (PRI) index of leading environmental indicators makes it easy to do. A few of the findings: Ambient air pollution levels in the United States (for sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates and lead) are all down. The amount of lead pollution levels is down to zero, and sulfur dioxides and carbon monoxide are both down more than 60 percent.

Worried about urban sprawl? Federal data show that just 5.2 percent of the total land area of the United States is considered developed. Energy efficiency in the United States is another success story. According to the Department of Energy´s Energy Information Administration: "Energy consumption per dollar of has declined at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent during the last 25 years."

Says Steven Hayward of PRI, the environmental progress this country has made is "remarkable." That's a story the Bush administration shouldn´t hesitate to tell.

-------- imf / world bank / globalization

Trade Pact's Caveat

New York Times
April 25, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/opinion/L25BUSH.html

To the Editor:

Re "Biggest Obstacle to Selling Trade Pact: Sovereignty" (news analysis, April 23):

A communiqué regarding the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas says that any country that experiences an "unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order" will be barred from free-trade negotiations.

The recent presidential election in the United States, which may have turned on the illegal disfranchisement of largely minority voters in Florida, could be construed as just such a transgression. Americans must be vigilant in the protection of democracy not only abroad but also at home.

HOWARD SLATKIN New York, April 23, 2001

---

Hawaii

USA Today
04/25/01
States
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Honolulu - Gov. Cayetano said security for next month's Asian Development Bank conference at the Hawaii Convention Center must not impede the free-speech rights of protesters. The May 7-11 meetings are expected to attract anti-globalization demonstrators who see multinational economic institutions as harmful to people in poor countries.

-------- police

Diallo and Controversy Return to Bronx, as Art

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By DEXTER FILKINS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/nyregion/25DIAL.html

A freshly painted portrait of Amadou Diallo drew a few glances in his old neighborhood yesterday, but attention was riveted on the figures painted next to his face on the wall: four New York City police officers, all wearing the white hoods of the Ku Klux Klan.

"It's not good," Sgt. Frank Sorensen said after he scanned the mural, on the corner of Wheeler and Westchester Avenues in the Bronx. "It's going to be taken down."

Sergeant Sorensen had driven by while the artist was unveiling the mural at noon. He jumped from his car, went to a phone, and soon more police cars arrived. Once again, Mr. Diallo was the point of conversation throughout his old neighborhood.

As the sun began to set, Mr. Diallo's visage and the four hooded officers remained on the wall, along with the rest of the mural: a skeletal Statue of Liberty holding aloft a pistol, a pile of skulls at its feet, and the United States flag in flames. The police decided not to paint over the offending parts of the mural after they learned that the proprietor of the shop on whose wall it was painted had given the artist his permission, but without knowing all his plans.

The police said they hoped the artist, Hulbert Waldroup, would agree to paint over the officers and the statue himself, especially because the shop owner, who identified himself as Joseph Berrero, said he had not realized what Mr. Waldroup had in mind.

Mr. Waldroup said he would not change his work. "I won't destroy my own art," he said, adding that he had worked for nearly a month on it. "I can't bend to pressure."

Deputy Inspector Michael Phipps, one of many police officers to see the mural yesterday, said he had spoken to the local assemblyman, Ruben Diaz Jr., to help recruit a neighborhood group to cover the offending parts. A spokesman for Mr. Diaz said he was doing no such thing.

Mr. Diallo, an immigrant from Guinea, West Africa, was killed Feb. 4, 1999, by four police officers as he stood in the vestibule of his apartment building. The officers said they thought Mr. Diallo had pulled a gun. It turned out that he was unarmed. A jury in Albany acquitted the four officers of criminal charges. (The four hooded officers in the mural represent the ones who shot Mr. Diallo, the artist said.)

Many residents of Mr. Diallo's neighborhood were delighted by the mural, saying it expressed the anger they still felt over his death. Drivers pulled over in their cars to peer, workers from the shops along Westchester Avenue took time off to come over and look. Friends posed in front of the mural for photographs.

"This is fair," said Daniel Martinez, a retired merchant seaman, looking at the mural. "The police would never go into a white neighborhood and do what they did here."

One person in the neighborhood who was upset was Mr. Berrero, the proprietor of the curio shop where the mural was painted. Mr. Berrero said that he liked the idea of having some kind of memorial for Mr. Diallo, but that he was opposed to Mr. Waldroup's depiction of the police, the flag and the Statue of Liberty. Except for the portrait of Mr. Diallo, he said, he wanted everything on the mural covered.

For their part, by the end of the day the police said that they would not paint over parts of the work, but that they hoped the artist or someone in the neighborhood would. As he looked at the painting, Deputy Inspector Phipps expressed frustration with the way the incident unfolded. "He's obviously very talented," he said of Mr. Waldroup, the artist. "It was a missed opportunity."

---

Divided Justices Back Full Arrests on Minor Charges

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/national/25SCOT.html

WASHINGTON, April 24 - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled today that a police officer who observes someone breaking a law, even a minor infraction for which the maximum penalty is a small fine, can make a full custodial arrest without violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizure.

The 5-to-4 decision rejected a lawsuit against a Texas city that was brought by a woman who was stopped for driving without a seat belt. The woman, Gail Atwater, was placed under arrest, taken in handcuffs to the police station and held in a jail cell until she posted $310 bond. The maximum fine for the offense, a misdemeanor under Texas law, was $50.

Justice David H. Souter said that although Ms. Atwater had been subjected to "gratuitous humiliations" and "pointless indignity," what happened to her did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He said that to "mint a new rule of constitutional law" would be to turn many ordinary arrests into occasions for constitutional litigation.

The case fractured the court's usual alliances, provoking a dissenting opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who warned that "such unbounded discretion" for the police "carries with it grave potential for abuse."

Justice O'Connor added that "as the recent debate over racial profiling demonstrates all too clearly, a relatively minor traffic infraction may serve as an excuse for stopping and harassing an individual."

Ms. Atwater is white, and race was not an element in the case, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, No. 99-1408. That made the dissent's reference to racial profiling particularly striking; five years ago, before the police practice of focusing on black motorists for traffic stops became the subject of widespread discussion and official concern, the court ruled unanimously in a case called Whren v. United States that as long as a police officer had an objective reason for stopping a driver, the officer's subjective motive was irrelevant.

Referring to that decision today, Justice O'Connor said that "it is precisely because these motivations are beyond our purview that we must vigilantly ensure that officers' post- stop actions - which are properly within our reach - comport with the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of reasonableness."

The incident that led to the ruling today took place in 1997. Ms. Atwater was bringing her two young children home from soccer practice, driving her pickup truck at about 15 miles an hour on the local streets near her home. None of the three was wearing a seat belt. The officer who ordered her out of the car refused to let her take her crying children to a neighbor's house and said he would take them into custody as well, but a neighbor came along in time to take the children.

The officer searched the truck, finding two tricycles, a bicycle, an Igloo cooler, a bag of charcoal, toys, food and two pairs of children's shoes. After Ms. Atwater was released from jail, she found that the truck had been towed.

The lawsuit that she and her husband brought against Lago Vista, its police chief, and the officer who arrested her was dismissed by the federal district court in Austin. A three- judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, reinstated the suit, but the full appeals court vacated that decision and ruled against the Atwaters by a vote of 11 to 5.

In writing the majority opinion today, Justice Souter was joined by the four most conservative justices, with whom he is almost always at odds in divided cases: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Justice O'Connor, who is most often allied with that group, was joined in her dissent this time by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

There was no obvious explanation for the voting pattern beyond the frank and quite personal responses that both Justice O'Connor and Justice Souter offered when the case was argued in early December.

"You've got the perfect case!" Justice O'Connor exclaimed then to Ms. Atwater's lawyer, and she indicated that she saw little difficulty in drafting a rule that would make custodial arrests for minor offenses the exception rather than the rule.

On the other hand, Justice Souter, a former attorney general of New Hampshire, pressed Ms. Atwater's lawyer, Robert C. DeCarli, for information about how widespread a problem such arrests were, and appeared unpersuaded that there was a problem for the Supreme Court to fix. In his opinion today, he said "there simply is no evidence of widespread abuse of minor-offense arrest authority."

He noted that some states had passed laws to limit police authority to make arrests for minor offenses, and said that this trend, as well as the "good sense" and "political accountability" of local officials, should take care of any problem.

A spokesman for the New York City Police Department said it was too early to comment about how the court's decision might affect the department, which since the election of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has focused intensely on so-called quality of life offenses, like smoking on the subways and urinating in public. For such offenses, as well as for motor vehicle violations, the police will issue summonses rather than make arrests.

For more serious misdemeanors like shoplifting or property damage, New York police typically bring suspects back to the stationhouse, where they are fingerprinted and checked for outstanding warrants.

"We have to review it, then we'll go from there," said Lt. Elias Nikas, a police spokesman, said of the ruling. "The New York City police department will continue to adhere to department policies, and our legal bureau will review the Supreme Court decision."

Susan N. Herman, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School who filed a brief in the case for the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups, said today that the majority's assumption that a substantial problem did not exist was naïve.

"The reported cases are just the tip of the iceberg," she said, explaining that police officers who make an arrest and then conduct a search without finding anything incriminating often let the person go with a citation. The major purpose served by abusive arrests for minor offenses was to authorize the "search incident to arrest," essentially fishing expeditions, she said.

Emily Whitfield, a spokeswoman for the New York office of the A.C.L.U., raised concerns about the consequences of the decision on minorities. "There is a real fear that this new authority will be used by the police in a racially discriminatory fashion," she said. "Now we have a situation where the government, even if they can't put you in jail after you're convicted, can put you in jail before you're tried."

Ms. Atwater's lawyer had argued that under early English law, ordinary misdemeanors were not seen as justifying arrest in the absence of some other element, like a breach of the peace. Justice Souter rejected this argument as a basis for finding that the Constitution's framers would have regarded such arrests as constitutionally unreasonable, saying that the historical evidence was ambiguous.

---

Monitoring the Police

New York Times
April 25, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/opinion/L25CIVI.html

To the Editor:

Re "Patterns of Police Violence" (editorial, April 18):

The United States Commission on Civil Rights has frequently addressed the issue of police practices and civil rights. In a 1981 study, the commission emphasized that the responsibility of law enforcement officials to preserve the peace and enforce the law carries with it the power to arrest and to use force, even deadly force.

Therefore, it is essential that these sweeping powers be subject to constant scrutiny to ensure that they are not abused. Since the 1981 study, the commission has released reports on the resurgence of racial and ethnic tensions within and between law enforcement and the communities it serves in Los Angeles and New York City as well as nationwide analyses. The price for police protection must not be the relinquishment of civil rights.

LES JIN Staff Director, United States Commission on Civil Rights Washington, April 23, 2001

---

Bomb damages police building in Chechnya

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 09:58 AM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-04-25-chechnya.htm

NAZRAN, Russia (AP) - A bomb ripped through a police building in Chechnya early Wednesday, killing two policemen and wounding four others, a government official said.

Investigators were sorting through the rubble of the two-story building in the town of Gudermes following the explosion, an aide to Kremlin spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky said. The building housed the local Interior Ministry's department for fighting organized crime.

The two police officers' bodies were dug out of the wreckage, the official said. Four ministry workers were hospitalized, he said. The bomb, which authorities blamed on rebels fighting the Russian government, was apparently equipped with a timer and had the explosive force of about two pounds of TNT, the official said.

Until a few days ago, Gudermes was the seat of the pro-Russian civilian administration in Chechnya, where Russian troops are trying to stamp out resistance by separatist guerrillas. The administration has moved its headquarters back to the regional capital, Grozny.

Rebels pushed Russian forces out of Chechnya at the end of the 1994-96 war, but Moscow's troops re-entered the republic in fall 1999. While large-scale fighting has since died down, rebels continue to carry out hit-and-run attacks and bombings throughout the republic.

The rebels' cause has been supported by activists in Turkey, and on Tuesday the Russian Foreign Ministry criticized Turkey for failing to crack down on such groups. It suggested that such action could head off incidents as this week's seizure of an Istanbul hotel by pro-Chechen gunmen.

"The latest incident ... calls forth serious concern," the ministry said, saying Moscow had warned Turkey of possible operations by pro-Chechen extremists.

On Wednesday, veteran human rights campaigner Lyudmila Alexeyeva of the Moscow Helsinki Group arrived in the southern Russian city of Nazran, near Chechnya, on her way to the rebel region for a fact-finding visit.

Human rights groups have accused Russian troops of kidnapping and killing civilians. They have also criticized Chechen fighters for targeting Chechens who cooperate with Russian authorities.

---

Conneticut

USA Today
04/25/01
States
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Hartford - Lawmakers want to mandate how many state troopers patrol Connecticut's highways. A bill that passed the Legislature's Appropriations Committee would allow lawmakers to set the number of troopers on patrol for the day, evening and midnight shifts in each of the 12 state police barracks. Detractors, including Gov. Rowland, say it would cost thousands of dollars in overtime.

---

Cuffing of minor offenders is upheld

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
4/25/01
Frank J. Murray THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010425-403659.htm

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled it is constitutional to handcuff and arrest even the most minor offenders -- including "subway snackers" on the D.C. Metro and a soccer mom driving without a seat belt.

"If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender," the court said in a 5-4 opinion written by Justice David H. Souter.

The ruling threw out a civil rights lawsuit filed by Texan Gail Atwater, who was handcuffed, photographed and jailed for one hour in 1997 after risking a $50 fine by driving her pickup truck home from soccer practice with no seat belt on herself or her children, ages 3 and 5.

"The arrest and booking were inconvenient and embarrassing to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment," the court ruled, predicting officials will avert excessive arrests under yesterday´s ruling either by "good sense and, failing that, the political accountability."

As proof for that theory, Justice Souter noted that Washington Metro Transit Police revised their zero-tolerance arrest policy for "subway snackers" after a furor over the arrest of a child eating french fries on a station platform, a case not before the court.

Justice Souter´s role in upholding laws similar to those in all 50 states and the District marked an unusual switch in which he wrote for the conservative bloc while Justice Sandra Day O´Connor argued the civil liberties issue in her dissent.

Joining Justice Souter´s opinion were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer voted with Justice O´Connor, whose dissent described Mrs. Atwater´s arrest as "the quintessential seizure" that opens an arrested person to a full search.

"The court neglects the Fourth Amendment´s express command in the name of administrative ease. In so doing, it cloaks the pointless indignity that Gail Atwater suffered with the mantle of reasonableness," Justice O´Connor said.

The Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures." The decision that Mrs. Atwater may not sue the city of Lago Vista and arresting officer Bart Turek upheld rulings by the federal trial judge and the full bench of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a second decision yesterday, also by a 5-4 vote, the court dealt a setback to activists who seek to overturn "English-only" laws adopted by 25 states.

It ruled that private persons cannot sue a state to enforce federal regulations intended to prevent racial or ethnic discrimination.

Martha Sandoval brought such a lawsuit to overturn Alabama´s "English-only" requirement for driver´s tests, but the court threw it out.

The lawsuit claimed that Alabama violated a federal regulation -- not a law -- barring states from spending federal money in a racially or ethnically discriminatory way.

The opinion written by Justice Scalia said Congress did not expressly create in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act the private right to sue over violations of such regulations.

Endorsing that view were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O´Connor, Kennedy and Thomas. The dissenters were Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter.

---

Indian police gunfire kills infant on bus

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
4/25/01
World Scene
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010425-67166301.htm

SRINAGAR, India -- Police units reacting to a land-mine explosion fired at a civilian bus in Kashmir, killing a 2-month-old baby and wounding several other people, passengers said. Police claimed the bus was caught in the cross fire when troops fired at guerrillas.

Police also said two troopers died from injuries suffered in the blast along a roadside in Bigharid Karnag, 50 miles south of Srinagar, the summer capital of the violence-plagued Jammu-Kashmir state in northern India.

Bus passenger Jana Begum, 35, said her infant son, Imtiaz, was killed by police gunfire and that she was wounded in the thigh. "There was an explosion and they fired at the bus," she said from a hospital in a nearby city.

-------- terrorism

U.S. terrorism report criticizes two PLO groups

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 10:50 PM ET
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-04-26-terrorism.htm

WASHINGTON - The State Department will include criticism of two key groups in Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization in its annual terrorism report due out next week, U.S. officials said Wednesday. The report will mark the first time that mainstream elements of the PLO are cited in the influential document.

The report will include Israeli accusations that the largest faction in the organization, Fatah, and its Tanzim youth militia took part in terrorist activities against Israel during the Palestinian uprising that began in September. The political violence in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip has claimed the lives of nearly 500 people.

Officials said the report won't address the question of whether Arafat or other top Palestinians ordered attacks against Israeli targets. However, by merely mentioning the groups, the Bush administration will be taking into account congressional criticism of the PLO and warning Arafat to rein in his followers. "This lays the intellectual groundwork for declaring these groups foreign terrorist organizations," said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert at the Congressional Research Service. "It puts Arafat on notice."

The PLO has had an office in Washington since its peace treaty with Israel in 1993.

A letter to President Bush earlier this month, signed by 296 members of Congress, called for a reassessment of the U.S.-PLO relationship including an examination of whether PLO-affiliated groups should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations.

The officials said the report next week will not say the groups are "foreign terrorist organizations," a classification created by Congress in 1996 that could oblige the United States to sever ties with the PLO and could complicate efforts to restart peace negotiations.

The Bush administration also has criticized Israel for "excessive" retaliation against the Palestinians, but Israel has not been singled out for terrorism.

Hassan Abdel Rahman, the PLO ambassador in Washington, called the criticism "unfair, unbalanced and counterproductive."

Paul Pillar, former deputy counterterrorism chief at the CIA, says "a mention of concern is probably the right thing to do. It gets away from the legal requirements, but calls a spade a spade."


-------- activists

NV Action Training for Trainers, May 12/13

From: nadine bloch <nbloch@igc.org>
Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:15:08 -0300 Subject: [a16-dc-planning]

You are invited to "Nonviolent Action, a Workshop for Trainers and Facilitators" at the newly established Eden Valley Training Center. Eden Valley is a new (affordable) social change training center for citizens located in Dayton, Maryland, 30 miles north of WDC and south of Baltimore on 22 woody acres, complete with pond and sweat lodge ::::

May 12, 13th 2001 Sat and Sunday all day Guided by Nadine Bloch, long time activist & trainer and Michael Beer, Director, Nonviolence International. Cost: sliding scale, suggested fee $100, includes camping or sleeping space and food.

Register ASAP, email nbloch@igc.org and dancinrainbow@earthlink.net We have only a few spaces remaining.

This workshop is provided for activists in the Washington-Baltimore area who want to improve their skills as a nonviolent action facilitator/trainer......... Are you looking for new training methods and approaches? Are you looking to integrate more powerful nonviolent action into your environmentalist, feminist, unionist, revolutionary, religous, or internationalist circles? Come join with other diverse DC-Baltimore Activists. If you have more questions, you can contact the emails above or reach Michael Beer at 202-244-0951.

---

WEF (World Economic Forum) Meeting in Miami

From: Fitzhugh MacCrae <alaidh@yahoo.com>
Wed, 25 Apr 2001

CALL TO ACTION?

The WEF (World Economic Forum) is planning on meeting in Miami, Florida, USA, primarily to assess the progress of the FTAA negotiations. The date they've decided on, tentatively, is Oct. 7-9th, 2001. There is intent on mobilizing opposition on a large scale in south Florida and we are seeking to find support from other activists around the state/country/world in these areas:

-Indy Media -Legal aid -Medical team -Food -Action Trainings -Logistics -Outreach

WE NEED TO GET STARTED NOW!

The south FL activist community is not very large, and dwindles even more in the summer, but this state's network is pretty tight.

Planning for October could help strengthen these both, as well spreading the global movement to new places. Please get in touch ASAP if you can help coordinate in one of the above areas, especially if you think you wanna spend the summer in the tropics, helping prepare locally.

For info. and updates: rodentuprising@hotmail.com

---

Anti-nuclear activists try to stop Sellafield cargo

Irish Times
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
By Derek Scally
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/0425/wor5.htm

GERMANY: Five containers of radioactive nuclear waste began their surface trip to the Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria yesterday amid protests from German anti-nuclear activists.

Police detained over 50 demonstrators who blocked the road from the Neckarwestheim nuclear plant in southern Germany in an attempt to halt this latest shipment. It is the second shipment of nuclear waste in recent weeks and the first shipment to Britain in three years.

Yesterday's protests were lowkey in comparison to the running battles that accompanied the shipment of waste from France to Germany earlier this month. "This shipment will have serious effects on the environment. Sellafield is the biggest environmental hazard in western Europe", said Mr Veit Bürger, an energy spokesman for Greenpeace.

Over 2,500 police officers were on hand yesterday to remove the 70 demonstrators staging a sit-in on the road near the nuclear plant, and the transport got underway after an hour's delay.

This shipment, along with waste from another plant, will be brought to the German town of Wörth today and then on to Dunkirk in France. Authorities expect the shipment to reach Sellafield next week.

Protests against this latest shipment began on Monday when a dozen protesters chained themselves to railway tracks. They have vowed to further disrupt the shipment, in Germany and Britain, to make future cargoes prohibitively expensive.

Shipments of nuclear waste were suspended in Germany in 1998 after concerns were raised about radioactive leaks. The resumption of shipments has divided public opinion in Germany. Anti-nuclear activists accuse the Environment Minister and Green Party member, Mr Jürgen Trittin, who supported the last protests in 1998, of selling out.

Mr Trittin says Germany has a moral duty to be responsible for its own nuclear waste. The resumption of transports also form part of an agreement to phase out Germany's 19 nuclear reactors by 2025.

Germany has no facilities for reprocessing nuclear waste and must export waste for treatment to France and Britain. The suspension of waste transports in 1998 has caused huge problems for the nuclear plant operators who have little storage space for the highly dangerous waste.

"We have a huge backlog of waste here. To clear that, we have to ship around 128 tonnes of waste in the next five years", said Mr Werner Zaiss, technical manager of the nuclear plant in Neckarwestheim.

---

Nuclear Power Foes to Hold Rally In SLC on Chernobyl Anniversary

Salt Lake Tribune
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
BY JUDY FAHYS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
http://www.sltrib.com/04252001/utah/91866.htm

Nuclear power opponents are getting ready for protests in Utah and eight other sites Thursday to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The Salt Lake City rally is also meant to show opposition to bringing nuclear waste to Utah.

"These guys can't be trusted," said Jason Groenewold, director of Families Against Incinerator Risk, an environmental group.

"What we are saying [through the rallies] is we cannot forget the people who have suffered in the past," Groenewold added. "It's a united effort to say we are not going to repeat the same mistakes."

While the anti-nuclear organizers point to the risks from commercial and government nuclear programs, the utilities that want to store spent nuclear fuel talk about the safety record of moving and storing high-level nuclear waste.

Private Fuel Storage is the consortium of utilities trying to bring the waste to Utah -- and is the main target of the Utah rally. PFS said it is "misleading and unfair" to link the Soviet nuclear accident and PFS' effort to store spent fuel in steel-and-concrete casks on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The consortium, whose member utilities have about 20 nuclear plants, said in a news release that radiation exposure cannot be blamed for a single death or injury in the 30-year, 3,000-shipment history of U.S. nuclear power.

Groenewold countered that Utahns have reason to deeply distrust the industry because of their exposure to fallout from nuclear weapons testing, their health damage from uranium mining and what he called the industry's misleading representation of its costs and safety record.

Anti-nuclear activists are calling Thursday a "national day of action" to draw attention to their cause, but the commemorative activities are scheduled throughout the week. The Carter Presidential Center in Atlanta will be the site of a protest Saturday. And ecologist Barry Commoner is scheduled to speak in a New York City rally Sunday.

The Salt Lake City rally will take place at the Rio Grande train station, 300 S. 400 West, from 7:30 to 9 p.m., with a vigil, music and speeches.

---

Cambridge Journal: Protesters Blooming in Harvard Yard

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By CAREY GOLDBERG
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/national/25PROT.html

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 24 - The grand old elms are budding in Harvard Yard these fine spring days; the grass is sprouting, and the students are chanting: "Come on, Harvard, you've got cash! Why do you pay your workers trash?"

For seven days now, about 40 students have been occupying the first floor of Massachusetts Hall, where the university president, Neil L. Rudenstine, has his office. Their sit-in, believed to be the longest student occupation ever of a Harvard building, is supported by dozens more protesters outside, some camping in two dozen tents that have sprouted even faster than the grass.

The protesters are demanding that Harvard pay its workers a minimum "living wage" of $10.25 an hour, and have vowed not to budge until the university's position does.

That does not appear likely to happen soon. A statement by Mr. Rudenstine, printed in The Harvard Crimson today, said the students had a right to express their views but not to occupy a university building.

The administration will talk with them, he said, "once an environment of genuinely free discussion has been restored." Read: the administration will not negotiate with the sitters-in until they leave the building.

Asked if the students might be arrested soon, a Harvard spokesman, Joe Wrinn, said: "There are no plans at this time. It's day by day. And again, as we have kept saying, the students have been heard on this issue, and they just didn't like the outcome of the decision."

As that stalemate continues, the protesters are trying to bring added pressure to bear from a variety of quarters. They have received public support from both senators from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry, both Democrats, and more than 100 faculty members.

The City of Cambridge, too, is backing the protesters. On Monday night, the City Council passed the latest of several resolutions calling on Harvard to pay its workers more, and Mayor Anthony Galluccio visited the Yard to express support. Mr. Rudenstine is a nice guy, he said, and nice guys should support a living wage.

The police are not allowing outsiders into Massachusetts Hall, but judging by what can be seen through the windows, the sit-in students seem to be bearing up under the vicissitudes of sharing just one restroom - and no shower - among about 40 people. When they first entered, they plastered the hallway they inhabit with posters, including one that read, "Why is there poverty at the world's richest university?" Food is allowed into the building but nothing else; it would be nice to have some changes of clothing, one protester said.

Otherwise, however, they are well connected with the outside world, communicating copiously by cell phone and the Internet or hanging out the building's windows like Molly Goldberg-style tenement residents to broadcast their views.

The Harvard police who are handling the protesters have generally been friendly, even sometimes jolly - a powerful contrast to the Vietnam-era violence between the police and student protesters who occupied University Hall here in April 1969.

But that was a generation ago. (One undergraduate protester said his father had been among the students outside the building back then.) The current protest is part of a much different wave of dissent, a mix of union organization and student groups running "living wage" campaigns around the country.

Here at Harvard, the campaign has been on for more than two years, to little avail. The administration formed a committee to examine the issue, and ended up deciding it would be better to offer education, training and benefits to workers than to offer them higher wages.

Out of 13,000 workers, about 400 employees at Harvard, mainly janitors, dining hall workers and security guards, earn less than $10.25 an hour; several hundred more employees who work for subcontractors or are temporary workers also fall below that line. Some workers earn less than $7 an hour.

It is not new for privileged students at fancy universities to feel uncomfortable about low salaries of their kitchen workers and guards. What is new, said Aaron Bartley, a protester, is that income disparities have been getting worse, and that Harvard has increased its use of outside subcontractors.

"Nationally, and here, students are becoming more familiar with labor issues," Mr. Bartley said.

One Harvard janitor, who would not allow his name to be used, said he appreciated the nonviolent tactics of the student protest; he has been working two full-time jobs for many years, he said, and has gotten used to sleeping just four hours a night.

But, he said, "I hope they're in it for the long haul." They might need to be, he said, adding, "You know Harvard."

---

Falun Gong Members Mark '99 Sit-In With New Protests

New York Times
April 25, 2001
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/world/25CND-BEIJ.html

BEIJING, April 25 - Members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual group staged small scattered protests today on Tiananmen Square in an attempt to mark the second anniversary of a huge silent sit-in the group held outside the Chinese leadership compound in 1999, seeking government recognition.

That brazen 10,000-strong demonstration, which took the government totally by surprise, catapulted the once obscure spiritual group into international awareness but, also, a few months later, led to the government ban.

Today at least two dozen members of the group were detained on Tiananmen as they adopted Falun Gong's typical meditative pose or unfurled small banners with slogans such as "Falun Gong is Good." They arrived in groups of two and three - some couples with small children - and were often pushed or hit by the police as they were herded into the police vans that have become fixtures on the square in the past 18 months.

But today's protests were vastly smaller than those on the first anniversary a year ago, when hundreds were detained. And they demonstrated that the government's vicious 20-month campaign against Falun Gong had been at least somewhat successful in squashing a group that once claimed 70 million practitioners on the mainland - or at least in driving it underground.

On a bright spring day, the scattered arrests were vastly overshadowed by the throngs of tourists who packed the square, although some foreign tourists who witnessed the events had their film confiscated, observers said.

Falun Gong was labeled an "evil sect" and banned by China's leaders in July 1999. Since that time the state news media have been filled with invective against the group, schoolchildren have had to attend anti-Falun Gong classes and recalcitrant Falun Gong members have been subjected to police harassment and detention. Organizers have been sentenced to long prison terms.

From the time of the group's ban until early this year, group members have staged small silent acts of civil disobedience on Tiananmen Square, on almost a daily basis. It became a routine: One or two group members would climb the stairs onto the square, strike a pose indicating they were a Falun Gong practitioner, and promptly be arrested.

But in January, five group members, including a child, doused themselves with a flammable liquid and set themselves on fire on the square. The fiery spectacle has caused the police to redouble their efforts to weed out members. The images of the burned child that were displayed across China's newspapers reinforced notions that the group was, indeed, extreme.

Since then, protests have been more sporadic, in part because the police have become more proactive. On sensitive dates such as today, they stand at the entrances to Tiananmen. They check identity papers of all Chinese and sniff soda bottles to make sure they do not contain gasoline.

Also, after months of the government's crackdown, many of the most persistent Falun Gong activists are now in custody. Up to 10,000 followers are in labor camps, according to human rights groups, and more than 100 have died in custody.

While public protests have dropped off, it is not clear whether the private practice of the group's exercises has waned. Many members continue to practice secretly in their homes, group members say, although they face losing their jobs or being detained if they are discovered.

Falun Gong combines slow motion exercises and meditation with an idiosyncratic blend of eastern philosophies, which members say promotes physical and emotional health. Founded by Li Hongzhi, a former Chinese bank clerk who now lives in exile in the United States, it was widely and openly practiced in Chinese parks in the late 1990's.

Although it has no overt political goals, the sudden assembly of 10,000 protesters at the gate of the government leadership compound in April 1999 was an overtly political act in a country where demonstrations are banned unless they have government permits.

---

Harvard protest moves into second week

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 10:30 AM ET
By Patricia McDonnell, AP)
http://usatoday.com/news/nphoto.htm

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - With chanting on campus and unshaven students leaning out the windows of an occupied building, Harvard University has the feeling of the 1960s this week.

More than three dozen students have occupied the office of university president Neil Rudenstine since April 18. They are demanding "a living wage" for Harvard's custodians, cooks and other blue-collar workers.

"With a $19 billion endowment and a governing board of multimillionaires, Harvard has no excuse for perpetuating poverty conditions," Aaron Bartley, a 25-year-old law student, said from an open window of the administration building during a rally Tuesday.

Harvard wasn't the only campus with student demonstrations this week. At Penn State University, more than 100 students spent the night at a student union building protesting reported death threats against the Black Caucus president.

The Harvard students say they won't leave until the university commits to improving workers' wages. The university says it believes in fair wages but won't break collective bargaining agreements or negotiate as long as Massachusetts Hall remains occupied.

The occupation has kept Rudenstine and other top officials from their offices. The school is allowing in food, but university police are permitting only housemasters and faculty to enter the building.

The protests have brought a tent city to Harvard Yard and a string of celebrity visitors.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stopped by last week to show support for the students. Kennedy spoke with Rudenstine in Washington on Tuesday and reiterated his support for a "living wage," a Kennedy spokesman said.

Students want Harvard's laborers to make $10.25 an hour, the same minimum wage the city of Cambridge pays its employees. Some subcontracted workers at the university make as little as $6.50 an hour.

Harvard says only about 400 of its 13,000 employees make less than $10 an hour. Last spring, a university committee recommended Harvard focus on improving career opportunities for its lower-paid workers, through job-skills training, rather than set a minimum wage.

"In the long run, we think that's a better solution," university spokesman Joe Wrinn said Tuesday. "The students simply disagree. We're certainly willing to explain our views and keep talking about it, but certainly not while our building is being occupied."

Lenvial Cole, a custodian working on campus Tuesday, said he appreciated the students' efforts and wants a higher wage but worried that their protest could be misguided.

"There are contractors out there that are asking for less, and that might persuade (Harvard) to get us out of here," Cole said.

At Penn State, the protesters spent the night at the Hetzel Union Building after talks broke off between university administrators and black students upset about recent racial death threats to Black Caucus president LaKeisha Wolf.

Black Caucus members say the university's failure to embrace diversity has created a climate where people feel safe expressing racist thoughts.

"I'm going to stay as long as I have to," student Karissa Burns said Wednesday morning. "If my life is in danger, then this is what I'm going to do. It's that important to me."

Penn State president Graham B. Spanier did not comment on Tuesday's talks.

Last week, an anonymous letter sent to a reporter at the campus newspaper, The Daily Collegian, included a death threat against Wolf and a threat to bomb a ceremony honoring black graduates. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are investigating.

---

Falun Gong protests defy Chinese crackdown

USA Today
04/25/2001 - Updated 02:22 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-04-25-falungong.htm

BEIJING (AP) - As tourists with cameras stood by, police detained at least 32 protesters on Tiananmen Square on Wednesday, the second anniversary of the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement's first large demonstration.

Uniformed and plainclothes officers beat many of the protesters, who staged brief, scattered demonstrations amid thousands of Chinese and foreign tourists on the central square in Beijing. Police forced American, German and French tourists who had taken pictures to expose film and record over video tape.

"Falun Gong is good!" one protester shouted before police shoved him and two female companions into a station wagon.

Two women holding a bright yellow banner with red lettering were hustled into a police van. One stuck her head out a window, screaming "Police are beating people!" Two plainclothes police ran up and punched her in the face.

Later, a woman and a man holding an infant started chanting Falun Gong slogans. Police grabbed the man around his neck and snatched the child from his arms. All three were bundled into a van.

The demonstrations were smaller than on previous national holidays and significant anniversaries in the 21-month crackdown on Falun Gong. On April 25 last year, police detained more than 100 sect members on Tiananmen Square.

Protests by the spiritual movement have dropped off since five purported members set themselves on fire Jan. 23 at the square. Two women died. Falun Gong organizers deny the five were members, saying the group doesn't condone suicide.

Nevertheless, Wednesday's protests show the tenacity of Falun Gong followers. Tens of thousands of practitioners have been detained and thousands imprisoned. Human rights groups say at least 100 members have died in Chinese custody.

Two years ago, more than 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners gathered in a silent protest around Zhongnanhai, the Chinese leadership compound near Tiananmen.

The group wanted official recognition. Instead, Chinese leaders outlawed the group three months later, labeling it a threat to social stability and Communist Party rule.

In Hong Kong on Wednesday, dozens of Falun Gong protesters meditated near the Beijing government's main office. In Tokyo, about 60 Falun Gong members rallied outside the Chinese Embassy.

Falun Gong attracted millions of followers in the 1990s with a blend of traditional and New Age spirituality that appealed to Chinese in the midst of wrenching market reforms. Followers believe the group's slow-motion meditation exercises and Taoist- and Buddhist-influenced teachings promote health and good citizenship.

China's government says Falun Gong is a cult that has caused the deaths of more than 1,600 followers.

---

Oregon

USA Today
04/25/01
States
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm

Portland - The Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for setting three cement trucks on fire at Ross Island Sand & Gravel. The April 15 arson marked the first time the group has struck in Portland. It has claimed other attacks across the USA as protests against ecological destruction.


------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)

------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!