------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
The New Nuclear Danger
Disabled people used as nuclear 'guinea pigs'
Pyongyang mum on U.S. promise
They'd Shoot NMD Down
Missile Defense: Wishing Won't Make it So
NATO allies told US intends to deploy limited missile defence
Missile Defense Speedup Weighed
Rumsfeld Seeks NATO Support
Rumsfeld Outlines to NATO Fast Track for Missile Shield
Russia, NATO to Discuss Tactical Missile Defense
From Russia with nukes
Fire Hits Missile Base Near Moscow, Causes Damage
Russian Air Defense Missile Explodes
Russia Needs Funds to Destroy Arms
US CONDITIONS CAST DOUBT ON FUTURE OF RUSSIAN PLANS
Rumsfeld Takes Message to Russians
Ireland Rejects European Treaty
Despite hoopla no new US nuclear plants soon
Beryllium stories fake, expert says
No level of beryllium safe, Flats workers'
Yucca Mountain Project is Everybody's Problem
To demolish K-25 or not?
Our View: Treat DOE with respect
Rice Says No 'Values Gap' Between U.S. And Europe
The New Unilateralism
Environmentalists Praise US Position

MILITARY
China tests ALCM
Four Rwandans convicted of war crimes
Iranian weapons
Civilians said killed as Macedonia forces attack rebels
Government rejects cease-fire offer, pounds rebels
Former UN coordinators says "smart" sanctions to exacerbate Iraqi plight
Tenet brings Israeli, Palestinian chiefs together
CHINA: TREATY ON SPACE ARMS PROPOSED
Swiss Mulling Plan for Peacekeepers
Russia Questioning Premise of New Iraqi Proposals
Rumsfeld-style military reform
3 generals top list for joint chiefs job
CNN Settles Lawsuit With Operation Tailwind Producer

OTHER
SUSTAINABLE HIGH RISE POWERED BY SOLAR CELLS
Conference to Address Solar Electricity
Solar-powered aircraft and other bits of environmental news
Russia's New Reach: Gas Pipeline to Turkey
Russians Detain Critic Bound for U.S. Meeting
Guatemalan Officers Found Guilty
Major Changes Signaled at IMF
Navy Denies Body Searches
Idaho prosecutors not sure they'll try FBI sharpshooter
Texas Police Officer Killed
Australian Gets 15 - Year Sentence
World War I Blackout Continues

ACTIVISTS
ENERGY DEPARTMENT SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLES
Some missile defense resources from IEER
Colombians Protest Bill on Cuts in Services


-------- NUCLEAR

The New Nuclear Danger

Common Dreams,
June 8, 2001
by Jonathan Schell
http://commondreams.org/views01/0608-04.htm

On June 12, 1982, 1 million people assembled in Central Park in New York City to protest the reckless nuclear policies of the Reagan Administration and to call for a nuclear freeze. They never assembled in such numbers again--in part because Reagan reversed course and opened nuclear arms talks with the Soviet Union, and in part because, after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, the cold war began to wind down. The day remains in memory as a reminder of how quickly public concern over nuclear annihilation can arise and how quickly it can evaporate. When the cold war finally did end, nuclear weapons pretty much dropped out of the conscious thoughts of most Americans. The weapons themselves, however, remain in existence--some 32,000 strong at last count. Now the policies of a new administration and the rise of fresh nuclear dangers have brought the issue back to awareness. On June 10 a coalition of groups that calls itself Project Abolition will hold an antinuclear demonstration in Lafayette Park across from the White House. It will be the first major effort of its kind in the capital since the end of the cold war. The precipitating event is the new arms race that is threatened by the Bush Administration's embrace of National Missile Defense (NMD) and the weaponization of space. A million people are not expected. But the protesters hope to make up in staying power what they lack in numbers. Their underlying cause is the abolition of all nuclear arms, and their vow is to stick with it for the duration.

It is no simple matter to take stock of the nuclear predicament in the year 2001. Under the Bush Administration, the nuclear policies of the United States--and of the world--are in a state of greater confusion than at any time since the weapons were invented. Chaos would not be too strong a word to use. In fact, the greatest current danger may lie not in one policy or another but precisely in this confusion, which leaves the world's nuclear actors without any reliable road map for the future. It is nevertheless essential to try to understand at least the broad outlines of the new shape of the predicament. This exercise is complex and riddled with paradox and contradiction, not to mention wishful thinking and sheer fantasy, yet it is unavoidable if either policy or protest is to make sense.

Nuclear danger today has two main sources. The first is the mountain of nuclear arms left over from the cold war. The second is the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new countries. The leftover cold war arsenals are still governed by the policy that prevailed during the cold war, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, which holds (in its most enlightened version) that the rival great powers are safest when each has the unchallengeable power to annihilate its rival. This way, no one is supposed to try anything, because if anyone does, all will die. Today the United States has about 7,200 weapons poised to fire at Russia, and Russia has about 6,000 poised to fire at us, and the continued existence of each nation depends on the reliability of the other's forces, which is doubtful in the extreme in the case of Russia. Deterrence's provocative other name, of course, is mutual assured destruction, or MAD, a reference to the menace of complete annihilation on which the stability of the arrangement rests. MAD's confusing adjunct is arms control, whose aim has been to draw down the preposterous excess of offensive weapons through the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) while suppressing defenses by observance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty of 1972, until this year called the "cornerstone of strategic stability" in NATO planning papers. Defenses had to be suppressed because if they ran free they would upset the laboriously negotiated offensive reductions.

MAD, however, is not a creature of the ABM treaty; it is an inescapable condition in a world of large nuclear arsenals, against which no defenses are available. The ABM treaty merely ratifies and codifies this underlying situation, the better to negotiate the reduction--though not the elimination--of offensive forces. Other things being equal, a world without an ABM treaty would not be a world without MAD; it would be a world with MAD but without arms control.

MAD was of course a product of the cold war. It was a desperate makeshift in a desperate situation. Today, however, the cold war has long been over. The extreme peculiarity--or downright absurdity--of continuing to rely on MAD is that the political antagonism that underlay and justified it ended ten years ago, when the Soviet Union disappeared. During the cold war, the two powers threatened each other with annihilation for a reason; now they do so without a reason. Russia and the United States have no quarrel that would justify the firing of a single conventional round, not to speak of mutual annihilation. The human beings resolved their quarrels, but the weapons, displaying their characteristic astonishing immunity to political influence, evidently did not get the news. Here is a state of affairs that seems ripe for radical surgery.

The second source of nuclear danger, proliferation, is most dramatically evident in South Asia, where India and Pakistan are engaged in the first nuclear face-off entirely unrelated to the cold war. It's difficult to predict where proliferation will occur next, but some of the main candidates are obvious: the Middle East, where Israel already possesses nuclear weapons and where Iraq and Iran are both known to be interested in acquiring them; and East Asia, where North Korea has well-developed nuclear and missile programs, and where Japan has just elected a prime minister who wishes to alter his nation's Constitution, which now forbids the development of offensive military forces, including nuclear weapons. If unchecked, proliferation has no logical or necessary stopping point. It points to a fully nuclearized world, in which any nation seriously threatened by another will feel itself fully entitled to build nuclear arms.

Unfortunately, the two basic elements of nuclear danger do not exist in separate worlds; they fatally interact in our one world. Most important, MAD is a standing invitation to proliferation, as the nuclearization of South Asia has already demonstrated. The simple, unavoidable truth is that possession fuels proliferation. If a country that feels threatened by the nuclear arms of another accepts MAD, as the nuclear powers teach them to do, they not only are likely to develop arms, they must do so. For a government to do otherwise would be to criminally abdicate its responsibility to defend its people. (Imagine the reactions in the United States, for example, if this country somehow did not possess nuclear arms but was suddenly threatened by a country that did possess them, and some third country lectured it on the virtues of remaining nuclear-weapon-free in the name of nonproliferation.)

Enter George W. Bush. His Administration has addressed the two major elements of nuclear danger in our world. In regard to the leftover cold war arsenals, he has proposed what on the face of it appears to be the most radical shift in policy since the inauguration of the MAD system. "The cold war logic that led to the creation of massive stockpiles on both sides," he has announced, in a refreshing acknowledgment of the new geopolitical reality, "is now outdated. Our mutual security need no longer depend on a nuclear balance of terror." The clear promise is of a fundamentally new policy, of a "new framework," in his words. In regard to proliferation, he has proposed to defend the United States with NMD (which was in fact embraced by President Clinton and both parties in the Senate before Bush took office). In sum, "it is time to leave the cold war behind, and defend against the new threats of the twenty-first century." The Bush policies have the merit of acknowledging, in a way that the seemingly insensate continuation of MAD into the post-cold war world did not, the basic new realities--on the one hand, the collapse of MAD's political underpinnings and, on the other hand, the increasing dangers of proliferation. MAD acknowledges neither. It anachronistically deals with Russia exactly as we did during the cold war (though with somewhat reduced overkill), and it fatally undercuts nonproliferation by teaching that nuclear arsenals are the key to a nation's security. It is, indeed, the impossibility, in a MAD world, of framing effective nonproliferation policies that set the stage for NMD. If diplomacy wedded to MAD cannot stop proliferation, isn't it time to try something else, namely defenses? In that respect, NMD is the product of MAD.

The Bush prescription, however, does not work merely because the policies it purported to replace have failed. The most notable problem with the Bush approach is that it has not provided--even in theory--policies that can make its promises a reality. Bush seeks to offer an exit from the balance of terror, but he provides no actual escape route. MAD, notwithstanding its deficiencies, is a tough old bird, and cannot be waved away with a phrase in a speech. The closest Bush has come to a concrete policy in this field has been to announce a unilateral reduction in offensive nuclear arsenals to "the lowest possible number"--a number, however, that he has not specified. But a low number of offensive warheads, however welcome in itself (press reports have suggested that the range might be between 1,500 and 2,500 warheads), gives no release from the balance of terror. It preserves it at lower levels of overkill. (Picture the United States or Russia after a thousand or so of its cities have been destroyed.) In other passages of his speeches, Bush has seemed to acknowledge that MAD will stay in effect. In a speech on May 1, he stated in a less noted passage, "Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation." The word "solely" is decisive. It means that MAD will be continued. At best, it will be supplemented by something, not replaced by it. What will that something be? Bush immediately continued, "Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation." But to add defenses to MAD is a far different proposition from substituting one for the other.

That brings us to the second problem with the Bush plan. It is the one that has led almost the entire world to reject national missile defenses. Russia fears that a resurgent United States, feeling protected by its shield, will bully it in the future, and China fears that its small nuclear arsenal will be negated. The initial goal of NMD is to protect against proliferators. But at the same time, it would upset arms control. Defenses do not enhance the existing MAD system; they undermine it. That is why the world is upset that the Bush Administration wants to jettison the ABM treaty. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, for example, has recently written, "With the ABM treaty as its root, a system of international accords on arms control and disarmament sprang up in the past decades. Inseparable from this process is the creation of global and regional regimes of nuclear nonproliferation. These agreements, comprising the modern architecture of international security, rest on the ABM treaty. If the foundation is destroyed, this interconnected system will collapse, nullifying thirty years of efforts by the world community." The United States' NATO allies have just made it clear that they agree.

In the nuclear sphere, defenses and offenses are oil and water. The addition of defenses destabilizes an offensive system and vice versa. MAD is an offensive framework, depending on mutual vulnerability to make everyone cautious. A defensive framework--a so-called defense-dominated world--is imaginable. Under it, offenses would be hugely reduced or eliminated by mutual agreement, and protection from residual danger would be provided by defenses. Only when defenses could clearly overwhelm any offense would a defensive system have been achieved. At that point, and only at that point, would MAD truly be a thing of the past. This was the vision put forward, at least rhetorically, by Ronald Reagan as his ultimate goal when he first proposed strategic defenses. Like MAD, defense domination qualifies as a true framework for nuclear danger. It is one that is in fact supported by many retired civilian and military officials, including the commander of the allied air forces in the Gulf War, Charles Horner, and Reagan's chief arms negotiator, Paul Nitze, both of whom have called for the elimination of nuclear weapons together with the creation of defenses. The only way, indeed, to make sense of antimissile defenses such as NMD is to wed them to a commitment by the nuclear powers to abolish nuclear weapons.

A further problem with NMD--certainly, the strangest one--is that so far it is a technical flop, having failed most of its tests. Aristotle said that the most important attribute of a thing is existence. NMD lacks this attribute. Or, to put it differently, it has the attribute of nonexistence. It's been interesting to watch how this attribute has manifested itself politically. The Bush Administration announced that it means to "deploy" NMD. Deploy what, though? The Administration backed away from the Clinton plan--a limited deployment of ground-based missiles that would shoot down incoming missiles--and began to suggest even less-tested alternatives, including airborne, sea-based and space-based systems. When Bush recently sent his envoys to governments around the world to "persuade" them of the virtues of his plan, the governments learned to their surprise that nothing of a concrete character was on the table. It was one thing for Ivanov to say that "in order to hold a discussion, you have to have some subject for it, a plan, a concrete understanding of what the other side wants. For now, there are no such plans." It was another when the American envoy Paul Wolfowitz had to confess the truth of the charge, saying, "It is much too early, I think, even for us to ask people to agree with us, because we have not come to firm conclusions yet ourselves." The lesson may be that when you're promising pie in the sky, you should at least have some pie.

Is it possible that the nonexistence of NMD will spare us its harmful consequences? Unfortunately, not necessarily--unless the United States either abandons the scheme or weds it to a commitment to abolish nuclear weapons. Governments make their decisions according to future expectations. The looming possibility of NMD can therefore bring many of the disadvantages of actual deployment--disruption of arms control, pressure to proliferate--without any of the advantages. NMD thus creates a political problem that it cannot technically solve. When one reflects that the more ambitious NMD programs cannot be fully deployed (if they can work at all) until 2020, it becomes obvious that this is no minor consideration.

There is, we must note, one other "framework" that is possible: the framework of American military dominance, nuclear and otherwise, of the world. As the conservative commentators William Kristol and Robert Kagan have stated, Republicans "will ask Americans to face this increasingly dangerous world without illusions. They will argue that American dominance can be sustained for many decades to come, not by arms control agreements, but by augmenting America's power, and, therefore, its ability to lead." If the United States does abandon all nuclear arms control (perhaps, breaking out downward, in a manner of speaking, with unilateral cuts, the better to go upward again at will) in a bid for global dominance, and if it seeks to develop not only ballistic missile defense but--what may be more serious and technically feasible--offensive, space-based weapons, then our future framework will be neither MAD nor any version of defense dominance. It will be a hellbent military competition with the other powers of the earth--not just one but many arms races, and not, in all likelihood, in the nuclear sphere alone. Some countries will likely resort to the ugly little sisters of the family of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons.

The great nuclear powers now rely on a system--MAD--that has lost political relevance to the world we live in. The Bush Administration has promised a new framework, in keeping with the needs of the time, but this collides both with itself and reality, political as well as technical. Absent a coherent global policy that actually does address the new shape of the nuclear predicament, events are likely to be driven in the vicious circle whose operations have already landed us in a world bristling with new nuclear dangers. Continued possession will fuel proliferation; proliferation will fuel hope for missile defense; missile defense (whether it can work or not) will disrupt arms control; and the disruption of arms control will, completing the circle, fuel proliferation. A second nuclear age has dawned, and it is running out of control. No new policies now on the horizon, in Washington or elsewhere, seem likely to turn things around anytime soon.

Jonathan Schell, The Nation's peace and disarmament correspondent, is the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute.

-------- australia

Disabled people used as nuclear 'guinea pigs'

Irish Independent,
Kathy Marks in Sydney
June 8, 2001
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=32&si=450608

PROFOUNDLY disabled people were sent out from institutions in Britain to be used as guinea pigs during British atomic tests in the Australian desert in the 1950s, it was alleged yesterday.

They did not return home and are assumed to have died after witnessing nuclear explosions at Maralinga, in South Australia, at close quarters.

Claims that disabled people were deliberately exposed to radioactive fall-out in order to assess its effects on the human body were examined in 1985 by an Australian Royal Commission into the tests, but were dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Now The Independent has learned of the existence of a pilot who claims he flew them out from Britain.

The pilot related his story to respected Australian academic, Robert Jackson, director of the Centre for Disability Research and Development at Edith Cowan University in Perth.

The encounter took place after Dr Jackson gave a presentation to 300 staff in the late 1980s, during which he mentioned the allegations about radiation experiments.

Afterwards, he said, one staff member approached him and told him: "That was true. I was one of the pilots, and we didn't fly them out again."

Dr Jackson claimed he closely questioned the man, who had become a disabled care worker, and had no doubt he was telling the truth. "I was quite convinced," he added. The people who were used as guinea pigs had multiple disabilities, both physical and intellectual, the staff member told him. He is now trying to trace the man, who left the centre several years ago.

The disclosure follows revelations last week that bodies of stillborn and dead babies were shipped to the US in the 1950s from Britain, Australia, Canada and Hong Kong for use in research projects on the effects of radiation exposure. Thousands of human bone samples were also sent out.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency admitted bone samples were taken from dead babies and adults and sent abroad to be tested for Strontium 90, a key radioactive element, in a programme which continued until 1978. Chief Executive Dr John Loy said pathologists cremated bones and put ashes through a geiger counter.

-------- korea

Pyongyang mum on U.S. promise

By David R. Sands
June 8, 2001
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010608-906626.htm

North Korea remained silent yesterday as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the Bush administration was ready to revive without "any preconditions" intensified diplomatic contacts frozen since the end of the Clinton administration.

U.S. diplomats hope to renew direct talks with North Korea on its missile program and huge conventional forces through a long-standing diplomatic back-channel in New York "in the very near future," Mr. Powell said yesterday, as he emerged from a working lunch with South Korean Foreign Minister Han Seung-soo.

The only semi-official signal from North Korea came from Kim Myong Chol, an official in Japan often used as a spokesman for the North Korean regime.

Mr. Kim told reporters in Japan yesterday that the North was ready to talk with the United States about the missile issue, but would discuss conventional force levels only after the U.S. forces helping to defend South Korea are withdrawn.

The rapprochement with the Stalinist state had been put on hold for four months while the new U.S. administration reviewed the effort to cut a deal pushed strongly by President Clinton at the end of his term.

But while saying the United States hoped for a more "comprehensive" dialogue with North Korea, including "humanitarian" issues and the North´s huge troop deployment, Mr. Powell indicated he was ready to resume the talks pretty much along the lines of the Clinton initiative.

"We´re not setting any preconditions here," Mr. Powell said. "I think it´s important to have an open dialogue on all the issues that are concerned."

Mr. Bush in February delivered an unexpected setback to South Korean President Kim Dae-jung´s own efforts to ease tensions with the North and end a half-century of bitter military stalemate on the peninsula. Mr. Bush expressed deep skepticism about whether Pyongyang could be trusted to abide by any agreement to curb its missile development and export program.

The South Korean leader´s "Sunshine Policy," including a hoped-for visit by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to Seoul this year, has been on hold as the U.S. administration conducted a four-month policy review on North Korea.

A relieved Mr. Han said he "welcomed" Mr. Bush´s statement Wednesday evening.

"We hope that the U.S. will engage North Korea in a very meaningful and useful dialogue, and in doing so, the United States and South Korea will coordinate our policy toward North Korea," he said.

While U.S. and North Korean diplomats have had "regular, logistical contacts" through the New York channel, North Korea learned of Mr. Bush´s statement just hours before it was issued.

Mr. Bush´s decision was welcomed by Japan and by the new Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who had been highly critical of Mr. Bush´s treatment of South Korea´s Mr. Kim.

Mr. Powell confirmed yesterday that the administration would not seek a renegotiation of the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which North Korea suspended its nuclear program in exchange for fuel aid and foreign help in constructing modern nuclear-power plants.

The accord has come under heavy attacks from those who doubt North Korea´s promises can be adequately verified.

"It is an agreement and we see no reason to change our position right now," Mr. Powell said.

Privately critical of Mr. Clinton´s 11th-hour push for a diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea, Bush administration officials were on the defensive yesterday, trying to distinguish the differences in their new approach.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters yesterday that the incoming Bush team had a right and a duty to review the policy in one of the world´s most dangerous places.

Some 37,000 U.S. troops are posted along the demilitarized zone along with South Korean forces. They face more than 1 million North Korean troops across the world´s most heavily militarized border.

A White House background briefing paper indicated there would be substantial continuity with the previous administration´s approach.

"There are some elements that were useful and important, and we have incorporated them into our thinking," the paper concluded.

-------- missile defense

They'd Shoot NMD Down
Neighbors Of British Radar Site Aren't Keen On Missile Defense
Radar Hub For Missile Shield Would Be Housed At Local Base
Fear Enemy Would Attack Them As Prelude To Strike At America

June 8, 2001
CBS
http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,295712-412,00.shtml

FYLINGDALES, Britain, As the Bush administration continues its global sales pitch for national missile defense, it's winning few converts in the town that could host the lynchpin to the missile shield, reports CBS News Correspondent Tom Fenton.

The high-powered American radar base at Fylingdales - in a wild moorland corner of one of Britain's national parks - is slated to become a crucial element in the NMD program.

The base, known for the large pyramid-shaped radar array based there, would house the early warning radar that would alert batteries of "kill vehicles" to an enemy missile launch.

The Blair government appears to support the idea of NMD, but there is a problem: 100 British Parliamentarians oppose it.

"We should have no business whatsoever with national missile defense," said Labor Party MP Jeremy Corbyn. "It makes us a potential target for anyone who's looking for a war against the United States."

The locals hate it too.

"Anybody who wanted to attack America would most likely attack Fylingdales first," said Jackie Fearnley.

People here have watched the simulations and listened the message that the NMD "is designed to protect all 50 states," but heard no promise it would protect Britain.

The national missile defense is needed, supporters say, because a group of "rogue" nations - like North Korea, Iran and Iraq - could soon develop ballistic missiles capable of delivering chemical, biological or nuclear bombs to the United States.

Supporters says the possibility of a massive American retaliation may not dissuade these states from striking.

The project is estimated to cost as much $60 billion for the land-based leg of interceptors, radar stations and battle management network.

The Clinton administration conducted several tests of the missile defense technology but held off on a decision on whether to start building NMD. The Bush administration has vowed to push ahead, and said it plans to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which prohibits such systems.

Outlining his plans for missile defense, President Bush said the system is needed "to counter the different threats of today's world."

The administration believes the ABM treaty is outdated, and has pledged to cut nuclear stockpiles in coordination with building an NMD.

Domestic opponents criticize the program's cost and say it could trigger an arms race. Russia opposes scrapping the ABM treaty, China believes the missile shield could erode its nuclear deterrent, and some European allies are skeptical.

American envoys have been shuttling around the world explaining what's involved. But here in the communities that have to live alongside the secret American facility, people complain that they've been told nothing.

During the Cold War Fylingdales was a series of domed radar apparatuses designed to give Britain four minutes warning of a nuclear attack. In the 1960s people understood the purpose of the installation.

"We really thought there could be a nuclear war," said Fearnley.

But people don't buy the current American argument.

"Some idea that Saddam Hussein might chuck a missile and hopefully hit Washington - the whole concept is so ludicrous," said Laureen Shaw.

The Washington Post reported Friday that administration officials are considering speeding up development of the system to install a few missile interceptors by 2004. But along with the technical hurdles the Pentagon faces, there is a growing political obstacle in Britain.

"By God, if Tony Blair and President Bush between them decide to go ahead with this, then by heck, just stand by because there will be a lot of people here who will be very, very upset and who will be making a lot of noise," said Fylingdales neighbor Tom Thomson.

----

Missile Defense: Wishing Won't Make it So

Council for a Livable World Education Fund
Press Release: June 8, 2001
http://www.clw.org/ef/bmddreams.html

The Bush Administration's rush to deploy a scaled down missile defense system by 2004 is nothing more than a "foot in the door" for Boeing and disastrous for U.S. security, the Council for a Livable World Education Fund said today.

"The Bush plan is the worst of all possible worlds. It means building something before we know if it will work; spending huge amounts of money we don't have; breaking the ABM treaty when our allies are strongly opposed to such action; and putting U.S. security at risk, all to appease the Republican right wing. It's outrageous. It's like the Pentagon is living in an Alice-in-Wonderland reality," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World.

The Bush plans for deploying five missile interceptors in Alaska by 2004, leaked on the eve of the President's first trip to meet with NATO partners and with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, appears to be an effort to bully our NATO allies, who do not see the need for the U.S. to deploy an anti-missile system, into concluding they have no chance of derailing the Administration's efforts.

"Simply using words like 'inescapable' and 'inevitable' to describe these half-baked plans won't make them come true," said Chris Madison, who directs the Education Fund's National Missile Defense Project. "The fact is, there is no consensus in the Senate, no consensus in the country and no consensus among our allies that this is the best way to proceed."

The Education fund noted that there were several major obstacles to the Administration's "hurry-up" missile defense. To deploy by 2004, they would have to use existing, but inadequate, radar systems, because there is not enough time to build sophisticated new radar systems. In addition, the Pentagon would have to significantly increase testing of the system.

However, if a test fails, and many anti-missile intercept tests do, several months are required to investigate the failure before the next test is conducted. When the next intercept test of this system is conducted, it will have been over a year since the last one. There simply is not enough time to do all the tests required before 2004.

Moreover, this 'build now, ask questions later' approach probably has a more cynical motivation. Everyone knows that once a weapons program enters its procurement phase, Congress is loath to stop funding it, even for substantial upgrades later on.

"This is a 'foot in the door' approach to missile defense," Isaacs said. "By getting some elements in place quickly, they hope to grease the wheels for more money in future years."

Council for a Livable World Education Fund, 110 Maryland Avenue NE #201, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 543-4100

Contact: John Isaacs - 202.543.4100 x. 131 or Chris Madison - 202.546.0795 x. 135

----

NATO allies told US intends to deploy limited missile defence

Fri, 8 Jun 2001 6:30 AEST
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/weekly/newsnat-8jun2001-14.htm

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has told the NATO allies that the United States intends to deploy a limited missile defence and that breaking the 1972 ABM treaty with Moscow is "simply inescapable".

Mr Rumsfeld says missile defences will be added to traditional nuclear weapons as part of a strategy he calls "layered deterrence".

The ABM treaty bars the United States and Russia from deploying national missile defence systems.

Many US allies oppose abandoning the ABM treaty, fearing it will sharpen tensions with Russia and China and spur an arms race in response to a questionable threat.

----

Missile Defense Speedup Weighed
Implementing System By 2004 Considered

By Steven Mufson and Mary Pat Flaherty
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 8, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37473-2001Jun7?language=printer

The Bush administration is considering a crash effort to put into place a rudimentary missile defense system before the end of President Bush's current term in 2004, according to administration officials and a presentation by a major defense contractor.

The Defense Department has been pressing private contractors for options to speed up deployment of missile defenses. The lead contractor, Boeing Co., has given various proposals -- including one that would place five interceptor missiles in Alaska by March 2004, before a sophisticated new radar system could be built, and step up the number of flight tests to four or five a year -- far more than contractors have managed so far.

Until now, administration officials have spoken only in very general terms about the possible design, timetable and cost of missile defenses. Boeing's proposals, which officials said are under active consideration, indicate the administration wants to select a concrete plan and move quickly to build at least the first elements of a missile defense, which could be expanded over time.

A handful of interceptors, without a new "X-band" radar to guide them, is only a small part of what the administration envisions. But the rudimentary system would signal the administration's resolve, help fulfill one of Bush's campaign promises and require fundamentally changing or scrapping the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

"It is a simple question: Is something better than nothing?" a senior defense official said. "The president and the secretary [of defense] have made it pretty clear they believe that some missile defense in the near term is in fact better than nothing."

A Boeing Co. executive outlined an overall proposal and possible timetable in an April 23 presentation at the Pentagon. One innovative suggestion was that the United States could put a missile tracking radar on a movable floating platform by November 2004.

The platform, similar to an oil-drilling rig, could be deployed in international waters, reducing the need to obtain permission from U.S. allies to use radars on their territory. But because the platform would be vulnerable to attack, one official said, the idea appears unlikely to be adopted.

Boeing spokeswoman Monica Aloisio declined to comment on the details of the April 23 presentation, but said it was "one of many" options Boeing has presented. All the options were requested by the director of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, and the missile defense manager, Maj. Gen. Willie B. Nance, in an effort to speed up deployment.

"What the Department of Defense is doing is looking at optimal ways of getting pieces in place as soon as possible," a senior administration official said. "Different companies are pitching what they think they're best suited to do."

Boeing's proposals illustrate the difficulty in coming up with a missile defense system any time soon. To meet a 2004 deployment date, the initial handful of interceptors in Alaska would have to rely on an upgraded version of existing early warning radars, Boeing said. It would take until 2007 to deploy 50 interceptors -- about half the number the Clinton administration originally planned for that date.

Boeing's proposals would require putting the system in place piece by piece, with plans to upgrade the initial components in later years.

"It's like buying a car, and when you first get the car, it can only go in first gear," said Philip E. Coyle, formerly the Pentagon's top weapons tester.

Coyle said the approach differs from the Pentagon's normal acquisition procedure, in which requirements are spelled out in advance. "Now we're saying we won't wait until we have all the capabilities we want. We'll take each capability as we can get it, one piece at a time," he said.

The cost of speeding up deployment is unclear. Dov Zakheim, the Defense Department comptroller, said at a May 31 briefing that the budget for fiscal 2002 will include "considerably more" money for missile defense. But he did not provide a specific figure.

Preliminary decisions about the shape of a missile defense system appear to be drawing near. Yesterday, a senior Defense Department official traveling with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was meeting with other NATO defense ministers in Brussels, said "we have moved from the initial consultations" and "are now talking about how we go forward."

One ambitious element of Boeing's proposals, and one potential obstacle for the Pentagon, is the need for increased tests, which cost about $75 million to $100 million each. A flight test planned for this month has been postponed until August, administration officials said. The most recent test took place nearly a year ago.

"It would be ambitious to try to sustain four or five tests a year for the next several years," Coyle said. "The best way to prove that is to notice how long the current one has been delayed. It was originally scheduled before the readiness review a year ago. Three or four other tests were supposed to have happened by now."

"It all comes down to the flight tests," a senior defense official added. "You get a string of successes and you can move faster. You run into problems, and there is simply no denying that it takes time to figure out what went wrong and fix it."

Boeing's presentation assumes that "treaty constraints" are "removed" -- a reference to the ABM Treaty, which prohibits testing and construction of missile defenses at multiple sites.

The Boeing presentation was made by Jim Evatt, a Boeing executive vice president and manager of its missile defense work. Major subcontractors on missile defense include TRW Inc., which makes the battle management control system; Raytheon Co., which makes the kill vehicle; and Lockheed Martin Corp., which makes the launch vehicle.

Staff writer Roberto Suro contributed to this report.

----

Rumsfeld Seeks NATO Support
Secretary Promotes Missile Shield Plan

By William Drozdiak
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 8, 2001; Page A11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37366-2001Jun7?language=printer

BRUSSELS, June 7 -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told skeptical NATO allies today that the United States would soon start to build a system of "layered defenses" involving ground, sea and space-based weapons to cope with a growing threat of ballistic missiles in the hands of unpredictable foes.

In a strong appeal for their support, the latest such call from the United States in recent weeks, Rumsfeld urged fellow defense ministers in the 19-nation alliance to embrace a post-Cold War strategy being developed by the Bush administration. It emphasizes security dangers emerging from new technologies that Rumsfeld said are "putting unprecedented power in the hands of small countries and terrorist groups."

European ministers at the gathering continued to challenge the American view. France's defense minister, Alain Richard, said that NATO needs a more comprehensive analysis of what the supposed threat entails. And Germany's Rudolf Scharping called for "a coherent political answer to the threats [because] technological means alone are not sufficient."

Using charts and videotapes to fortify his message, Rumsfeld advocated a defense network that could intercept "handfuls of missiles, not hundreds." It would augment nuclear deterrence, he said, and protect the territory of the United States and its allies from a new generation of military perils that bears no resemblance to the old threat from the Soviet Union.

He said that deploying missile defenses would require abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that the United States signed with the Soviet Union in 1972. While the Bush administration regards it as a Cold War relic that should be discarded, many NATO allies still consider the treaty the foundation of modern arms control and favor retaining it.

Rumsfeld acknowledged that the U.S. desire to scrap the treaty unsettles some European allies, but he called it a vital step in achieving a new strategic environment. "We understand this conclusion is not welcomed by some," he said. "But it is simply inescapable."

The debate over whether a missile shield is feasible and justified is shaping up as one of the most contentious issues NATO faces. Many allies see the construction of a missile defense network as a provocative act that would escalate the global arms race by prodding Russia, China and other nations to develop offensive weapons that could overwhelm any defense.

In addition, some allies question whether the threat is as serious as the United States would have them believe. Even if it is, they favor a stronger emphasis on engaging potential adversaries in the quest to find peaceful arms control solutions that would minimize all arsenals of mass destruction.

Last week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell failed to persuade NATO foreign ministers at a meeting in Budapest to identify the proliferation of ballistic missiles as a "common threat" shared with the United States.

Today Rumsfeld said that a missile shield, by its very existence, could "dissuade and discourage potential adversaries from investing significant resources into hostile capabilities." He also said that failing to develop missile defenses as quickly as possible could actually encourage attacks.

Rumsfeld unveiled new intelligence assessments that purportedly show how such "nations of concern" as North Korea, Iran and Iraq have already deployed missiles capable of reaching NATO member states.

While conceding there had been major setbacks in the testing of antimissile defenses, he said the United States was determined to deploy systems "consistent with technical maturity and the threat" over the next few years. He said the Pentagon was exploring new technologies that feature ground and sea-based systems to intercept missiles in midcourse or in ascent, as well as an airborne laser.

Rumsfeld said the missile shield would allow the United States to proceed with major cuts in offensive nuclear missiles. But he also sought to reassure the allies that the United States did not intend to diminish its nuclear or conventional presence in Europe.

----

Rumsfeld Outlines to NATO Fast Track for Missile Shield

By JAMES DAO
June 8, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/world/08NATO.html?searchpv=nytToday

BRUSSELS, June 7 - Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the United States is likely to deploy certain antiballistic missile systems before testing on them is completed, signaling the speed with which the Bush administration hopes to develop and use the still-unproven technology.

In a meeting of NATO defense ministers, Mr. Rumsfeld outlined a two-tiered approach in which the administration intends to continue consultations with its skeptical allies and Russia, even as the Pentagon moves as swiftly as possible to develop and deploy systems.

"I don't know a single advanced research and development project in the history of mankind that didn't suffer a series of failures," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters after today's meetings. "You end up learning something by trying it."

As one of the administration's most determined advocates of a missile shield, Mr. Rumsfeld viewed his trip here as an opportunity to lay out his most detailed arguments yet on the growing threat of missile attacks and the ways a missile shield could fit into a broader strategy of deterrence, his aides said.

In one closed-door session, the American delegation presented the NATO ministers with detailed intelligence information that they said clearly demonstrated the efforts of certain nations to acquire advanced, long-range missile technology.

Mr. Rumsfeld also told the defense ministers that the administration is not prepared to abandon the cornerstones of current nuclear policy - deterrence and arms control - in an attempt to allay some of the allies' concerns that building a missile defense will set off a new arms race.

But he asserted that the Antiballistic Missile Treaty the United States signed with the Soviet Union in 1972 has made testing, much less deploying, antimissile technology next to impossible. For that reason, he concluded, amending or scrapping the treaty was "inescapable."

"The treaty stands in the way of a 21st-century approach to deterrence," Mr. Rumsfeld said in a statement distributed to the NATO ministers. "It prevents deployment of defense that can deny others the power to hold our populations hostage to nuclear blackmail."

Critics of missile defense said Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks mean the United States may be heading toward withdrawing from or even violating the ABM treaty even sooner than they had anticipated.

"The course they are choosing will precipitate an international political crisis regarding the ABM treaty sooner than is necessary, given the very immature status of the technology," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, a nonprofit group. "Why perpetuate a crisis when the technology will not provide you the protection you desire?"

Privately, some European officials agreed. "It doesn't make sense to decide on something that hasn't been proven, when you don't know whether it works or whether you can pay for it," a German defense official said.

Mr. Rumsfeld said it was too early to determine when testing on various antimissile technologies - which could include lasers mounted on jets or missiles fired from destroyers - might begin "bumping up" against the ABM treaty. But some arms control groups contend the administration could violate the pact within months if it proceeds aggressively with certain kinds of tests.

Indeed, Mr. Rumsfeld said today that unlike the Clinton administration, the Pentagon under President Bush will not be deterred from conducting tests that might violate the treaty.

"We are proceeding with a variety of technologies or research and development activities that had not previously been explored to any length because, had they been successful, they would have bounced against the treaty," he told reporters.

"The prior administration had concluded that they didn't want to bounce against the treaty," he said. "This administration has drawn the conclusion that the nature of the threat is sufficient" to proceed with those unexplored programs, he said.

Some defense analysts argue that the Bush administration has exaggerated the limitations on testing imposed by the ABM treaty. They contend the main obstacles to developing a viable system are the untested nature of the technology and the high costs - hundreds of billions of dollars for the kind of "layered" system Mr. Bush has advocated involving land, sea and airborne weapons.

"The spending required to pursue these options is the real current issue, not the ABM treaty," argues Philip E. Coyle, who ran the Pentagon's testing office under the Clinton administration and is now an adviser to the Center for Defense Information, a nonprofit defense analyst group, in a draft report on the ABM treaty.

Mr. Rumsfeld's appearance today came just a week after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell failed to get NATO foreign ministers to agree that the 19 NATO countries faced "a common threat" from ballistic missiles attacks.

Today, Mr. Rumsfeld faced some of the same type of skepticism about the imminence of a ballistic missile attack.

During one meeting, Mr. Rumsfeld and one of his top aides, Dr. Stephen A. Cambone, gave the ministers intelligence information, including satellite photographs of missile equipment on trucks, that was intended to demonstrate the proliferation of advanced missile technology to countries like Libya, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, people who attended the meeting said.

Although some people said the briefing was persuasive, others sounded unconvinced. "The information was not new to us," said a German defense official. "We knew there were bad guys out there."

And the French defense minister, Alain Richard, when told that some people felt Mr. Rumsfeld had provided strong new evidence of a growing missile threat, said, "That's a superficial impression." He added, "Fortunately, I don't discover threats every day."

But several NATO officials said that the Bush administration was making headway within the organization. The officials said many NATO countries were enticed by Mr. Bush's pledge to cut America's nuclear arsenal and to provide missile defense technology to the allies. The officials also said the administration was wearing down some of its opponents by not budging from its vow to build a system.

"When you know they are going to build it no matter what, is it really worth the fight?" asked one NATO official. "I don't think so."

----

Russia, NATO to Discuss Tactical Missile Defense

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-nato-ru.html

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO on Friday accepted Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov's offer to send experts from Moscow to Brussels to discuss prospects for a possible joint Russian-European defense against medium-range tactical missiles.

The agreement was announced by Ivanov and NATO Secretary-General George Robertson at a news conference following a meeting between Ivanov and Atlantic alliance defense ministers. No date was set for the talks on Russia's earlier proposal to examine the possibility of such a joint defense.

Ivanov told reporters at a press conference that Moscow remained opposed to U.S. demands to change or scrap the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which would allow Washington to build defenses against long-range strategic missiles.

Ivanov, who was holding talks later with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, welcomed continuing anti-missile consultations with the Bush administration on emerging missile threats.

But ``as for inter-continental ballistic missiles, our view of the threat from that area these days is that it is an entirely hypothetical problem. There is no chance of it coming ... for a long, long time,'' said Ivanov, who conceded that Russia might face a more near-term threat from tactical missiles.

-------- russia

From Russia with nukes

June 8, 2001
Ariel Cohen
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010608-76849372.htm

As Presidents Bush and Putin plan their summit in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on June 16, Russia´s sales of ballistic missile technology and nuclear systems to Iran must be urgently addressed by the two presidents. Otherwise, the tentative improvement in the U.S.-Russian relations, based on Washington´s overtures to Moscow over cooperation in missile defense, may be derailed.

Iranian President Mohammed Khatami´s visit to Moscow on March 12-15, 2001, turned Mr. Putin´s Russia into a Toys-R´-Us for the ayatollahs´ military. Iran already is the third largest importer of Russian arms after China and India. Russia will supply Iran enough weaponry to destabilize the Middle East, which may mean higher oil prices and higher gasoline bills at the pump for an American consumer.

Russian-Iranian military ties that increases Tehran´s weapons of mass destruction capabilities will make this sponsor of terrorism more of a threat to vital U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf as well as to the security of America´s allies in the Middle East. Moreover, by gaining nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other advanced weapons systems from Russia, Iran could one day threaten the United States directly.

The administration must develop a comprehensive strategy that relies on proactive diplomacy, creative economic countermeasures, and innovative military responses to address this growing threat from Iran. It should maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, particularly by the U.S. Navy, to deter and defend against military threats from Iran. As long as the United States stands by its allies, the chances of attack from Iran are low.

The United States should also accelerate the deployment of sea-based missile defense systems on U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Washington should cooperate with Israel and Turkey in the Mediterranean region and the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to deploy a sea-based anti-ballistic missile systems on U.S. ships. Once deployed, such a system would blunt the emerging threat of Iranian missile attack.

The United States should also strengthen its military ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council to help it become a more effective military alliance. Bolstering the GCC would lessen Iran´s ability to intimidate its weaker neighbors and would enhance efforts to contain both Iran and Iraq.

Furthermore, the administration must ensure that U.S. enterprises and credits do not contribute in any way to Iran´s buildup of missiles or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The United States should expand sanctions against Russian companies and institutions that help Iran build missiles or that transfer weapons technology. They should be forced to choose between trading with America or aiding Iran.

Under U.S. law, the president can withhold U.S. aid to any country that provides assistance to a government that the State Department deems a terrorist state. Iran has been on the U.S. terrorism list since 1984, and the State Department lists it as the most active state sponsor of international terrorism in its April 2000 "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report.

The administration should prevent U.S. investors from subsidizing Russian projects that could generate revenue for Iran, which Tehran could use to obtain advanced military technology. Russian companies investing in Iran should not be allowed to raise capital in U.S. financial markets.

In particular, Russian companies, such as the natural gas monopoly Gazprom, should not be allowed to raise funds from U.S. investors benefiting their energy schemes in Iran, since they could fund its military buildup and ultimately could be used to threaten U.S. interests in the region.

The intelligence community should be tasked with a comprehensive assessment of the ongoing technology transfer and weapons programs, and with providing recommendations identifying "choking points" that are vulnerable to sanctions.

The current WMD working group at the National Security Council should be requested to develop a sanctions strategy that targets Russian and Iranian officials, businesses, and individuals involved in the proliferation of WMD technologies, material, or know-how, as well as their sources of financing. This strategy could include restrictions on access to U.S. capital markets, scrutiny of international investment and banking activities by violators, and stricter visa controls for the individuals involved.

The Bush administration should support the rescheduling of Russia´s $150 billion debt to the Paris Club only in exchange for its active cooperation in cutting the flow of advanced military technology to Iran. The administration should make clear that it opposes further rescheduling of Russian debt to the Paris Club as long as Moscow continues to export dangerous military technology to Iran.

Last but not least, the United States should assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve genuine democracy. Despite the reform efforts of President Khatami, the current regime remains a harsh dictatorship of radical Islamic ideologues. The Bush administration should support the creation of an international network of nongovernmental organizations concerned with the plight of Iranian students, businessmen, national and ethnic minorities, and women, the main supporters of reform who voted for Mr. Khatami in 1997 and for reformers during the 2000 parliamentary elections. Washington should help Iranians gain access to uncensored information by expanding the broadcasting range and frequencies of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of America.

This strategy, implemented under President Ronald Reagan in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, proved highly successful. Applied to Iran, it could lead to the emergence of democratic forms of government and leadership. The Bush administration should definitely take this lesson from the Ronald Reagan foreign policy manual.

Ariel Cohen is a research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

----

Fire Hits Missile Base Near Moscow, Causes Damage

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-russia-.html

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A fire broke out on Friday in one of Russia's S-300 missile systems outside Moscow, causing damage but no injuries, Russian news reports quoted military officials as saying.

Interfax news agency, quoting the Russian Air Force, said the fire, which was later extinguished, occurred in the morning in the Zakharovo Yegorovsky district while the missiles were in a horizontal position and in a protective covering.

Interfax said three missile launchers were damaged.

``There was no accidental launch. There are no injuries... There was no damage in the village. Neither residents nor servicemen were evacuated,'' it said.

Gennady Vasilyev, Air Force and Air Defense commander in Moscow region, told NTV television: ``We had an abnormal situation with our equipment. There was a fire in one of the systems and as a result three launch systems were damaged.''

Two women residents of the village told NTV that they heard a series of explosions and saw a huge cloud rise over the area.

``There were two small explosions and then a big one which blew our windows out,'' one of the unidentified women said. ``My husband and son went out to see what was happening. Then there was panic and we ran off.''

The second woman said she saw a large, black cloud over the area. She described the incident as ``dreadful.''

Vasilyev told NTV he could draw no conclusions about the accounts pending an investigation.

The S-300 system is a key part of Russian air defenses and has been sold to a number of other countries. U.S. officials have suggested they might purchase the system as part of efforts to persuade Russia to join it in efforts to build an anti-missile defense system.

---

Russian Air Defense Missile Explodes

Washington Post
Friday, June 8, 2001
The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010608/aponline103249_000.htm

MOSCOW -- A Russian air defense missile exploded at a military base near Moscow on Friday, spilling burning fuel but hurting no one, a defense ministry spokesman said.

Col. Vyacheslav Sedov said the incident was caused by a short circuit that set the engine of an S-300 surface-to-air missile ablaze. The ensuing explosion spread burning missile fuel and it took firefighters several hours to put out the fire, he said in a telephone interview. The missile's conventional warhead did not go off, he said.

"The incident hurt no one," Sedov said.

RTR government television quoted eyewitnesses who heard an explosion and saw a column of black smoke rising over the base near the village of Zakharovo, some 19 miles southeast of Moscow.

The S-300 missile is one of Russia's most modern weapons, capable of shooting down aircraft and incoming missiles at ranges of up to 120 miles. Russian officials have claimed it is superior to the U.S. Patriot system used during the Gulf War.

Russia has aggressively marketed the S-300 and has sold it to several nations.

----

Russia Needs Funds to Destroy Arms

Washington Post
Friday, June 8, 2001
By Judith Ingram
Associated Press Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010608/aponline092805_000.htm

CHELYABINSK, Russia -- Russian disarmament officials brought diplomats from the United States, the European Union and Canada to a remote eastern town Friday to drum up funding for Moscow's long-delayed effort to destroy the world's largest arsenal of chemical weapons.

Russia was one of the first nations to join the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which required countries to destroy their chemical weapons by 2007 - a date later extended to 2012.

Yet successive Russian governments have pleaded poverty, asking for more money and time to deal with the gigantic task of eliminating 44 million tons of the deadly compounds.

"The chemical weapons stockpiled by the people of the world don't belong to one country, they are a common problem and we bear responsibility for them," said former Prime Minister Sergei Kiriyenko, who heads a committee overseeing the effort.

At a flag-raising ceremony in Shchuchye, near a 60-year-old storage site for nerve agents, Russia thanked international donors for the $958 million they have committed so far to construct destruction facilities.

Shchuchye, some 975 miles southeast of Moscow in the Ural Mountains region, will have the largest destruction plant.

The United States, the biggest financial supporter of Russia's chemical weapons destruction program, has committed some $888 million to the facility, which is due to start operating in 2004. Russia is to put in some $400 million.

But Russian disarmament officials said more money is needed.

The Russian government has estimated the cost of destroying the weapons at $7 billion, though Munitions Agency head Zinovy Pak, in charge of the destruction effort, has recently said costs could be trimmed by up to half.

Costs include construction of roads, power plants and other infrastructure, partly to operate the plants and partly to buy the cooperation of local communities that fear chemical contamination.

Deputy Prime Ilya Klebanov said Russia had managed to get $120 million for the program in the budget this year, six times more than in 2000.

Russia's chemical weapons are stored at the seven sites where they were produced for most of the 20th century. The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, announced in April 1987 that the country had stopped chemical weapons production, and a decade later parliament ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

About 14 percent of the weapons are at Shchuchye - some 2 million shells and missile warheads. After shells and missiles are drilled and drained, the chemicals will be chemically neutralized, then mixed with asphalt and solidified for storage.

European countries have also contributed to Shchuchye, though most have concentrated on building the smaller Gorny destruction facility in the Volga River region.

A third destruction plant is expected to be built in Kambarka, northeast of Gorny.

------

US CONDITIONS CAST DOUBT ON FUTURE OF RUSSIAN PLANS TO IMPORT NUCLEAR WASTE

8 June 2001
http://www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nucwaste/2001jun8.html

Moscow, Russia, 2001: Russian government plans to import nuclear waste were in doubt after the US State Department ruled out Russian reprocessing of nuclear waste as an option for US origin nuclear fuel, which accounts for 90 percent of the potential waste imports.

"Russia is neither able nor willing to fulfil the US conditions, which amount to a de facto veto on this dangerous Russian nuclear waste import scheme," said Tobias Muenchmeyer of Greenpeace International. "The US conditions make Minatom's plans impossible. Without the US controlled fuel the Minatom program, if it proceeds, will involve mainly spent nuclear fuel from former Eastern Block countries."

The State Department's announcement followed Greenpeace's call for the US government to veto nuclear waste exports to Russia. The announcement came out a few hours after the Russian Duma on Wednesday approved a controversial amendment to the environmental law, which overturned a ban on the import of radioactive waste to Russia

Reprocessing (see notes) of imported nuclear waste is a crucial part of the Russian Atomic Ministry's (Minatom) plan. Minatom estimates, 16,000t of the 20,000t imported would be reprocessed. The US State Department, in a statement released yesterday clarifying US policy, said: "For Russia to import irradiated fuel containing US origin nuclear material would require a Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with the US, something it does not now have".

The statement continued: "In considering whether in the future to grant consent for retransfer, the US would want to consider several factors. For instance, the US would want to be assured that the transfer was for eventual disposal, and not for reprocessing, in order to avoid increases in civil stockpiles of separated plutonium. The US would need to be assured that the planned transportation, storage, and disposition of the fuel complied with appropriate standards of safety and security. An especially important factor would be the nature of Russia's nuclear cooperation with third parties". The last point refers to American concerns over Russian sales of nuclear technology to Iran.

Recent calculations based on data provided by the US Department of Energy (DOE) show that more than 90 percent of foreign radioactive waste (spent nuclear fuel) considered for import by Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) is under US control.

Only 180t (or 7.5 percent) of the 2,400 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel produced annually, by Minatom's claimed potential client countries, could be exported to Russia without US approval.

This material is mainly produced in Eastern European countries and in China.

The State Department conditioned a permission for countries to export US controlled fuel to: a commitment that Russia would give up its plan to reprocess the imported spent fuel: that transportation, storage, and disposition of fuel would comply with international safety standards; and Russia would give up nuclear cooperation with Iran and India.

The law changes, approved by the Duma on Wednesday, must go in the coming days to the Russian Upper House. The leader of Russia's Upper House is opposed to the radioactive waste import legislation

"The Federation Council must demonstrate that it has nothing to do with the nuclear mafia, but is reflecting the people's opinion. Greenpeace urges the Federation Council to turn down this insane law change." said Muenchmeyer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

- Tobias Muenchmeyer (Berlin) +49 170 86 66 052 - Ivan Blokov (Moscow) +7 095 257 41 22 or visit the Greenpeace website at www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/waste/russianwaste.html where a chronology of events leading up to today's Duma vote is available. PHOTOS AND VIDEO are available of the victims of radioactive pollution from the Mayak nuclear facility. Contact Greenpeace Communications Mim Lowe (video) or John Novis (photo) on ++31-20-5236222

----

Rumsfeld Takes Message to Russians

Washington Post
Friday, June 8, 2001
By Jeffrey Ulbrich
Associated Press Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010608/aponline090108_000.htm

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, having hammered the NATO allies with Washington's missile defense message, took the same argument to the Russians on Friday, hoping to persuade them the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty has outlived its usefulness.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov indicated that if Washington wants to abandon the 1972 ABM treaty, the Russians can't stop them. But he wanted to know what would be put in its place.

Allied defense ministers opened the second-day of their spring session by meeting Ivanov in the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, a forum created in 1997 when the first former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.

That was followed by bilateral talks between Rumsfeld and Ivanov, their first since Rumsfeld took charge of the Pentagon and Ivanov stepped into his new defense post.

Rumsfeld made the U.S. sales pitch for missile defense to the allies Thursday, sharing satellite photos, videotape and other sensitive intelligence with them and arguing that emerging threats, particularly missile attack from "rogue nations," require a new response from the West.

He said it was inevitable that the United States would move beyond the ABM treaty, though he did not say when. Washington would consult with the Europeans and Russia to find a "new framework" enabling the Pentagon to test and deploy defenses against ballistic missiles, he said.

The allies remained skeptical.

Ivanov told reporters that after Washington and Moscow signed the 1972 ABM treaty, 32 other agreements and treaties were signed "creating the entire regime of arms control."

"So we would like to understand exactly what is intended to replace the existing system to assure strategic stability in the future," he said.

The United States wants to develop and deploy a system capable of shooting down ballistic missiles fired by unpredictable nations such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

In his presentation to NATO defense ministers, Rumsfeld argued that the Cold War-era concept of deterring aggression must be replaced by a more complex idea.

Threatening to retaliate against an attacker with massive nuclear force will not necessarily deter a country like Iraq or North Korea, he said.

Rumsfeld proposed a three-pronged approach to deterrence: an offensive nuclear force, a missile defense, even if rudimentary in its initial form, and more advanced, flexible and mobile non-nuclear forces.

"Deploying missile defenses capable of protecting the U.S. friends and allies will eventually require moving beyond the ABM treaty," he said.

Ivanov said Moscow views the main threats today as "religious extremism, terrorism and the influx of drugs." Future threats, he said, are proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Ivanov agreed that there is a danger of threats from medium-range missiles, "something we would take very, very seriously."

The Russians have made a counterproposal to Washington's missile defense plan, essentially involving a European theater missile defense system, but that proposal, made nearly a year ago, remains vague and lacks any real detail, NATO officials say. Until the Russians provide the alliance with these details, they say, no extensive discussions of the Russian ideas can start.

Ivanov said Russia has agreed to send a team of military experts to Brussels soon to answer questions from the allies on the Russian proposal.

"We don't regard this as a monopoly suggestion," he said. "We don't want to impose it on anybody."

The entire question of missile defense will be on the agenda of Russian President Vladimir Putin's summit in Ljubljana, Slovenia June 16 with President Bush.

In the Permanent Joint Council, involving Ivanov and the 19 allies, the defense ministers also discussed the Balkans - where Russian troops make up part of the NATO-led force - arms control, proliferation and search and rescue at sea.

Officials here say NATO-Russia military cooperation in the Balkans is excellent and the departure of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic from the scene has made the political dialogue easier.

-------- treaties

Ireland Rejects European Treaty

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Ireland-Referendum.html

DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) -- Irish voters rejected a key European Union treaty designed to streamline the 15-nation trading bloc before it admits more members, final results showed Friday.

The rebuff represented an embarrassing blow for the EU, which drew up the treaty in an effort to reshape its bureaucracy before adding as many as a dozen new members in the coming years.

Irish officials said final official results showed 453,000 votes in favor of adopting the treaty and 529,000 against in Thursday's referendum.

Opponents of the treaty had plastered Dublin with posters warning that Ireland risked being bossed around by larger European states, having to subsidize poorer applicant states, and having its tiny military forced to take part in NATO-inspired peacekeeping operations.

Turnout was also very low, and a senior Irish cabinet minister said voters were apparently confused over what the treaty was about.

``It is obviously very disappointing for our partners in the community, and the applicant countries waiting to join (the EU),'' said Defense Minister Michael Smith. ``A huge proportion of the people did not vote because they were confused and in doubt.''

There was no immediate reaction from the European Union's head office in Brussels, Belgium. Officials were assessing what damage the vote would do to ambitious expansion plans.

Before the vote, opinion polls in Ireland had indicated strong majorities in favor of the treaty, but with low motivation to vote. Opponents, on the other hand, were highly motivated to cast their ballots.

The setback may only be temporary. Before the vote, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said his government would stage another referendum later if this one were rejected. Ireland was the only EU country required to hold a public referendum before putting the treaty to a parliamentary vote.

The treaty overhauls the institutions of the EU in preparation for the eventual entry of up to a dozen new members, mostly from eastern Europe. It sets a 2004 deadline for wrapping up the next round of reform talks that promise yet another fight over distributing power among small and large countries, old and new members, and between national governments and a central authority.

The pact also carries forward plans for the union to form a rapid reaction force of 60,000 soldiers for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Ireland would contribute 850 soldiers.

One of the leading ``no'' campaigners, Patricia McKenna of the Irish Green Party, said the vote reflected concerns about lack of democracy in EU structures and institutions.

``Ireland is the first country to be asked its opinion (of the treaty),'' said McKenna, a member of the European Parliament. ``If that's an indication of how Europe feels ... then all the member states' governments must renegotiate. It's back to the drawing board.''

Although every major political party here supported the treaty, negotiated last December in the southern French city of Nice, their campaign was lackluster.

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

Despite hoopla no new US nuclear plants soon

USA: June 8, 2001
Story by Carolyn Koo
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11101

NEW YORK - Despite haunting memories of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, the U.S. nuclear power industry appears poised for a rebirth as a worsening energy shortage and the high price of alternative fuels force utilities to seek new supply.

But energy executives caution it may be years before completion of the next new plant.

"I'm a huge believer that nuclear power should play a part in our energy needs," Michael Morrell, president and chief operating officer of Allegheny Energy Supply Co., a subsidiary of utility Allegheny Energy Inc., said at a recent conference.

"But I don't believe there will be a nuclear plant built in my lifetime."

Morrell, 53, was an engineer at GPU Inc. during the 1979 meltdown of the utility's Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, the U.S. industry's worst nuclear accident, and knows whereof he speaks.

Three Mile Island was followed by the world's worst nuclear accident at the Chernobyl plant near Kiev in Ukraine in 1986.

Not all industry executives are as pessimistic - or blunt - as Morrell.

But, as much as they all hope that a national energy crisis and an improved safety record pave the way for new plants, they realize that issues like deciding where to dispose of waste, improving licensing, attracting people to the industry and, not least, mustering public support continue to stand in the way.

And that means new plants won't go up any time soon - certainly not in time to solve today's power problems.

Already, nuclear power supplies about 20 percent of U.S. energy needs, but those needs are rapidly expanding. Supplies are scant, even as electricity demand nationally is set to rise about 20 to 25 percent over the next decade.

Don Kirchoffner, spokesman for utility Exelon Corp., said he thinks 2006 is the earliest for construction of a new plant. But Lou Long, vice president of technical services at Southern Co. unit Southern Nuclear Operating Co., is slightly more optimistic, estimating that a new plant could be in place by 2005 but only "if you started today."

In other words, nuclear power isn't going to be much help in the current crisis in California, which remains at the mercy of a flawed deregulation plan that's resulted in power shortages and a series of rolling blackouts.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED

Nevertheless, energy executives say nuclear power could do its part to provide energy for the country's future needs, and the industry is poised to press ahead, given the imprimatur of President George W. Bush as well as nascent public approval.

The national energy policy announced last month by the administration called for increased use of nuclear power. "Existing and new technologies offer us the opportunity to expand nuclear generation as well," the policy stated. "This power source, which causes no greenhouse gas emissions, can play an expanding part in our energy future."

Even Stephen Dolley, research director of the anti-proliferation Nuclear Control Institute, admitted, "It's the strongest support nuclear power has had in the White House in 20 years."

And a recent poll by the Field Institute, a nonprofit public policy research group, revealed that 59 percent of Californians support building more nuclear power plants.

The realization that California's problems aren't necessarily unique has propelled nuclear power onto the national energy agenda. And high natural gas prices have utilities looking at alternative fuel sources like nuclear or cleaner-burning coal.

"Our industry was caught off guard in that we really weren't seriously looking at nuclear power plants because the price of gas was so low," explained Southern's Long. "Suddenly things changed dramatically."

More encouragement came when the state of Georgia recently issued a request for power in 2005-2006, from either a coal-fired plant or a nuclear plant, according to Long.

"It was another sign that the landscape has changed," he said. "From Georgia's perspective, they're just beginning to say, 'Oops, we don't want the same situation as California.'"

Exelon, for one, is seeking to build a cheaper and more efficient type of plant called a pebble bed modular reactor, pending a feasibility study that has cost $8 million already. The study will be completed in six to nine months.

Until new plants are built, the energy industry is working on renewing current 40-year licenses, which would extend them by another 20 years. While praising the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for starting to expedite the license renewal process, Dominion Resources Inc. unit Dominion Energy Chief Executive Thomas Farrell II told the Nuclear Energy Assembly last month, "We need assurance that the process won't get stalled."

However, David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, thinks that renewals work against the construction of new plants. "There are 103 plants. Renewals of 103 plants is 103 fewer reasons to build," he said.

-------- colorado

Beryllium stories fake, expert says
Maker allegedly planted medical-journal articles

By Berny Morson, News Staff Writer,
June 8, 2001
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_621912,00.html

GOLDEN -- An Ohio company that produced beryllium planted articles in medical journals saying the deadly metal was safe, a Massachusetts expert testified Thursday. Dr. David Steven Egilman said the false science produced by employees of Brush Wellman Inc. was picked up and included in technical manuals and even textbooks used by many medical schools.

Egilman testified during the fourth day of a trial in Jefferson County District Court in which 54 Rocky Flats workers, former workers or their next of kin are seeking damages from Brush Wellman for debilitating lung diseases caused by breathing beryllium dust.

They claim the company knew beryllium is toxic, but failed to inform customers, such as Rocky Flats. Some parts of the nuclear weapons produced at Rocky Flats were fashioned from beryllium.

Egilman cited a half-dozen publications, including safety manuals and textbooks, written by Brush Wellman employees as early as 1964.

Those materials support the federal standard for beryllium in place at the time, which said that beryllium dust was not hazardous in tiny quantities, estimated at 2 micrograms per cubic meter. One article claimed beryllium is safe even in concentrations 15 times the federal standard.

But Egilman, who has reviewed the company's own documents, said Brush Wellman knew even as the articles were being written that beryllium was dangerous in concentrations below the federal standard.

"There is no safe level to prevent chronic beryllium disease," Egilman said. "The safe exposure level is no exposure."

Brush Wellman attorney Sydney McDole fought Thursday to keep Egilman's testimony out of the trial. She challenged Egilman's qualifications as an expert, then threw up numerous procedural roadblocks to the substance of his testimony.

In the end, District Court Judge Frank Plaut allowed the jury to hear most of what Egilman had to say.

McDole limited her questions of Egilman to the amount of money the plaintiffs paid him to testify as an expert witness. Because Plaut has issued a gag order, the company's lawyers could not speak to the media after the Thursday court session.

However, two plaintiffs who testified said Dow Chemical Co., which ran Rocky Flats under a government contract in the 1950s and 1960s, did little to train workers to handle beryllium safely.

--------

No level of beryllium safe, Flats workers' expert says

By Stacie Oulton
Denver Post Staff Writer
June 08, 2001
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E44150,00.html

- GOLDEN - A Boston doctor called as an expert witness in a lawsuit brought by Rocky Flats workers sickened by beryllium testified that any exposure to the toxic metal's dust or fumes can cause illness.

"There is no safe level (of exposure) to prevent chronic beryllium disease," a wasting lung ailment, said David Egilman, a professor at Brown University and director of a medical clinic.

Egilman testified on behalf of four Rocky Flats workers and their wives who are suing Brush Wellman, an Ohio-based company that supplied beryllium to the former nuclear weapons plant.

The lawsuit alleges that the company covered up what it knew about the toxicity of the metal and conspired with the federal government to accomplish that.

In articles and books stretching from the 1960s to the 1990s, company officials said that no workers became ill from exposures to 2 micrograms or less of dust or fumes from the metal, which is the federal safety standard.

But the company founder and president wrote in his private diary in 1951 that Brush employees were getting the disease when exposed to dust or fumes below the safety standard. That diary and other company documents were introduced earlier in the case.

Two of the workers also testified Thursday that the conditions in their work area at Rocky Flats were clean.

"They were very clean, I thought," said Salvador Valencia, a 53-year-old who machined the metal at the plant for about eight months in the 1970s.

Brush has tried to show government contractors operated the plant under unsafe conditions because workers didn't have proper ventilation and were allowed to eat around the metal's dust.

Valencia said that he was never told to wear a respirator when he machined beryllium, and there was no special ventilation.

James Tooley, another worker in the lawsuit, testified he was exposed to fumes during an accident while he was distilling dissolved beryllium metal as a lab worker.

-------- nevada

Yucca Mountain Project is Everybody's Problem

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
June 8, 2001
Contacts: Kalynda Tilges - 702-796-5662;
Lisa Gue - 202 905-7413 (cell);
Citizen Alert - Las Vegas - lvcitizenalert@earthlink.net

LAS VEGAS, NEV. -- Activists from across the country voiced solidarity with Nevada's struggle against the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump. "We are here to assure Nevadans that they have our support ," said Lisa Gue, policy analyst with Public Citizen in Washington, D.C. "We will continue to actively oppose the industry-driven scheme to make Yucca Mountain into a high-level nuclear waste dump.

Representatives of national groups were in Las Vegas today to speak in support of Governor Guinn's Nevada Protection Plan at the meeting of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects. National and Nevada activists underscored the critical role of public interest groups in fostering informed citizen involvement at the grassroots. "A broad-based national effort is needed to defeat the Yucca Mountain Project and redirect nuclear waste policy to protect the health and safety of all Americans," said John Hadder, northern Nevada coordinator for Citizen Alert.

The presence of groups from outside of Nevada demonstrates the national significance of the Yucca Mountain Project. "Yucca Mountain is a bad site for a bad plan brought to us by bad politics," said Steve Erickson, a representative of anti-nuclear groups in Utah. "Its time for Westerners to unite with our national supporters to stop the nuclear waste dump, just as we did to stop the MX missile shell game," he said.

The unprecedented nuclear transportation scheme that would be launched if the repository proposal were approved would send high-level waste shipments through 43 states and within one half mile of 50 million people. "Across the country people are waking up to the dangers of transporting highly radioactive waste through their communities to a leaky dump in Nevada. Awareness is growing that Yucca Mountain is in everyone's back yard," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C.

"After 14 years of study, we are at a critical juncture in the Yucca Mountain process. National groups are committed to working closely with Nevadans and concerned citizens across the country to defeat this dangerous and inherently flawed project," said Gue.

-------- tennessee

To demolish K-25 or not?

June 8, 2001
by Paul Parson
Oak Ridger staff
http://www.oakridger.com/

A report issued this week analyzes four alternatives -- ranging in cost from zero to $434 million -- for decontaminating and decommissioning two large, historic uranium enrichment process buildings at the Oak Ridge K-25 Site.

Buildings K-25 and K-27 are the two facilities examined in the engineering evaluation/cost analysis prepared by Science Applications International Corp. for the Department of Energy.

The U-shaped K-25 building covers more than 40 acres at the site while K-27 takes up around 374,000 square feet. Operations in K-25 ceased in the early 1960s while K-27 was completely shut down in the mid-1980s.

SAIC's report analyzes four alternatives for taking care of the buildings on the basis of cost, implementability and effectiveness.

The most effective method, according to the report, consists of removing equipment from the buildings, demolishing the facilities and disposing of the waste. Estimated cost is $373 million if the waste is taken to the Nevada Test Site or $296 million if the waste is disposed of at the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility, which is under construction in Oak Ridge.

This choice is also deemed the "preferred or recommended" alternative for handling the two buildings.

However, this alternative poses the greatest transportation risk if the waste is shipped to Nevada, the report states. It has been estimated that 10,032 shipments may be required to transport waste to Nevada if the material doesn't meet the local facility's acceptance criteria.

This alternative is one of two that would take eight years to complete. The other would entail decontaminating the equipment, demolishing the building and disposing of the waste at the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility.

According to the report, this alternative is considered the most difficult because of all the large equipment that will have to be cleaned under the constraints of criticality and security concerns. Estimated cost is $434 million.

The report also looks at spending no money to take "no action" on the buildings and paying $361 million over 30 years to continue surveillance and maintenance.

Both structures have been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. So, continuing surveillance and maintenance is the one alternative that would not adversely impact the buildings from a historic preservation perspective.

But this alternative can't be considered a "permanent solution," and it only defers the inevitable demolition of the structures, the report states.

Copies of the engineering evaluation/cost analysis are available at DOE's Information Resource Center, 105 Broadway. DOE is accepting public comments on the document until July 9.

-------

Our View: Treat DOE with respect

June 8, 2001
http://www.oakridger.com/

While many areas of Tennessee tend to look upon Oak Ridge alone as being favored by federal -- and particularly Department of Energy -- largess, a new study by the University of Tennessee suggests the beneficial reach extends well beyond the city's borders.

Among the findings by UT's Center for Business and Economic Research:

- DOE's local work year led to an increase of nearly $1.8 billion in Tennessee's gross state product in 2000; boosted state and local tax coffers by $56.6 million; and directly or indirectly created 33,517 full-time jobs for the state.

Certainly that is nothing to sneeze at. And, as maddening as we might sometimes find dealing with big-government bureaucracies and decision-making, the fact is DOE on the whole is a pretty good corporate neighbor. At the least, it should be treated with some measure of the same courtesy and consideration accorded to private-sector employers whose impact pales by comparison.

-------- us nuc politics

Rice Says No 'Values Gap' Between U.S. And Europe

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By REUTERS Filed at 0:35 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-bush-eu.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush rejects the premise that a ``values gap'' is driving a wedge between the United States and Europe, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday.

Despite differences on a number of social issues, the United States and Europe will remain strong allies because of their shared interests and common values, Rice said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Speaking four days before Bush leaves for his first overseas visit as president, Rice said he views the trip as an opportunity to advance America's common goals with Europe and to discuss their common challenges.

``Reasonable people can disagree on the best approach to policy issues such as global climate change and genetically modified food,'' Rice said, adding that it was imperative for allies to have ``an open, healthy debate on issues where we differ.''

``The debate over a values gap or a strategic split ignores the fact that at a very fundamental level our economic interest and our security interests -- far from driving us apart -- are major factors in keeping the United States and Europe working together,'' Rice said.

Bush is scheduled to travel to Europe on Monday for a six-day trip that will take him to Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Poland and Slovenia where he will have his first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He is expected to face tough questions from European allies who are skeptical about his policies on missile defense and global warming and other issues.

European leaders were caught by surprise by Bush's rejection of the 1992 Kyoto treaty, which requires industrial nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Thursday that Bush was looking forward to discussing the issue when he goes to Europe next week.

``He is going to tell the Europeans that he takes the situation very seriously, that global climate change is an issue that nations do need to deal with,'' Fleischer told reporters.

Fleischer would say not whether Bush plans to present his European counterparts with any specific proposals for dealing with global warming.

----

[Krauthammer is his usual self here, except for the surprising suggestion to cut the nuclear arsenal.]

The New Unilateralism

Washington Post
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 8, 2001; Page A29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38839-2001Jun7?language=printer

While Washington wasn't looking -- distracted by tax cuts, campaign finance reform and the exquisite spectacle of Jim Jeffords wrestling his conscience to a draw -- the Bush administration gave the nation a new foreign policy. It is far from fully developed, but it is clear and carries enormous implications.

After eight years during which foreign policy success was largely measured by the number of treaties the president could sign and the number of summits he could attend, we now have an administration willing to assert American freedom of action and the primacy of American national interests. Rather than contain American power within a vast web of constraining international agreements, the new unilateralism seeks to strengthen American power and unashamedly deploy it on behalf of self-defined global ends.

Ends such as a defense against ballistic missiles. (We are -- most Americans do not know -- entirely defenseless against them today.) Indeed, the Bush administration's most dramatic demonstration of the new unilateralism was its pledge to develop missile defenses and thus abolish the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union. And the most flamboyant demonstration of the new unilateralism was Bush's out-of-hand rejection of the Kyoto protocol on global warming, a refreshing assertion of unwillingness to be a party to farce, no matter how multilateral.

With ABM and Kyoto, the new unilateralism is earning notice. It began with a great gnashing of teeth by our allies: Nations that spent the better part of the last 500 years raping and pillaging vast swaths of the globe now pronounce themselves distressed at the arrogance of the United States for refusing, at the height of its power, to play the docile international citizen.

The French have charmingly dubbed us not a superpower but a "hyperpower." The newly Democratic Senate is already giving tremulous voice to similar misgivings about the new unilateralism, though without the charm. "I have great concerns about a unilateral decision [on missile defenses]," worried Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, "because I believe that it could risk a second cold war -- Cold War II, I call it."

On Tuesday, Levin and other committee Democrats pilloried Douglas Feith, President Bush's nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, for daring to suggest -- as he did in a brilliant legal brief he co-authored two years ago -- that the 1972 ABM treaty expired when its only other signatory (the Soviet Union) expired. Another defense nominee, Jack Dyer Crouch II, was similarly attacked for daring to oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- an unenforceable agreement that the Senate itself voted down in 1999.

A more measured response came from The Post, which editorialized that "unilateralism [is] not an end in itself." True. It only describes how one will conduct foreign policy. Nonetheless, how one conducts foreign policy immeasurably affects what one ends up doing.

When you start, as did the Clinton administration, with a self-declared foreign policy of "assertive multilateralism" -- a moronic oxymoron that, if it meant anything, meant submerging American will in a mush of collective decision-making -- you have sentenced yourself to reacting to events or passing the buck to multilingual committees with fancy acronyms.

Small countries are condemned to such constraint. Nations like Israel and Taiwan have almost no freedom of action. Their foreign policy is driven by destiny, dictated by the single goal of sustaining their own existence. Even middle powers, such as Great Britain and Germany, find foreign policy largely dictated by necessities of power and geography.

An unprecedentedly dominant United States, however, is in the unique position of being able to fashion its own foreign policy. After a decade of Prometheus playing pygmy, the first task of the new administration is precisely to reassert American freedom of action. That means:

• Cutting our anachronistic offensive nuclear arsenal -- a legacy of a bipolar world that no longer exists -- whether or not Russia follows.

• Intervening abroad, not to "nation-build" where there is no nation to be built but to protect vital interests.

• Shaping our defenses against new enemies -- like Iran and Iraq -- rather than, absurdly, against a former enemy, namely Russia.

• Dismissing environmental agreements so bizarrely self-flagellating that they exclude India (population 1 billion), China (population 1.3 billion) and the rest of the Third World from their pollution restrictions.

For a decade after the Cold War, reactionary liberalism gave us a foreign policy frozen in the habits and conventions of the dead bipolar era: foreign policy dominated by treaties, summits, arms control, signing ceremonies.

The time warp is over.

The new unilateralism recognizes the uniqueness of the unipolar world we now inhabit and thus marks the real beginning of American post-Cold War foreign policy.

-------- us nuc waste

Environmentalists Praise US Position

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Russia-Nuclear-Waste.html?searchpv=aponline

MOSCOW (AP) -- Environmental groups on Friday praised U.S. hesitance toward approving exports of American-made nuclear fuel to Russia after recent passage of a controversial new bill by Russian legislators.

The bill, approved Wednesday by the lower house of parliament, would allow Russia to import spent nuclear fuel, which proponents say would bring in revenues to help clean up radioactive pollution across the country.

Opponents question if the money would be used as promised, and whether Russia is equipped to safely handle the foreign fuel.

More than 90 percent of the potential imports would need U.S. approval, because most of the world's nuclear fuel includes material of U.S. origin.

In a statement after the vote, the U.S. State Department said that before granting consent, ``The U.S. would want to be assured that the transfer was for eventual disposal, and not for reprocessing, in order to avoid increases in civil stockpiles of separated plutonium.''

It continued: ``The U.S. would need to be assured that the planned transportation, storage, and disposition of the fuel complied with appropriate standards of safety and security. An especially important factor would be the nature of Russia's nuclear cooperation with third parties.''

Washington has been particularly concerned about Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran, which the United States says sponsors terrorism.

``The U.S. conditions make (Russia's) plans impossible,'' Tobias Muenchmeyer of Greenpeace International said in a statement Friday. ``Russia is neither able or willing to fulfill the U.S. conditions, which amount to a de facto veto of this dangerous nuclear waste import scheme.''

The bill must still pass the upper house, the Federation Council, and be signed by President Vladimir Putin. Despite public opposition, passage is considered likely.

------- MILITARY

China tests ALCM

Washington Times
June 8, 2001
Inside the Ring Notes from the Pentagon.
Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010608-99623006.htm

China test-fired a new air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) for the first time last month, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The weapon, China´s first land-attack cruise missile, is Beijing´s answer to the ship-launched U.S. Tomahawk.

The ground-hugging, air-to-surface missile was launched from a B-6 bomber and was deemed successful by defense and intelligence agencies, according to officials familiar with the test.

The missile is assessed to be capable of carrying a 1,100-pound warhead -- either high-explosive or nuclear to an unknown range. It was the first time China test-fired its new land-attack cruise missile.

Military analysts said China has been working secretly on the cruise missile, which is an extended-range version of the C-802 anti-ship missile. The missile is said to be powered by a turbojet engine and is expected to have a range of at least 111 miles.

Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military with the private Jamestown Foundation, said his research has shown the new ALCM will have "substantial range" and will be fitted with television-camera precision guidance.

Mr. Fisher said the new missile has been dubbed variously the "Hong Niao," or Red Bird, and "Chang Feng," or Long Wind. The missile is said to be a hybrid of three missiles: the Russian Kh-55 cruise missile, the Tomahawk -- obtained clandestinely from recent U.S. attacks -- and a cruise missile purchased from Israel.

"This has been expected for some time," said Mr. Fisher, who is writing a book on the Chinese military.

China is said by defense officials to be aggressively developing a land-attack cruise missile capability to match the U.S. Navy´s famed Tomahawk and Air Force´s ALCM. It has been receiving assistance in the program from Russia, which has provided hardware and technical assistance.

The Air Force recently moved a stockpile of ALCMs to Guam for the first time to make the missiles more available for use in a regional conflict.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to comment on the test. But he said: "Like many countries, China is developing an air-launched, land-attack cruise missile capability."

Russia deploys boomer

The Russian navy deployed a nuclear-missile submarine in the Pacific Ocean for the first time in months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

The Delta-III class submarine was traced leaving port at Petropavlovsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula by U.S. intelligence agencies, as it headed for deeper Pacific waters. It is the first such deployment in almost a year, reflecting the Russian Pacific fleet´s poor state of readiness.

The Delta-III carries 16 SSN-18 long-range missiles each with between three and seven nuclear warheads.

Strategy update

The Pentagon´s Andrew Marshall has completed a 20- to 30-page outline of a potential new national military strategy. But the net assessment director´s work is not done.

Insiders tell us Mr. Marshall´s staff is working on a half-dozen "supporting papers" that focus on specific issues, such as the size of the 1.36 million active duty force and 865,000 Guardsmen and reservists. While the Marshall strategy paper is "almost philosophical," the augmenting papers will make recommendations, an official said.

The services and the staff of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld embarked last month on writing the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which will spell out the strategy, global military requirements, and the size of force needed to carry it out. Officials expect Mr. Rumsfeld to decide later this month on whether to retain or amend the current two-war requirement.

Mr. Rumsfeld was asked this week what he doesn´t like about the two-war requirement. He said in part: "If you´re constantly looking at the two major regional conflicts, then look over the last period of years, you will see that there have been deficiencies in funding for infrastructure. There have been deficiencies in funding for pay, deficiencies in funding for maintenance and repairs.

"Now you can´t come into this fresh from Chicago ... and not ask yourself the question, what is it about the interaction, the process, within and among the department and all of the various transmission belts for decision, and the Congress -- that leaves a military that has that many problems, with something as important as the human beings that populate the defense establishment."

NRO chief under fire

An internal audit of the National Reconnaissance Office has found further abuses of the secret spy satellite agency´s multibillion-dollar budget, we are told.

The office builds and operates the U.S. government´s constellation of high-technology photographic and electronic-eavesdropping satellites. Its space-based cameras are said to be able to read car license plates from hundreds of miles in orbit.

NRO´s two top officials were fired in 1996 for mismanagement of a pot of $2 billion in reserve funding for emergency satellite launches.

This time, current NRO Director Keith Hall, a holdover from the Clinton administration, is said to be scrambling to explain similar budget mismanagement problems at the agency. "Any CEO of a major corporation that did this would be fired," one source told us.

Details of the mismanagement problems could not be learned. Mr. Hall could not be reached for comment.

Intercepts

• Robert Andrews for years has played the role of Washington insider. He´s been a CIA intelligence officer, Senate staffer, defense industry executive and, most recently, a novelist.

Now Mr. Andrews, a Green Beret in Vietnam, is returning to government. The Bush White House, we are told, plans to nominate him as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict. The White House is also eyeing Michelle K. Van Cleave as the assistant secretary.

• As this column predicted last week, new Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, gave Bush defense nominees a working over at Tuesday´s confirmation hearing. Congressional insiders say the liberal senator is looking for a basis to block the confirmation of two conservative thinkers: Douglas J. Feith, nominated for undersecretary of defense for policy; and J.D. Crouch II, nominated as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Levin said the senator has submitted further written questions to the two and will decide on whether to oppose the nominations after reviewing the answers.

• Retired Gen. Thomas Moorman, a former Air Force vice chief of staff, is in line to become the next director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He would replace current NASA Director Dan Goldin.

• The four services are executing a "budget drill" this week. At a furious work pace, budgeteers are forwarding increased funding request to the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the fiscal 2002 budget. The White House has told the department it will approve up to $30 billion in spending, in addition to the pending $310 billion budget.

We´ve seen the Air Force´s request in a three-page Power Point slide sent to Mr. Rumsfeld´s staff Tuesday night. It wants $12.8 billion for readiness and modernization alone. Sources tell us the lion´s share of the president´s 2002 augmentation will go for health care and improved living conditions.

• Navy Secretary Gordon England sent his first message to the fleet June 1, trying to soothe fears about President Bush´s impending military transformation.

"The president and secretary of defense have indicated this is a time of change," Mr. England said. "I ask that each of you join me and them, bringing your talents, innovative thoughts and experience to bear in transforming the way we do business, in order to meet our commitments, now and in the future.

"I know the Navy and Marine Corps team has a strong sense of our core values of honor, courage and commitment. In that vein, we should at all times conduct our business in a forthright, open, honest and direct manner both with each other and the public. ... We will simplify the acquisition system, streamline the bureaucratic decision-making processes, promote innovation throughout the Department of the Navy."

----

CNN Settles Lawsuit With Operation Tailwind Producer

Washington Post
By Lisa de Moraes
Friday, June 8, 2001; Page C07
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38913-2001Jun7?language=printer

CNN has settled a lawsuit brought by one of two former producers fired for their role in a report that accused the U.S. military of using nerve gas on Vietnam War defectors.

Jack Smith, who stands by the story, had asked for $6 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages. He would not disclose terms of the settlement yesterday but said it "serves as a down payment on restoring my reputation as a journalist and I'll take it as that."

Smith, who now teaches in the political science departments at two Chicago-area universities, told The TV Column, "When your reputation is put through the meat grinder it's hard to put back together again."

A CNN spokeswoman said in a statement, "The case has been settled by mutual agreement of both parties."

The announcement of the settlement came three years to the day after CNN telecast the report on Operation Tailwind to premiere its newsmagazine "NewsStand."

When military experts disputed the claim that lethal nerve gas was used on a Laotian village in 1970 as part of a mission to kill American defectors, the cable news network retracted the story, saying it could not verify its accuracy.

In July 1998, longtime CNN producer Smith and his colleague April Oliver were fired. Oliver settled her suit against CNN last year. The story's on-air reporter, Peter Arnett, was reprimanded; he later left CNN.

Smith's suit for defamation and wrongful termination claimed that "CNN management decided that the Tailwind report, about a covert operation 30 years ago, was not worth jeopardizing its valuable and lucrative contacts with senior military and Pentagon officials."

-------- africa

Four Rwandans convicted of war crimes

06/08/2001
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/june01/2001-06-08-rwanda-convicts.htm

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Prosecutors demanded life sentences Friday for four Rwandans convicted of war crimes in the African nation's 1994 genocide, while defense lawyers argued that heavy sentences would harm efforts to reconcile Hutus and Tutsis.

The four - two Benedictine nuns, a factory owner and a university professor - were convicted in a trial that human rights campaigners hailed as a precedent for legal action against suspected war criminals, wherever they may hide.

After returning the guilty verdicts early Friday, the jury returned to court in the afternoon to decide on sentences.

"You will hear calls for clemency from the defense team," chief prosecutor Alain Winants told the jury. "I ask you, Did the victims receive any gestures of clemency or pity? No, none at all."

Sister Gertrude and Sister Maria Kisito were found guilty of all homicide counts of against them stemming from several days of slaughter at their convent in southern Rwanda, where up to 7,000 people were burned and butchered to death.

Alphonse Higaniro, a factory owner and former government minister, was also found guilty on all counts, while the fourth defendant, university professor Vincent Ntezimana, was judged guilty on five counts of homicide and cleared on five others.

The two men were accused with helping to plan and carry out the slayings of members of Rwanda's Tutsi minority during 13 weeks of violence that killed more than 500,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates.

The defendants face a maximum of life imprisonment, which in Belgium usually means at least 20 years.

"A life sentence would be the negation of any hope of reconciliation," defense attorney Serge Wahlis told the jury.

The trial, which lasted almost eight weeks, was the first in which a jury of citizens from one country judged defendants in war crimes committed in another country. A 1993 Belgian law gives local courts jurisdiction over violations of the Geneva Convention on war crimes, no matter where they occurred.

"This is a big step forward for international justice. It shows that such a trial can be organized, that you can have a fair trial for events that happen on the other side of the world," said Reed Brody, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch.

"The idea that justice has no border has received a big boost here."

The two nuns, dressed in beige-and-brown habits, showed no emotion as the court clerk confirmed the verdict. All four defendants stood motionless, eyes fixed on the bench.

The 12-member jury included a hairdresser, a truck driver, a university teacher and a journalist. They deliberated for eleven hours before reading out the verdicts.

The judgments were met with anger by a group of Hutu youths among the many Rwandans in the packed public gallery. Relatives of genocide victims hugged and wept quietly.

"They have given a human face to people that were killed like animals," said Marguerite Lens-Nyirajhninka, who said she had lost all of her family in the Rwandan genocide. "Today, we can feel our humanity has been recognized."

Prosecutors claimed the two nuns encouraged and collaborated with the Hutu mob that repeatedly attacked Tutsis seeking shelter at the Sovu convent in the green hills of southern Rwanda.

Witnesses told the court the two nuns called in militias to clear the Tutsis from the convent grounds. They were accused of supplying gasoline to the mob that burned some 500 people to death as they cowered in the convent's garage, and of guiding the killers to the hiding places of doomed Tutsi men, women and children.

Defense lawyers said the women were innocent bystanders, unable to halt the slaughter. The two male defendants also denied the charges. Immediately after the verdict, defense attorneys said it was too early to say if they would appeal.

Ntezimana and Higaniro were accused of being Hutu extremists who virulently opposed proposals to share power with Tutsi rebels and responded by helping plan and carry out the genocide in their southern region.

The four fled to Belgium - Rwanda's former colonial ruler - after the rebels took control of the country in July 1994 and put an end to the killings of Tutsis.

-------- arms sales

Iranian weapons

June 8, 2001
Embassy Row
James Morrison
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010608-92183704.htm

Iran is arming Palestinians by smuggling weapons through Syria, Israeli Ambassador David Ivry said yesterday.

"It´s done with the blessing of Syria," he said.

Mr. Ivry said Iranian weapons also end up in the hands of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad terrorist groups in Lebanon.

Israel suspects some weapons are smuggled through a port in Egypt, although the Egyptian government is not involved, he said.

Mr. Ivry, meeting reporters over breakfast, also said his government is prepared for a reduction of U.S. troops in the Sinai, along the border with Egypt.

"We still need the U.S. flag there, so how big a reduction is another question," he said.

The United States stations 865 troops in the Sinai as part of an international observer force of 1,850 soldiers from 11 countries.

Mr. Ivry also said Israel has learned to accept limitations on the amount of force it can use against Palestinian attacks, while Palestinians have learned how to get international attention and to portray Israel as the aggressor.

"It is always the strong side that will get criticized. The underdog will get sympathy," he said.

-------- balkans

Civilians said killed as Macedonia forces attack rebels

Friday June 8, 6:58 PM
AFP
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/010608/1/tn38.html

MATEJCE MONASTERY, Macedonia, Macedonian government forces on Friday used tanks and helicopters to launch a fresh attack on positions held by ethnic Albanian guerrillas, and a rebel leader said that at least three civilians were killed by the shelling.

The rebel leader told an AFP journalist that the casualties occurred when helicopters strafed houses where civilians were sheltering in the village of Otlja.

He also said at least one house sheltering civilians in the nearby village of Lipkovo was hit. The reports could not be independently verified.

Friday's early-morning attack came just hours after the guerrillas of the self-styled National Liberation army (NLA) offered a conditional ceasefire from midnight (2200 GMT) Thursday, and as Macedonian Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski said he would refrain from declaring a state of war in the country.

Shooting and shelling started around 5:00 am (0300 GMT), said an AFP reporter who reached the rebel-controlled zone with a convoy carrying food for the guerrillas.

The guerrillas and government forces have been engaged in violent clashes around the villages of Slupcane and Matejce, northeast from Skopje.

"The Macedonian army is trying to take over the villages, but it will not make it," one of the guerrilla leaders said.

He claimed that more than 30 army tanks were involved in the attack on the village. The rebels responded with rocket launchers and heavy machine guns.

The rebel commander said that a house in the village of Lipkovo, where he said between 8,000 and 15,000 Albanian civilians were sheltering, had been hit by the government shelling.

"There are certainly casualties but we cannot for the moment approach the house," the rebel commander, Hassan, said.

More than sixty shells were fired on rebel positions around the villages of Slupcane, Otlja and Orizare, he said.

About a dozen very powerful explosions were heard from near a rebel-held Orthodox monastery in Matejce. Return fire from the NLA guerrillas was sparse.

Outside the monastery's church an Orthodox icon of the Virgin Mary and the infant Jesus still hung above the entrance. On one wall, the letters "UCK," the Albanian acronym for the NLA rebels, had been scrawled.

The monastery itself has been spared from clashes, as the Macedonians, who are Orthodox Slavs, have held back from shelling it, although there was a gaping hole in one of the side buildings.

"They shot at it from a helicopter," commander Hassan said.

It was difficult to estimate the exact amount of damage caused by the Macedonian attack, however.

An AFP reporter saw a fighter plane, apparently a Russian Mig-21, fly low over the area.

----

Government rejects cease-fire offer, pounds rebels

06/08/2001
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/june01/2001-06-08-macedonia.htm

SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) - Government forces pounded rebel positions northeast of Macedonia's capital with heavy artillery Friday, despite a tentative cease-fire offer from ethnic Albanian insurgents. The attacks intensified even as Macedonia's prime minister bowed to international pressure and backed off on plans to ask parliament to declare a state of war in the tiny Balkan country. International officials had feared it would radicalize the country's sizable ethnic Albanian minority.

Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski's spokesman revealed the leader's change in plans hours before the parliament was to meet to consider declaring the state of war, which would give him greater powers to crack down on the insurgents. Still, Georgievski pledged to crush the rebel movement.

"Macedonia must mercilessly confront the terrorists. Any delay would only mean deepening and a spreading of fighting," Georgievski said on state television. "Without destroying them first, it is not possible to start a political dialogue" with ethnic Albanian representatives.

His comments came ahead of a visit scheduled later Friday by European Union security chief Javier Solana, who is expected to press anew for a negotiated solution to the clashes.

Macedonia's army unleashed a new offensive on the rebel-held villages, 20 miles northeast of Skopje, targeting the militants with "all available means, including heavy artillery," Macedonian army spokesman Blagoja Markovski said.

Clouds of smoke and dust rose from the area. No information on casualties was immediately available.

Fighting began in February, when ethnic Albanian militants took up arms, saying they were battling for more rights. But the government regards them as terrorists bent on carving out an ethnic Albanian mini-state.

With neither side achieving its goals, rebel spokesman Ali Ahmeti offered a cease-fire Thursday and reiterated demands for more influence for ethnic Albanians, who account for up to one-third of Macedonia's 2 million people.

Nikola Dimitrov, national security adviser to President Boris Trajkovski, promptly ruled out a deal with "the terrorists who have shown they are ready to kill and destroy Macedonia."

In a sign that violence may be coming closer to Skopje, several mortars hit the majority Slav village of Cresevo, only 3 miles north of the capital. No one was injured in the attack, which came from rebel positions in nearby mountains, local A1 Television reported.

Scores of civilians evacuated Aracinovo, an ethnic Albanian-populated suburb near Skopje, apparently anticipating the spread of fighting.

The death toll on the government side reached 20 with the recent killing of five government soldiers who had run into a rebel ambush in a northwestern battle zone.

Macedonia's parliament is expected to convene Friday in a bid to try to resolve the protracted crisis that has beset the fledgling nation, formed when former Yugoslavia broke up in the early 1990s.

Ethnic Albanian politicians who are part of the government have opposed any radical measures. There also have been increasing calls for Georgievski's resignation.

-------- iraq

Former UN coordinators says "smart" sanctions to exacerbate Iraqi plight

Friday June 8,
AFP
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/010608/1/tk4f.html

AMMAN, Two former UN humanitarian coordinators for Iraq headed back to Baghdad at dawn Friday, warning that US-British proposals for "smart" sanctions will further exacerbate the hardships of the Iraqi people.

Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who resigned their jobs in 1998 and 2000 respectively in protest at the current UN economic sanctions system, also called on Baghdad and the United Nations to engage in a serious dialogue.

"We have to give a signal that two senior former UN officials are very concerned that the so-called new Security Council policies will be anything but an improvement on the current sanctions regime," Von Sponeck told foreign media representatives in Amman Thursday evening.

He warned that the proposed "smart" sanctions under discussion at the UN Security Council will only serve to "continue to deprive Iraq of extra sources of income" needed to run the country.

"If you deprive Iraq of extra income then you are not making the life of any Iraqi better ... and the answer to the present stalemate is not sanctions but dialogue," Von Sponeck said.

"The United Nations should be a house of dialogue not a house of confrontation ... the UN Secretary General must be the ombudsman leading the dialogue," said Von Sponeck, who served in Iraq between 1998 and 2000.

Halliday charged that the sanctions imposed on Baghdad after it invaded Kuwait in August 1989 served to "destroy the fundamental rights of the Iraqi people to housing, education, family life ..."

"Iraqi children are not suffering, Iraqi children are being killed because of UN sanctions," said Halliday who quit his job in protest at the sanctions in 1998 after a one-year term.

But he also stressed that the Iraqi authorities should "compromise" and stop issuing statements that are "counterproductive".

"They need to compromise and they have got to find it in their hearts to accept some humiliation," Halliday said.

Von Sponeck and Halliday stressed that efforts now should concentrate on "rebuilding the economy of Iraq" to ease the plight of the people, dismissing US and British views that Iraq was still a "military threat".

Even former US defence secretary William Cohen, in a briefing to US President George W. Bush on January 10 said "Iraq no longer constitutes a military threat to its neighbours", Von Sponeck said.

"It is the neighborhood that has become stronger," he said in reference to arms build-ups in the Middle East and Gulf Arab countries over the past decade.

During their 10-day visit to Iraq, the former UN officials are due to hold talks with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz as well as travel to northern Iraq, which is outside Baghdad's control, to meet Iraqi Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani.

-------- israel

Tenet brings Israeli, Palestinian chiefs together

06/08/2001
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/june01/2001-06-08-tenet.htm

JERUSALEM (AP) - CIA chief George Tenet brought together Israeli and Palestinian security chiefs Friday, the highest-level mediation yet by the Bush administration, in a joint effort to stabilize a cease-fire and prepare the way for resuming peace negotiations. The three-way security meeting in the West Bank town of Ramallah came a day after Tenet met separately with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and security commanders. Tenet's mediation sparked angry rallies by the Palestinian militant group Hamas, during which the CIA chief was burned in effigy. Hamas accused Tenet of trying to pit Palestinians against each other amid Israeli demands for a crackdown on militants, and it vowed the intefadeh, or uprising, would not stop.

The Bush administration has been reluctant to take a direct role in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. But after both sides called cease-fires, Tenet - who holds a Cabinet-level post - was dispatched to try to seal the fragile truce. Political talks so far had been mediated by U.S. envoy William Burns, an assistant secretary of state, while lower-level CIA officials have joined earlier security talks.

The Palestinian security chiefs for the West Bank and Gaza, Jibril Rajoub and Mohammed Dahlan, respectively, participated in Friday's meeting, while the Israeli delegation was headed by internal security chief Avi Dichter.

Burns, meanwhile, held talks with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat after meeting earlier Friday with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.

Following his meeting with Arafat, Burns said the goal of the Americans was to, "stabilize the security situation and ensure that words are accompanied by deeds" to achieve a real cease-fire.

The European Union has also taken a direct role: placing security experts at several friction points to help keep the cease-fire, EU and Palestinian officials said.

Israel has rejected the presence of any international observers, and EU officials were careful to say the experts - invited by the Palestinians - were not observers.

Twenty-four Europeans are working to guarantee the cease-fire, particularly in the West Bank town of Beit Jalla and the Gaza Strip areas of Nitzarim settlement and Rafah, a Palestinian political official - who called them observers - said on condition of anonymity. The EU teams have met regularly with Palestinian security and reviewed patrols on the ground, where Palestinian police have been trying to keep gunmen from nearing flashpoints, Palestinian officials said.

Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire on May 22. Arafat called for an end to violence June 1, after a suicide bomber killed 20 Israelis in an attack on a Tel Aviv beachfront disco.

Violence continued Friday at a relatively low ebb. A roadside shooting near Ofra settlement outside the West Bank town of Ramallah injured an Israeli civilian, the army said.

In the Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis, two Palestinians were wounded when Israeli soldiers fired bullets and tear gas at youths throwing stones after Friday prayers. Dr. Khalil Moussa of Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis said the two had been hit with live ammunition. Overnight, Palestinians fired mortar shells at an Israeli military outpost and a Jewish settlement in Gaza and set off an explosive near another base.

About 2,000 Palestinians joined a Hamas rally in Ramallah, burning a U.S. flag, Tenet's picture and a banner that read "Tenet go home." A cardboard and paper model of the Tel Aviv bombing site was doused with fuel and set ablaze.

In the West Bank town of Nablus, about 500 people demonstrated, burning Tenet in effigy and urging him in chants "not to equate the killer with the victim."

Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, a Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, said Tenet's visit won't stop the Palestinian uprising.

"This man and his administration are trying to turn our struggle against the Zionist occupiers into a Palestinian-Palestinian struggle by inciting the brothers in the Palestinian National Authority against their own people," al-Rantissi said. "This man will fail to do so."

Nabil Aburdeneh, an aide to Arafat, said further U.S. involvement is needed to bolster the cease-fire: "This a good opportunity, but it's still like sand in the wind."

Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer charged that radical Islamic groups, along with Arafat's Force 17 guard unit are still carrying out attacks and planning more. He said that in recent days Israeli intelligence has picked up more warnings about attacks than ever before, and he blamed Arafat.

"If he wants, tomorrow morning (there will be) total silence," Ben-Eliezer said.

Palestinian Cabinet minister Nabil Shaath complained that even though Arafat took risks to declare a cease-fire, the Israelis keep criticizing him.

"Since the cease-fire started, not even an encouragement by the Israeli leadership has been given. ... On the contrary. It's always insults," he said.

In meetings with Tenet on Thursday, the Israelis handed over a list of several dozen Palestinian militants, demanding that Arafat's police arrest them, said Raanan Gissin, a senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

But the Palestinians refused to consider making arrests, saying they were responsible for their people's security, not Israel's.

Palestinians insist security and political aspects of the conflict must not be separated. They want Israel to commit to confidence-building measures, especially a freeze in Jewish settlement construction. Israel demands a full stop to the violence first.

Since the fighting began on Sept. 28, 484 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 108 on the Israeli side.

-------- space

CHINA: TREATY ON SPACE ARMS PROPOSED

Elizabeth Olson
NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/world/08BRIE.html?searchpv=nytToday

China urged the 66 member countries of the United Nations Disarmament Conference in Geneva to begin negotiations on a treaty to ban weapons in outer space. China's envoy, Hu Xiaodi, told the group that American plans for a missile shield make the militarization of space "an imminent danger," and urged countries to bar "all space-based weapons and all weapons attacking outer space targets from earth." China proposed the treaty on the day Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was in Brussels to try to sell the Bush administration plan to skeptical European allies.

-------- switzerland

Swiss Mulling Plan for Peacekeepers

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 9:32 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Switzerland-Peacekeepers.html

GENEVA (AP) -- Images of a soldier's battered corpse and a cemetery full of white crosses have shaken Switzerland as it considers a plan to step back from more than two centuries of neutrality and send armed citizens abroad as peacekeepers.

In a referendum Sunday on a government proposal, Swiss voters will say whether they want to change the country's laws to allow armed peacekeepers and closer ties with the NATO military alliance.

The proposal has prompted fierce opposition from a coalition of nationalists and pacifists who claim the changes would push Switzerland down a slippery slope leading to fatal foreign entanglements.

``Die for foreign powers?'' asks one poster placed by nationalists who say the government plans would shatter the Alpine nation's independence, inspired by William Tell and cherished during 200 years of peace.

Even though Switzerland has never joined the United Nations, Swiss soldiers for decades have taken part in international peacekeeping missions in places such as Korea, Namibia and the Balkans. But by law, they have left their guns at home.

The Swiss government says it is time for a change. It argues, for instance, that is it is ridiculous that Swiss soldiers helping keep the peace in Kosovo had to rely on a unit from neighboring Austria for protection.

``The military must be able to defend itself,'' a government brochure proclaimed.

Opponents of the changes have run an aggressive campaign.

``Soldiers come back from wars wounded, sick, mutilated or dead,'' said a nationalist brochure mailed to Swiss homes. It featured a 1993 photograph of an American peacekeeper's body of being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia.

The government has reacted angrily to the nationalist campaign. ``The political culture of our land is being poisoned,'' President Moritz Leuenberger, visibly furious, said a week ago.

``The revision of the military law is being opposed by pictures and slogans that bring back unhappy times: coffins, graves, soldiers cemeteries and Swiss crosses transformed into pistols,'' Leuenberger said.

But at least to some extent, the opposition strategy appears to be working -- to the chagrin of officials who fear a no vote would reinforce Switzerland's sometimes haughty, aloof image. Recent polls indicate the erosion of what was initially a comfortable lead on the referendum issue.

Two weeks ago, a survey of more than 1,000 voters in the weekly Sonnstagsblick found 43 percent certain to vote for the changes and 19 percent certain to vote against. In a survey last week by Swiss television, the definite yes vote had slipped to 37 percent and the definite no vote was up to 30 percent. Neither poll gave a margin of error.

The driving force behind the nationalist campaign is Christoph Blocher, a billionaire industrialist and highly influential politician who has thwarted several government proposals for greater involvement with the rest of the world, such as moves toward joining the European Union and the United Nations.

Nationalists have routinely invoked William Tell in urging voters to reject the changes. Legend has it that Tell shot his arrow through an apple on his son's head as an act of marksmanship defying a foreign overlord around the time of the founding of Switzerland in 1291 and setting the tone for independent neutrality.

Switzerland, which requires all able-bodied men to serve as citizen-soldiers, has shunned alliances since the Napoleonic invasion of 1798 and has relied on its militia to protect the country's borders from within.

It has joined in NATO's Partnership for Peace -- a kind of junior membership in the trans-Atlantic alliance -- as a way of easing the country's isolation in post-Cold War Europe.

The referendum proposes changes that would tighten Switzerland's links to NATO by permitting Swiss troops to train abroad or foreign forces to conduct military exercise with the Swiss in Switzerland.

The debate has stirred emotions on both sides. In a letter to the daily Neue Luzerner Zeitung in the Swiss heartland, one man deplored the changes as a costly and unneeded move toward a ``NATO attack army.''

Another wrote that he would be glad to serve as a peacekeeper if he were young. ``But I would want my own weapon.''

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

Russia Questioning Premise of New Iraqi Proposals

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By REUTERS Filed at 2:27 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iraq-un.html

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Britain intends to submit an amended text of its U.N. Security Council draft resolution to revamp sanctions against Iraq, but Russia questioned the underlying premise of the measure.

Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Thursday the draft, backed by the United States and revised somewhat by France, did not tackle fundamental problems of how the U.N. Security Council should suspend decade-old Iraqi sanctions.

He said a December 1999 resolution, which outlines requirements to get the embargoes suspended, had too many gaps.

``The eventual goal is to suspend sanctions and the resolution leaves things unsolved,'' Lavrov told reporters.

It was not immediately clear whether Russia would try to amend the U.S.-British plan or abandon it altogether. Diplomats said its negotiators had not engaged seriously in discussions on the resolution this week, apparently awaiting instructions from Moscow.

At issue are U.S.-British proposals that would ease controls on civilian goods imported by Iraq but tighten restrictions on military-related supplies and smuggling.

The plan is a revision of the oil-for-food program, an exception to the sanctions imposed in August 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. That program allows Iraq to sell oil and order food, medicine and other goods under U.N. supervision.

It was renewed for one month last week in hopes that the new measures could be adopted by July 3.

A new text, expected to be circulated early next week, includes some proposals from a French rival draft.

France also wants foreign companies to be able to invest in Iraq's civilian sector, including its oil industry. But British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstick said oil sector investments in would be ``controversial.''

He noted that they would have to come in the context of the December 1999 Security Council that linked an easing of sanctions, including investments in Iraq's oil industry, to Baghdad's cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors.

The arms experts have not been allowed in the country since they left on the eve of a U.S.-British bombing raid in December 1998.

However, Greenstick said other foreign investments might be feasible. ``For instance, the council I know is interested in the education, health and agricultural sectors which are so important for fundamental living in Iraq,'' he said.

Ireland and Tunisia, among others, were in favor of France's proposal while the Netherlands, not on the council this year, had distributed a memorandum to members urging that oil industry investments be allowed.

Iraq, in protest against the entire revision of the sanctions, halted oil exports on Monday. Baghdad wants the embargoes lifted or at least made ineffective and objects to any system that would perpetuate them.

On Thursday Iraqi President Saddam Hussein urged Russia, as a permanent council member, to use its veto power to kill the resolution.

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

Rumsfeld-style military reform

Washington Times
June 8, 2001
Philip Gold
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010608-75841538.htm

Some years ago, I approached a senior executive of a major defense contractor with a project idea. We´d explain the basic concepts and basic complexities of 21st century defense to a general audience. The man´s response was commendably direct. "You´re wrong. All the American people need to know is, 'Spend Money.´ "

Take out "the American people," replace it with "Donald Rumsfeld," and you´ve got an OK description of the Pentagon´s attitude toward the current secretary of defense -- an attitude abetted and encouraged by a surprising number of otherwise thoughtful conservative analysts and commentators. And for the past few weeks, this tandem has put on a show that, for sheer ugliness, rivals anything the Clinton years turned out.

No one really expected defense to become a major campaign issue. George W. "Help is on the Way" Bush and his running mate, a man of some experience in the field, made it so. Everyone assumed that help meant cash lots of cash up-front. Best of all, the new secretary of defense, whomever Mr. Bush named, would probably be some novice, destined to spend his first six months (hopefully, more) deferring to the bureaucrats and the brass and signing papers he didn´t understand . . . when not out hustling for bucks.

It didn´t quite happen that way. The man who got the job knew, as most generals and admirals will admit after that third bourbon or Martini or whatever, that a Reagan-style build-up a lot of cash spent quickly on known and mature technologies to be used against a known and predictable foe in a relatively stable world wasn´t appropriate. Nor was "beefing up" forces that might not be needed. Ergo, no immediate large supplemental in January (and a highly small one going to the Hill in June). Then Mr. Rumsfeld launched the "Rumsfeld Review," a klatch of independent, low-visibility panels to consider every aspect of defense and submit their reports on a rolling basis.

Conservatives, both the "America Must Lead Because America Must Lead" crowd and those who never met a weapon they didn´t like, felt betrayed. The Pentagon felt blindsided. Congress quailed. Then the incredible happened. For weeks, nothing leaked. And then, beginning in April, the predictable response: an intense media campaign to discredit (pre-emptively) the panels and reports, perhaps to cripple Mr. Rumsfeld himself.

Even by Beltway standards, it´s been bizarre. Publicly, nobody´s even sure how many panels there are, or what they´ve turned out. But this hasn´t stopped endless criticism of reports and panels that might not even exist. The rumor mill runs 24/7. Everything´s on the table; everything´s safe. Mr. Rumsfeld´s standing by his people; Mr. Rumsfeld´s backing off. Unnamed senior officers complain that the military, which should have been hard at work on the legally required 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, has been excluded. Named and unnamed legislators and staffers carp about their lack of input, as though they had no committees of their own and would not ultimately get to debate and vote on everything.

Mr. Rumsfeld first tried to assure everybody that this process was meant to help him with his own thoughts, and that in time they´d all have their say. Then he took the unusual step of revealing to The Washington Post how much contact he´d actually had with everyone: 91 meetings in 115 days with Gen. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs; 170 meetings with senior officers; face-time sessions with 125 legislators (plus phone calls), etc. On several occasions, he´s attempted to reaffirm the obvious that all these reports, whatever they might turn out to be, are starting points only.

But if the final quality and disposition of the Rumsfeld Review remains uncertain, two things have become abundantly clear. First, "thinking outside the box" is great, unless it happens to be the iron-clad lock box that contains your appropriation. And second, within the Beltway, the only thing that matters more than money is ego.

Is this what the American people need to know about the common defense?

It is not. What they need to know is this:

The United States faces a situation unprecedented in human history. The most powerful nation on Earth, a nation without a single mortal enemy, nonetheless faces an array of ever more deadly threats from many old and new sources. To counter these threats, especially those posed by weapons of mass destruction and cyberwar, the United States must exploit technological revolutions in everything from computers and robotics to directed energy weapons and nano-technologies, on land, at sea, and in the air and space above. This will in turn require revolutionary and across-the-board changes in structure, organization, and procedures.

Yes, it´s going to take cash. Lots of cash. But it´s also going to take thought and patience, and ultimately the approval of the American people. And that requires a bit less Beltway narcissism. It´s worth remembering that Narcissus´ problem wasn´t that he fell in love with his image in the pond. It was that he couldn´t distinguish where he ended and reality began.

As Zeus once said to Narcissus, "Watch yourself."

Philip Gold is director of defense and aerospace studies at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

----

3 generals top list for joint chiefs job

June 8, 2001
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010608-67494062.htm

Three four-star generals have emerged as the front-runners in the contest to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and provide President Bush his first of two top military appointments this summer.

Defense sources said the leading contenders are Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, head of the U.S. Space Command in Colorado; Gen. James L. Jones, Marine Corps commandant; and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the Joint Chiefs´ vice chairman.

The sources said Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair, head of U.S. Pacific Command, is also a possibility. Sources said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was impressed with Adm. Blair´s role in handling the standoff with China over the Navy´s EP-3E reconnaissance plane in April.

One of the four, the sources said, will likely replace Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, whose second and final two-year term ends Sept. 30.

The history of past selections shows the chairman´s appointment can be one of the president´s most important. By law, the chairman is the nation´s top military officer and the president´s chief military adviser. He also is called upon to carry out a wide range of policy studies, such as a net assessment of how the U.S. military stacks up against potential foreign adversaries.

In Mr. Bush´s case, his pick will play a major role in carrying out the military reforms and modernizations the president wants in the coming years.

The Joint Chiefs chairman can turn out to be a blessing or a curse to a president, recent history shows.

The chairman whom Mr. Bush´s father, President George Bush, inherited, Adm. William Crowe, retired in 1989. He then enthusiastically backed the presidential candidacy of Bill Clinton, George Bush´s opponent. Adm. Crowe´s successor, Colin L. Powell, became a fortuitous pick for the Bush family. He loyally served the father´s presidency and is now Mr. Bush´s secretary of state.

Mr. Clinton chose two chairmen during his eight years in office, including Gen. Shelton. The general developed into such a loyal aide that Republican lawmakers believed he adopted the White House "spin" in some congressional testimony, rather than providing his independent views.

The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act says the next chairman must come from one of 14 leadership posts -- nine four-star commanders in chief (CINCs), the four service chiefs, or the Joint Chiefs vice chairman. The president may waive that part of the act and go outside the 14 posts if he deems it is in the "national interest," the law says.

Mr. Rumsfeld has been sizing up candidates during formal meetings and phone conversations with them on policy matters. He will likely make a final recommendation in July or August.

The chairman typically serves a pair of two-year terms, but may stay for an additional term if the president so chooses and the officer agrees.

One defense source said the choice of Gen. Eberhart, a combat pilot in Vietnam and in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, would complicate matters. The administration would not want the chairman and vice chairman, Gen. Myers, to be from the same service. If Gen. Eberhart were picked, Gen. Myers would likely have to step down, the source said.

As leader of Space Command, Gen. Eberhart oversees the military´s use of space for communication, surveillance and early warning of missile launches. His experience may help the president in two ways.

For one, space will likely play a larger role in the architecture of an emerging global missile-defense system -- a pet project of Mr. Bush´s.

Secondly, Mr. Rumsfeld is also keenly interested in the growing importance of space, both for its military uses and for the fact an adversary in time of war might target America´s extensive network of satellites to effectively "blind" commanders.

The defense secretary headed a blue-ribbon panel on space (the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization) immediately before assuming the Pentagon job.

Mr. Rumsfeld last month adopted his commission´s recommendation to make the Air Force the executive agent for space-asset procurement and development.

The Air Force, which has not had one of its own as chairman since Gen. David C. Jones served in 1978-82, positioned Gen. Eberhart last year to be a candidate.

He was named in 1999 to head the Air Force Combat Command, a post that, under law, does not make him eligible for chairman.

After just seven months in a tour that normally lasts three years, he was switched at Air Force urging to head of the U.S. Space Command, one of the nine CINCs, in February 2000.

Mr. Bush will also nominate a general this summer for another Joint Chiefs slot to replace Gen. Michael Ryan, whose term as Air Force chief of staff expires Oct. 1. Sources say leading candidates are Gen. Eberhart, if he doesn´t receive the chairman´s job, and Gen. John P. Jumper, head of the Air Force Air Combat Command.

Gen. Jones, a Vietnam combat veteran, would be the first Marine to head the Joint Chiefs. He is respected by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, where he forged a long-lasting friendship with a young senator from Maine, William S. Cohen. As Mr. Clinton´s defense secretary, Mr. Cohen tapped Gen. Jones as his military aide and then as Marine Corps commandant.

"If Bush and Rumsfeld want to receive advice from a military man who doesn´t play politics, it´s Jones," said a congressional staffer who supports the general.

As Joint Chiefs vice chairman, Gen. Myers plays an important behind-the-scenes role in instituting administration policy and drafting Joint Chiefs´ positions. He also serves on internal boards that oversee weapons procurement and budgeting.

The last three Joint Chiefs chairmen have been Army officers.

-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

SUSTAINABLE HIGH RISE POWERED BY SOLAR CELLS

June 8, 2001
ENS
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2001/2001L-06-08-09.html

NEWARK, Delaware, AstroPower, Inc. has been chosen to provide a building integrated solar electric power system for a residential high rise building in New York City's Battery Park.

The 30 kilowatt system will consist of AstroPower's advanced solar cells and modules, and is expected to produce up to five percent of the building's electricity. The systems will also incorporate AstroPower's custom made Building-Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) modules.

A 10 kilowatt facade on the 27 story, 280 unit building will generate clean, renewable onsite electricity for its residents. When integrated into the facade, these BIPV modules will serve as a core component of the luxury building.

"In addition to generating electricity, the BIPV modules actually replace conventional building materials," said Jorn Jurgens, AstroPower's BIPV product manager. "In this case, the modules will become the facade of the building. This illustrates how AstroPower is able to adapt our technologies to meet the needs of award winning architects and developers."

The Battery Park high rise will also feature a roof mounted 20 kilowatt array, and a custom made canopy of translucent glass on glass modules at the building's entrance.

"We are proud to participate in such an innovative project," said Dr. Allen Barnett, AstroPower's president and CEO. "As the nation's first environmentally sustainable residential high rise, the building serves as a benchmark for developers, builders and entire communities."

Located along the Hudson River, this sustainable building project meets the residential environmental guidelines of the Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority.

"Among these guidelines is a requirement to provide onsite, non-polluting, renewable energy technologies to reduce the environmental impacts associated with energy generation and consumption," said Timothy Carey, president and CEO at the Battery Park City Authority.

Carey added that the goal of the program is to generate 100 percent of the electricity onsite.

----

Conference to Address Solar Electricity as One Solution To Nation's Energy Crisis

TO BUSINESS, ENERGY AND SCIENCE EDITORS:
June 8
Solar Electric Power Association
E-Wire/PRNewswire
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/June01/08June0102.html

WASHINGTON, The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA), a unique partnership of leading electric utilities, energy service providers, and companies which produce solar electric generating equipment, announced today a major conference focusing on solar technology's ability to play a rapidly increasing role in the balanced power portfolios needed to address the nation's complex electricity needs. This conference comes at a time when, due to escalating problems in California and nationwide, energy is at the forefront of the attention of consumers, local, state and federal governments, and the media. As a result, solar electricity is attracting unprecedented interest from all parties.

The conference, UPEx'01: the Photovoltaic Experience Conference and Exhibition, will be held in Sacramento, California from September 30 through October 4. The conference is hosted and co-sponsored by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), a leader in utility solar electric (photovoltaic, or PV) programs, which has installed over 8 MW of PV to-date, enough to power 2200 households, with another 7 MW underway. "As the host of UPEx'01, SMUD looks forward to sharing its PV experiences -- as well as the experience of other SEPA members -- with other utilities and energy service providers to help stimulate the use of solar electricity in a balanced energy mix," says Donald Osborn, SMUD's Superintendent of Renewable Generation Assets and Chair of UPEx'01. "Since its inception in 1996, UPEx has provided the most important resource for utilities, energy service providers, PV companies, and other businesses interested in using solar electric power to share and learn from one another's experiences. UPEx 2001 is a most opportune time to find out how PV is being made a rapidly growing and mainstream part of responding to our nation's pressing energy needs."

The conference is also co-sponsored by the California Energy Commission, AstroPower, Bekaert ECD Solar Systems, Commonwealth Edison, EBARA Solar, Hawaii Electric Light Company, Nuon, Salt River Project, Schott Applied Power, Western Area Power Administration, and Kyocera Solar.

"Today more than ever, solar electricity is a viable option for providing solutions to the nation's grid and reliability problems," says Jim Torpey, chairman of SEPA and Director of Distributed Technologies for GPU Energy, an electric utility and energy services company affiliated with a major international energy corporation. "Solar technology continues to improve at the same time as the need for integrated solutions is growing. Our goal, through tools such as UPEx, is to work more effectively with energy service providers and government agencies to build PV markets in both residential and commercial sectors."

Based in Washington, D.C., SEPA works with energy service providers to create and encourage commercial use of solar energy business models. SEPA helps to establish standards for photovoltaic systems and their interconnection to the utility grid, hosts cross-industry workshops, and manages educational and outreach campaigns. In efforts now being completed, SEPA leveraged $15 million of U.S. Department of Energy funds with $57 million of private funds to install 1100 PV systems totaling 7.25 megawatts of electricity. The group also serves as a full-service clearinghouse for information on solar electricity.

SEPA's membership includes 130 energy service providers, utilities, utility associations, photovoltaic module and component manufacturers, PV installers, integrators and distributors, government agencies, research organizations, and educational institutions. The energy service provider members represent 28 percent of all U.S. electricity customers. SEPA was formerly known as the Utility PhotoVoltaic Group.

For more information about the Solar Electric Power Association and UPEx'01, visit http://www.SolarElectricPower.org.

CONTACT: Julia Judd, Operations Manager, of Solar Electric Power Association, 202-857-0898, or jjudd@ttcorp.com/
Web site: http://www.SolarElectricPower.org/

----

Solar-powered aircraft and other bits of environmental news

Friday, June 8, 2001
Environmental News Network
http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/06/06082001/newsbytes0608_43930.asp

NASA recently invited members of the scientific community to submit proposals for projects to demonstrate the usefulness of "Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles," or UAVs. (Audio Version: 3 min.) These unpiloted aircraft come in two main types (gas-powered and solar-powered) and promise great economic and environmental benefits in the future. One of the two projects that NASA selected will use the solar-powered Pathfinder-Plus aircraft, built by AeroVironment in Monrovia, California, to help U.S. coffee growers in Hawaii pinpoint the optimum time to harvest their beans. The research team, led by Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, will use the high-flying aircraft to provide the Kauai Coffee Company plantation with spectral images of their crops. "My vision was to take this aircraft over the plantation during their harvest season," says Stan Herwitz, Professor of Biogeography and Earth Science at Clark. "And the exciting part is that there's a way you can demonstrate the economic value of acquiring near real-time imagery from such a platform." A series of preliminary tests are currently under way. The actual demonstration is scheduled for October of 2002.

S.P.A.T. - The Southold Project in Aquaculture Training (S.P.A.T.) is an innovative program that incorporates community volunteers into the restoration of shellfish populations on the north fork of Long Island, New York. (Audio Version: 3 min.) The Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Southold Town Trustees, and the Town Board supervise the initiative, which includes a variety of trainings, workshops, research opportunities, and a Master Shellfish Gardener Program. Since it's launch in January of 2001, S.P.A.T. has inspired hundreds of Southold town residents to learn to culture, plant, and monitor clams, oysters, and scallops - shellfish that play a critical role in the region's history, economy, and ecology. "The S.P.A.T. program captures human energy - people's interest in what they value around them," says Christopher Smith, Marine Program Director for the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. "And it captures that energy and willingness to work in a way that benefits the entire community. We will be generating shellfish that anyone in the community can go harvest."

Metamorphosis - Summer is an active period for many of nature's organisms. Insects are especially busy eating and growing. (Audio Version: 1-1/2 min.) All insects grow through one of 2 basic types of metamorphosis - complete and incomplete. "Complete metamorphosis consists of four distinct stages," says Roberta Brett, senior curatorial assistant in the Entomology Department at California's Academy of Sciences. The four stages are egg, larvae, pupae, and adult. Incomplete metamorphosis also involves several stages of insect growth. "Instead of having these very visually distinctive stages from egg, larvae, pupae, and adult, in incomplete metamorphosis you have what look like miniature versions of the adult," notes Brett. She says that metamorphosis can be triggered by a variety of factors ranging from temperature to nutrition to daylight changes, depending on the type of insect.

-------- energy

Russia's New Reach: Gas Pipeline to Turkey

June 8, 2001
By DOUGLAS FRANTZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/world/08CASP.html?searchpv=nytToday

ISTANBUL, June 5 - In early August, one of the world's largest and most advanced offshore platforms will slip beneath the two graceful suspension bridges spanning the Bosporus, with three feet of clearance, on its way to the Black Sea.

If everything goes as planned, a month later the huge rig will begin laying a pipeline at record depths of 7,000 feet in corrosive mud on the bottom of the great kidney-shaped sea to bring natural gas from Russia to energy-hungry Turkey.

The $3 billion project represents more than a daring engineering feat. Its success would represent a setback in American efforts to curtail Russia's influence in one of the world's most strategic regions.

"Both economically and politically, this project is extremely significant for Russia," Fiona Hill, an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., said in a telephone interview. "It is seen as a major coup for the Russian government."

The pipeline would increase Turkey's dependence on Russian natural gas from the current 66 percent to around 80 percent. From the outset, American diplomats have warned that it would give Russia too much leverage over Turkey, and that it would constrain gas development in neighboring countries. But a powerful combination of Turkish and Russian politicians and business interests pushed the project through.

Washington and Moscow have been at odds for years over the development of energy in the Caspian basin, which could hold the key to prosperity and stability in a troubled swath of land sweeping from Turkey through the Caucasus and Central Asia to China's western border.

The region faces a Pandora's box of volatile issues with global implications. Among them are rising Islamic insurgency, drug trafficking, international terrorism, severe poverty and potentially explosive ethnic tensions. Four nations bordering the region have nuclear weapons - China, Russia, India and Pakistan - and Turkey is a NATO ally mired in an economic crisis.

Few nations are more vulnerable to energy blackmail than Turkey, which imports 98 percent of its energy. Since it began phasing out coal in the 1980's, demand for gas has increased steadily. Two-thirds of Turkey's gas comes from Russia through two existing pipelines, and demand is expected to quadruple by 2010.

Not only is Turkey the region's biggest customer, it is also one of the few with the hard currency to pay.

To meet Turkey's rising needs for gas, the American government had favored a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Turkey that would cross the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan and Georgia - totally bypassing Russia. Turkmenistan has ample natural gas, and Western companies were willing to finance and build the line.

Russia countered with a proposed 750-mile pipeline from its Black Sea coast to Ankara, the Turkish capital. The line would have three segments - separate land sections in Russia and Turkey connected by a 233-mile leg across the Black Sea from the Russia port of Dzhubga to Samsun in Turkey.

It is this line, known as Blue Stream, that won out and is now under construction.

Blue Stream faced technical and financial hurdles, but it had strong support from big Turkish corporations doing business in Moscow; the corporations saw it as a way to strengthen economic ties between the countries. This support translated into backing from Turkey's powerful Motherland Party, which has been aligned with big business.

Mesut Yilmaz, now one of Turkey's deputy prime ministers and head of the party, was prime minister when the Blue Stream project was negotiated. Despite concerns in the government, he and Viktor S. Chernomyrdin, Russian prime minister then, signed the deal with great fanfare in Ankara on Dec. 15, 1997.

"The military and the Foreign Ministry had reservations about increasing our dependence on Russian gas, but Yilmaz went ahead," a former Turkish official said.

Mr. Chernomyrdin stepped down as prime minister a few months later and became chief executive of Gazprom. The Russian company is supplying gas for Blue Stream, and its construction arm, Stroitransgaz, is in charge of building the pipeline. Mr. Chernomyrdin left Gazprom last year, and is now Russia's ambassador to Ukraine, but his sons own about 12 percent of Stroitransgaz.

American diplomats stopped short of outright opposition to Blue Stream, but they cautioned their Turkish counterparts against relying too heavily on Russia, according to American officials. They also warned that Blue Stream threatened the Turkmenistan pipeline.

In September 1999, Mr. Yilmaz had dinner with several Clinton administration officials in Washington. He was out of government then, though he remained head of the Motherland Party.

"We really don't like this project," an American official told him, according to a dinner participant and an official who was briefed about the conversation.

"Let me be plain," Mr. Yilmaz was quoted as replying. "I'm going to get it done."

A week later, Mr. Yilmaz went to Moscow with other Turkish officials and businessmen to reassure the Russians that Blue Stream was on course, according to two who joined the trip.

Last month, after the Turkish press raised questions about the Moscow trip, Mr. Yilmaz told party members that he had no official contacts in Moscow because he was not part of the government at the time.

Turkey has continued talks with other potential suppliers, and officials said they expected Iranian gas to arrive through a new pipeline late this year, but no Turkmenistan gas is in sight.

Industry officials and American diplomats said the Turkmenistan pipeline was essentially dead from multiple wounds. A $2 billion contract for the pipeline was awarded in 1999, but the refusal of Russia and Iran to resolve territorial disputes in the Caspian Sea stalled progress. Prospects also were damaged by public anger on the part of Turkmenistan's president, Saparmurat Niyazov, against Turkey for proceeding with Blue Stream.

The demise of its pipeline means that Turkmenistan will probably sell its gas to Russia, increasing Moscow's control over supplies in the region, or to Iran, both prospects that dismay American officials.

-------- human rights

Russians Detain Critic Bound for U.S. Meeting

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 8, 2001; Page A26
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38936-2001Jun7?language=printer
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Guatemala-Slain-Bishop.html

MOSCOW, June 7 -- Russian customs agents detained prominent human rights activist Sergei Grigoryants for five hours at Moscow's main airport Wednesday and refused to allow him to fly to the United States in what the former Soviet dissident called an attempt to silence his criticism of President Vladimir Putin.

When Grigoryants appeared at the airport again today, he was allowed to leave on a plane bound for Chicago.

Grigoryants, who spent nine years in Soviet labor camps and prisons, founded the country's first openly published independent journal, Glasnost. He has continued to be a sharp critic of authorities since the fall of communism, assailing Russian conduct in two wars in the breakaway region of Chechnya and complaining that Putin wants to restore a Soviet-style police state.

Wednesday's incident at Sheremetyevo Airport came as Grigoryants was on his way to Washington for a conference on Russia 10 years after the fall of the Soviet Union at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Russia 10 years after hasn't gone anywhere," Grigoryants said. "It took just one year of Putin to go back 10 years. Now we are going farther and farther back."

In an interview today, Grigoryants said he was stopped at a metal detector before he was to board a flight to Washington by four police officers who asked to see his wallet and accused him of carrying unauthorized cash out of the country, even though he had already passed through customs and showed the agent there his bank authorization. They held him at the airport for almost five hours, took $3,000 in cash and his airplane ticket and spoke of an "investigation" of unspecified charges, he said.

"Their goal was clearly not to let me go to the conference," Grigoryants said. "The message was not just to me but to America as well. They are trying to hinder the speech they expect from me."

Customs officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment today.

When he returned home, Grigoryants found that his phone was blocked from making international calls. After Carnegie conference organizer Michael McFaul succeeded in reaching him, the two were cut off mid-sentence immediately after McFaul said he planned to notify the "Western press," according to both Grigoryants and McFaul.

Almost exactly a year ago, customs officials at Sheremetyevo seized several hundred copies of an Amnesty International report about human rights abuses in Chechnya, claiming they were "anti-Russian propaganda." But the incident involving Grigoryants appears to be the first in many years in which a human rights activist was stopped from leaving the country.

As head of the Glasnost Foundation, Grigoryants regularly speaks out against Russia's human rights record; just days ago he held a news conference to complain that members of youth groups were being subjected to harassment by the Federal Security Service.

----

Guatemalan Officers Found Guilty

June 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

GUATEMALA CITY (AP) -- A tribunal on Friday found three military men and a priest guilty of the 1998 slaying of Roman Catholic Bishop Juan Gerardi and ordered a criminal probe into three other military officials in the case.

A human rights crusader, Gerardi was bludgeoned to death with a concrete block at his Guatemala City seminary in 1998, two days after he presented a report blaming the military for the overwhelming majority of the 200,000 deaths in Guatemala's 36-year civil war.

The trial was seen as a test of Guatemala's ability to deal with the legacy of a brutal war with leftist guerrillas that ended with a 1996 peace accord. Several witnesses and magistrates had fled the country after receiving death threats.

Human rights leader Helen Mack called Friday's verdict ``courageous. This is a strong blow against impunity.''

The three-judge tribunal found Col. Disrael Lima Estrada guilty of homicide and sentenced him to 30 years. Prosecutors said the former chief of military intelligence masterminded the killing to keep the bishop from testifying in possible trials over wartime atrocities.

Guilty on the same charges were his son, Capt. Byron Lima Oliva, and Jose Obdulio Villanueva, both former members of the presidential guard. Both were sentenced to 30 years, with Lima given two more on a false documents charge.

The tribunal found Gerardi's assistant, Rev. Mario Orantes, guilty of giving the killers access to and information on the 75-year-old head of the Catholic Church's human rights office. He was sentenced to 20 years.

Gerardi's cook, Margarita Lopez, was found innocent of similar charges.

The court also widened the probe into military involvement, ordering prosecutors to investigate three other officers of the presidential guard -- a colonel, a major and captain.

``The second part of this case is still to come, finding out who were the masterminds and killers in this crime,'' said Miguel Angel Sandoval, a rights activist with the Movement for Justice and Democracy.

Catholic Church attorneys had asked the judges to order a probe of higher officials -- including former President Alvaro Arzu -- who they said had to have been involved in preparations for the slaying.

Arzu, who used parliamentary immunity to avoid testifying in the case, did not return several phone calls seeking a response to the church petition.

The key prosecution witness was Ruben Chanax, a homeless man who testified that the Limas and Villanueva hired him to spy on Gerardi, told him someone would die on the night of the killing and enlisted his help in altering the crime scene before police could arrive.

Defense attorneys claimed Chanax had been paid by human rights groups to fabricate his testimony, and said the government was using the officers as scapegoats for the massacres of the civil war era and to improve the reputation of its legal system.

Just getting the case to trial was a gritty triumph. Two investigating magistrates, three witnesses and at least one prosecutor fled the country in fear of their lives. Others quit after complaints they were ignoring possible military involvement.

On the eve of the trial, a bomb exploded at the house of one of the three judges hearing the case.

Orantes, the priest, was arrested shortly after the April 26, 1998 killing. Police suggested a bisexual love triangle involving Gerardi, Orantes and Lopez.

Gerardi's 1998 report blamed the army for 95 percent of the killings and disappearances during the 1960-1996 civil war, almost all of which have gone unpunished.

-------- imf / world bank

Major Changes Signaled at IMF
Appointees Include Conservative Stanford Economist in No. 2 Post

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 8, 2001; Page E10
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38892-2001Jun7?language=printer

The International Monetary Fund announced a slew of appointments to top positions yesterday, marking a changing of the guard at the 183-nation institution charged with maintaining stability in the global economy.

Anne O. Krueger, a conservative Stanford University economist, was named to the IMF's No. 2 position, first deputy managing director, an appointment that is subject to approval by the IMF's board. She is to replace Stanley Fischer, who has exerted enormous influence over fund policy since joining the institution in 1994 because of the respect he commands from its staff of more than 1,000 economics PhDs.

Timothy Geithner, a former Treasury undersecretary during the Clinton administration, was named by Managing Director Horst Koehler to head the IMF's policy development and review department.

Geithner replaces Jack Boorman, who is widely viewed as the fund's third most powerful official because of the role his department plays in overseeing the fund's approaches to individual countries. Known as "the thought police" within the IMF, the department seeks to ensure that the fund's programs for countries seeking loans are consistent with IMF doctrine and with similar programs in other countries.

Ever since Fischer announced plans last month to leave the IMF later this year, the appointment of his successor has been a subject of much speculation in economic and market circles because of the signal it might send about changes in the fund's approach to financial crises. Fischer, a former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, played a dominant role in formulating the strategy behind rescue plans addressing crises in Asia, Russia, Latin America and Turkey in recent years.

Bush administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and White House chief economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey, have voiced criticism of the IMF's multibillion-dollar loan packages, saying they bail out irresponsible governments and investors. Fischer's pending departure offered them a chance to install a like-minded person in a top post. The deputy managing director is traditionally an American, while the managing director is traditionally European.

But Krueger, 67, while staunchly conservative in her main area of specialization -- trade and development policy -- has had positive things to say about the IMF's performance during the crises of the late 1990s. "Given the time and other pressures, my judgment is that the international financial institutions, and especially the International Monetary Fund, did well," she said at a congressional hearing in 1999. "Overall, the situation would have been much worse without them, and especially without the IMF."

On the other hand, Krueger wrote an article last year concurring with the conservative criticism that in recent years the IMF has devoted too much attention to "poverty alleviation, income distribution, and other questions which are not only far away from its traditional competence, but which also detract seriously from its capacity to handle macroeconomic crises, where it has possessed competence."

Krueger has also taken a dim view of efforts to write off the debt of poor countries. She co-authored an commentary in the Financial Times last year sharply questioning whether poor countries would make beneficial use of resources gained from debt relief, especially since most such countries "have over- and mis-spent on defense, perks for high officials, and subsidies predominantly benefiting upper income groups."

IMF officials declined requests for interviews with Krueger, who was working at the fund yesterday. She had already been nominated by President Bush to the Council of Economic Advisers but was asked by the administration instead to take the IMF post after Fischer announced his departure plans.

Krueger made her name in the late 1970s and early 1980s as an effective and fierce critic of protectionist policies in developing countries, and as chief economist of the World Bank during the Reagan administration she helped lead the bank on a new and much more free-market path. The bank had long sought to foster growth in the Third World by financing state-owned industries, but Krueger was an intellectual leader in the movement aimed at reversing that trend by prodding poor countries to open their markets and embrace privatization. Although pleasant in social situations, she can be scathing toward those who disagree with her, former colleagues recalled yesterday.

The appointment of Geithner, 39, has come as a shock to many at the IMF, staffers said yesterday. The fund's bureaucracy is extremely hierarchical, with economists rising through the ranks according to a well-defined seniority system so that most department heads are well into their fifties and have spent years at the fund.

Geithner, however, enjoyed a rapid rise at the Treasury -- he started there as a career civil servant in 1988 -- partly on the strength of his ability to work with officials many years his senior. He can also claim more experience working at high levels on global financial issues than many of his future colleagues.

Besides Krueger's and Geithner's appointments, the IMF announced that Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor, will succeed Michael Mussa as economic counselor and director of the research department.

The fund also named Gerd Hausler, a German banker, to head the newly created International Capital Markets Department. Hausler got the additional title of counselor, indicating that he will play an influential role.

-------- police

Navy Denies Body Searches

Washington Post
WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
Friday, June 8, 2001; Page A05
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38861-2001Jun7?language=printer

The Navy denied security officers used invasive search methods on protesters arrested during April bombing drills on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques.

Officers may have frisked the people they arrested, but "there were no body cavity searches and we're aware of no strip searches," said a Navy spokesman, Rear Adm. Stephen R. Pietropaoli. He contradicted accounts given by a dozen protesters taken into custody during the drills.

----

Idaho prosecutors not sure they'll try FBI sharpshooter

June 8, 2001
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010608-99877016.htm

Idaho prosecutors have not decided whether to pursue charges against an FBI agent who killed white separatist Vicki Weaver during a 1992 standoff, despite an appeals court ruling paving the way for a trial.

A spokeswoman for Boundary County, Idaho, Prosecuting Attorney Brett Benson said yesterday no decision had yet been made on whether to bring manslaughter charges against Agent Lon T. Horiuchi, as authorized Tuesday by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on a 6-5 vote.

Mr. Benson told reporters in Idaho on Wednesday it would be "inappropriate" for him to comment on what he intended to do in the case, which was begun in 1997 by his predecessor, Denise Woodbury. Mr. Benson won election in November with 73 percent of the vote after defeating Mrs. Woodbury in the May Republican primary.

On Tuesday, the appeals court said Idaho prosecutors could bring manslaughter charges against Mr. Horiuchi in the August 1992 death of Mrs. Weaver. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by a three-judge panel of the same circuit, which said Mr. Horiuchi was immune from state charges because he was acting in the line of duty when he fired the shot that hit Mrs. Weaver in the head.

The Justice Department had argued that the agent was protected by an 1891 Supreme Court ruling preventing federal officers from being prosecuted by states for actions within the scope of their jobs.

The majority opinion, written by Judge Alex Kozinski, said Mr. Horiuchi could be held accountable in the death if state prosecutors show he violated the Constitution "either through malice or excessive zeal."

But Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing for the minority, called the ruling a "grave disservice" to federal law enforcement authorities, "who knew until now that if they performed their duties within the bounds of reason and without malice they would be protected ... and not subject to endless judicial second-guessing."

FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said yesterday he was "very disappointed" with the ruling, "especially given the prior court decisions in favor of Agent Horiuchi." He said the bureau had "the utmost respect for the process" but would "continue to support Agent Horiuchi and his family, as this litigation continues."

"As so often happens in law enforcement, split-second life-and-death decisions must be made by those sworn to enforce the law," he said. "We continue to believe strongly Agent Horiuchi met the legal standard that protects law enforcement officers when they carry out their sworn duties, even when the consequence in hindsight is regrettable."

John Sennett, president of the FBI Agents Association, said yesterday he "couldn´t express" his disagreement with the appeals court decision "any better than Judge Hawkins, who wrote the dissenting opinion."

"We hope that Idaho prosecutors will have the good sense to drop this matter and that the Justice Department will seek further judicial review in any event," he said.

At the time of the Aug. 22, 1992, shooting, Mr. Horiuchi was one of 10 FBI hostage rescue team members on a mountainside overlooking the remote Weaver cabin near Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

Acting under modified rules of engagement by FBI supervisors saying they "could and should" shoot any armed male, Mr. Horiuchi was attempting to hit Weaver friend Kevin Harris when he shot Mrs. Weaver, 42, as she stood behind a cabin door. The same bullet also struck Mr. Harris as he ran behind the door.

The "could and should" rules were given to each of the team members as they proceeded toward the cabin. Standard rules of engagement allow agents to shoot suspects if their lives or the lives of others are in jeopardy.

Mr. Horiuchi was charged in August 1997 by Mrs. Woodbury with being negligent, reckless and careless. She said he acted in a reckless manner by firing through the cabin´s front door "without first determining whether any person other than his intended target was behind the door."

Mrs. Weaver was the third person to die in two days of gunfire. Her son, Samuel, 14, and Deputy U.S. Marshal William F. Degan died in a separate shootout a day earlier involving U.S. marshals who sought to arrest Randy Weaver on a fugitive warrant. FBI agents responded after Mr. Degan was killed. The standoff ended Aug. 31, 1992, when Mr. Weaver surrendered.

In 1995, the Justice Department settled a lawsuit by Mr. Weaver and his three surviving children for $3.1 million. Last year, the department gave Mr. Harris $380,000 to drop a pending $10 million civil damage suit.

----

Texas Police Officer Killed

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 12:18 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Officer-Shot.html

ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) -- A policeman participating in a training exercise was shot to death with a live round fired by another officer.

Officer Joey Cushman was shot in the head about 6:10 p.m. Thursday and was pronounced dead at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth about three hours later. Cushman had been with the department 4 1/2 years and had been promoted to corporal only a day earlier, police spokeswoman Danetta Chube said.

Police determined that a live round was involved in Cushman's death at a junior high school, police Sgt. James Hawthorne said Friday.

``We have a lot of investigation to do to determine how that may have occurred,'' he told Dallas television station WFAA.

The exercise, intended to train officers for handling school shootings, was held at Ousley Junior High School in Arlington. The school is closed for the summer and no students were present.

Cushman and 20 to 30 other officers were wearing full gear that includes a helmet and a bulletproof vest. Officers were supposed to use rubber bullets.

``We're here to train, to make sure schools are safe. Then an officer was shot -- that's devastating,'' Chube said.

Cushman, 26, was the police department's rookie of the year in 1998 and also valedictorian of his police academy class. His father served with Fort Worth police for 29 years and is now retired.

The officer who shot the gun ``is devastated,'' Hawthorne said. ``A lot of us are just trying to wrestle with how this actually occurred.'' The officer's name was not immediately released.

-------- spying

Australian Gets 15 - Year Sentence

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Spy-Sentence.html

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) -- A former Australian intelligence agent who pleaded guilty to attempted espionage was sentenced Friday to 15 years in prison.

Jean-Philippe Wispelaere, 30, sold more than 900 classified U.S. documents to an FBI agent posing as a foreign spy during April and May 1999. He had also attempted in January 1999 to sell U.S. documents to an unidentified foreign government through its embassy in Bangkok, Thailand.

When he was arrested, Wispelaere told undercover agents of a ``very dire, dire financial need'' for a knee operation and ``a couple of other concerns, involving females, unfortunately,'' the FBI said.

Wispelaere reached a plea agreement in March in which he would serve 15 years with the last five years in an Australian prison. He also was fined $120,000. A judge upheld the agreement Friday.

Wispelaere did not speak substantively about the case at Friday's hearing, but in a letter he wrote to the court before sentencing, he apologized for his actions and said he didn't really understand why he had spied.

His attorney, Nina Ginsberg, said the Australian government should never have given Wispelaere top-secret clearance, calling his efforts at espionage comical.

``It's hard to imagine someone doing a worse job of spying,'' she said.

----

World War I Blackout Continues: Invisible Ink's Invisible Secret
Group Sues to See Spycraft Formula

By Bill Miller
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 8, 2001; Page A27
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37485-2001Jun7?language=printer

More than 80 years after the end of World War I, the United States still won't give up the secrets behind a surreptitious tool used by the Allied forces: invisible ink.

A public interest group filed a federal lawsuit yesterday as part of a three-year campaign to gain access to the nation's oldest classified documents, papers that date to World War I and bear such tantalizing titles as "Secret Inks," "Detection of Secret Ink," "German Secret Ink Formula" and "Pamphlet on Invisible Photography & Writing."

Yesterday the group broadened its quest to include a copy of the "Secret Ink Technical Manual," a 1945 report prepared by the government's Office of Censorship. That report updates the history of secret writing with details from World War II.

But government lawyers aren't budging. They're claiming in court filings and correspondence that release of the papers could compromise national security.

"Come on, these are baby games," said Mark S. Zaid, a lawyer for the James Madison Project, a nonprofit organization that aims to reduce secrecy and promote government accountability. "These secret inks are well-known. Any idiot, just by spilling water, could figure out there's secret ink there. What are they hiding?"

In papers filed in U.S. District Court, Zaid has described secret ink writing as "a fascinating but arcane science which today is more often the subject of comic book and cereal box advertising than spycraft." He said yesterday that the classified materials undoubtedly involve basic formulas that for decades have been in the public domain.

The legal battle over secret ink began in 1998, when the organization asked the National Archives to identify the oldest classified document in its custody.

Officials responded with titles and dates of six documents dealing with secret ink. But they didn't release the materials, saying that decision was up to the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA refused to release them, leading to a suit against the government pending before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Jackson also wound up with the case that was filed yesterday.

In court papers on the earlier lawsuit, government lawyers have said that enemies of the United States do not know which particular formulas and methods the CIA considers reliable. They said secret inks remain viable for use by CIA case officers and sources.

"The age and availability of information about the science of secret ink does not diminish the value of keeping secret the particular formulas and methods at issue here," government lawyers wrote in asking Jackson to dismiss the original lawsuit.

The new lawsuit covers similar legal ground. The National Archives provided Zaid with a copy of the 1945 report, but it was filled with redactions. Most of the excised material appeared to involve compounds used to make invisible ink and methods used to detect it.

The sections made public included one on the history of secret ink, tracing its use to 230 B.C. Over the centuries, the manual said, a variety of substances were used with varying success, including fruit juices and cobalt salts that could be developed and detected through heat or light.

The manual goes on to state that more sophisticated methods were in place by the advent of World War I, saying that secret inks were frequently used in communications by both sides and that "all the intelligence laboratories of the various countries were soon at work on the problem."

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said he had not seen Zaid's latest lawsuit and declined comment on the litigation. But he said the CIA has no intention of keeping papers secret unless there is a "legitimate, well-grounded reason."

"We also don't want information that would be useful to terrorists and others who wish to harm Americans out in the public domain," Mansfield said. "Just because a document is dated doesn't mean it has lost its usefulness and sensitivity. It could be very useful to someone who wishes to communicate secretly and do harm."

-------- activists

ENERGY DEPARTMENT SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLES

June 8, 2001
ENS
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2001/2001L-06-08-09.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The Energy Department will hold seven public meetings around the nation this month to discuss the agency's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs

The first of its kind public outreach effort will allow the public, elected officials and energy experts to provide the department with information regarding the current funding and historic performance of its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. These meetings are part of a comprehensive review of the programs called for in President Bush's National Energy Policy released last month.

"Energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy resources are critical elements of the President's National Energy Policy," said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. "The public's input at these meetings will help us identify opportunities for future research and investment while assessing our past effectiveness in these areas."

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) funds research, development, demonstration and deployment of advanced energy technologies in five energy sectors - buildings, industry, transportation, power generation and delivery, and federal government facilities.

Comments offered at these meetings should address the objectives of the current energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration and deployment programs; suggested potential objectives for future programs; implementation of current and future programs; and whether these federal programs are achieving intended objectives.

Each meeting will be held from 9 am to 9 pm. To accommodate as many individuals as possible speakers will be limited to five minutes.

Written comments will also be accepted but must be submitted by 5 pm on June 29, via electronic mail to: EERENEP.comments@ee.doe.gov

The public meetings will be held:

June 12, Atlanta, Georgia, Richard B. Russell Federal Building and Courthouse

June 12, Chicago, Illinois, Dirksen Federal Building

June 19, Boston, Massachusetts, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

June 19, Seattle, Washington, Bell Harbor International Conference Center

June 21, Denver, Colorado, Adam's Mark Hotel Denver

June 21, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Myerson Auditorium

June 26, Washington, DC, Washington Hilton and Towers

Copies of the National Energy Policy are available at: http://www.energy.gov. More information about EERE programs is available at: http://www.EREN.doe.gov

--------

Some missile defense resources from IEER

From: Lisa Ledwidge / IEER <ieer@ieer.org>

To those of you participating in the June 11-12 Star Wars congressional education days, I wish you success.

One argument against BMD that I don't see mentioned often in news articles is: BMD can be used by the US as a key part of a first-strike strategy. "Nuclear Defense and Offense: An Analysis of US Policy," at http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_8/8-2/defoff.html , presents this argument. While it was published in February 2000, it is still relevant today, perhaps even more so. I hope it will be useful to you in your efforts.

Here are two other IEER resources relevant to missile defense/ABM issues that may also be of use:

Nuclear Weapons and the Rule of Law (Science for Democratic Action Volume 8, Number 2, February 2000): http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_8/8-2/index.html

Law and the Nuclear Establishment (Science for Democratic Action Volume 9, Number 3, May 2001): http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_9/9-3/index.html

Lisa Ledwidge Outreach Coordinator and Editor, Science for Democratic Action Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) 2104 Stevens Ave. South | Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA phone: (612) 879-7517 | fax: (612) 879-7518 ieer@ieer.org | http://www.ieer.org

----

Colombians Protest Bill on Cuts in Services

New York Times
June 8, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/world/08COLO.html

BOGOTÁ, Colombia, June 7 (Reuters) - Thousands of teachers, doctors and union activists demonstrated across the country today, blocking roads and clashing with the police to protest a bill backed by the International Monetary Fund that could slash funds for health and education.

The protests, which have been building since teachers and doctors went on strike on May 15, intensified after a congressional panel gave a green light on Wednesday night to the controversial law, opening it to a final vote on the floor.

Finance Minister Juan Manuel Santos has threatened to resign if Congress does not approve the bill before lawmakers head into recess on June 20.

The law would amend the Constitution to cap the level of federal transfers to states, freeing up funds to trim Colombia's budget deficit and pay off foreign debt.

But teachers and unions for health workers say the law would inevitably lead to cutbacks for schools and hospitals because it leaves spending priorities up to the states.

A Finance Ministry spokesman said a date for the final vote on the bill had not been set, but could take place late next week.


------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)

------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!