------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
CHERNOBYL SCIENTIST/POLITICAL PRISONER
Babies' bones removed for nuclear research
Bulgaria gets aid for nuclear reactors shutdown
Putin's China Card
Depleted Uranium radioactivity in KOSOVO
Military muscle gap of European Union
Pakistan Appeals for Sanction Curbs
Report: Iraq Bought Weapon Material
Powell Seeks Less Okinawa Resentment
North Korea Dismisses Offer by the U.S. to Resume Talks
US Rejects NKorea Compensation
Study Says Russia Might Keep Missiles in Face of U.S. Shield
Sad Tales of the Pacific Islands
Putin displeased with peacekeepers
Russia: No Nuclear Help to Iran
A Promising Start With Russia
Highlights of Putin's Interview
Clinton appointee to help with sick nuclear workers program
A Good Week's Work . . .
. . . From a No-Wobble Bush
Author to Sue U.S. Over Book on China's Nuclear Advances
Ex - Nuclear Official Sues Over Book
Bush's Warmth Toward Russian Leader Stirs Skeptics
PLANS READY FOR SHIPMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

MILITARY
Revelations Of Torture No Surprise
Tech firms fight for 'star wars' trade
Taiwan Denies Developing Medium - Range Missile
Yugoslavia Wants Arms Embargo Ended
Colombian Indians Resist an Encroaching War
Military muscle gap of European Union
U.S. Scales Back Iraq Mission
U.N. Sanctions Didn't Stop Iraq From Buying Weapons
U.S. Scales Back Iraq Mission
Sharon Flatly Rejects Proposal for Peres-Arafat Meeting
Syrian Troops Quit Beirut
New Zealand Aims to Scrap Air Defense
Vieques, the Island Paradise
When the Bombing Ends
Pentagon's No. 2: Let others take up peacekeeping
Air Force general top pick for Joint Chiefs chair

OTHER
Solar-powered jail helps California county save money
Ban on Execution of the Retarded Is Vetoed in Texas
Bush to Back FERC Energy Price Limits
G.M. Will Oppose Efforts to Tighten Fuel Efficiency
PROTEIN HELPS PLANTS HOLD WATER
What I Like and Don't Like About Bush's Energy Policy
ENGINEERED CROPS THREATEN FARMERS, ENVIRONMENT
Homeopathic Metals May Cure All Manner of Ailments
New Imaging Combo Could Improve Cancer Treatment
Supreme Court Upholds Use of Force in Guarding Vice President
Fed Control Ends in Texas Prisons
Russian Scientist Allegedly Sold Satellite Secrets to China
Taliban invalidates bin Laden's orders
High court sides with police

ACTIVISTS
June 21 call-in day to oppose National Ignition Facility
NO STAR WARS:
Published paper on internal resistance against atom bomb development
US CAMPAIGN TO ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Protesters Break Into Vieques Range
Indonesia Students Protest Fuel Hike
Vieques Advocate Turns From Violence of Her Past


-------- NUCLEAR

CHERNOBYL SCIENTIST/POLITICAL PRISONER
Bandazhevsky condemned to 8 years of prison [for reporting on Chernobyl victims]

De : solange <s.m.fernex@wanadoo.fr>
Date : Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:07:46 +0300

Dear Colleagues

The Military Court in Gomel has, a few moments ago, condemned Professor Yuri, I. Bandazhevsky, former Dean of the Medical Institute in Gomel to 8 years of prison.

There is no possible appeal against a verdict of the Military Court, only the Presidential Grace an international solidarity campaign will be launched soon.

This verdict was issued, although Bandazhevsky has always denied the corruption charges raised against him, and the accusers have declared to the Court that they had testified against him under constraint (menaces against their families, against them, drugs in their beverage).

Prof. Bandazhevsky showed the organic, anatomic and histological health damages caused by incorporated Cs137 in the Chernobyl victims, especially children living in the contaminated zones.

As the UNSCEAR maintains (May 2000) that the only consequences of Chernobyl are 1800 thyroïd cancers in children and teenagers, Bandazhevsky's findings were not politically correct and he had to be suppressed. Chernobyl happens to revive the Galileo Galilei tragedy

We are very sorry, Please, spread the news and help !
Michel Fernex, PSR/IPPNW Switzerland solange Fernex, WILPF France

-------- britain

Babies' bones removed for nuclear research

Monday, June 18, 2001
Irish Times
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/0618/wor17.htm

SCOTLAND: Thousands of dead babies had their thigh bones secretly removed from their bodies during the 1960s in Scotland as part of a scientific study into the dangers of radiation from nuclear weapons tests.

Leading medical researchers at Yorkhill Sick Children's Hospital in Glasgow reduced femur samples from more than 2,100 children between 1959 and 1970 to ashes so they could be analysed for radioactive contamination.

Operators of the Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness, the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which initiated the research, and the Medical Research Council, which oversaw it, have admitted that parents were not asked for their consent.

A report in the Sunday Herald newspaper said that more than half the children who had femur samples removed were stillborn, and that most others died before they reached the age of five.

Every year, between 100 and 200 thigh bones of children who died in west central Scotland were removed or sampled at post mortem examinations at York hill.

A handful came from Perthshire, Orkney, and Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland in the Scottish Highlands.

After being incinerated, the femurs were analysed for the radioactive isotope strontium-90, which was being spread around the world by atmospheric nuclear tests.

Doctors feared that because it was contaminating milk, it could be building up to dangerous levels in children's bones.

The only permission ever requested from the bereaved parents in the 12 years of analysing bones was for routine post mortem examinations, the newspaper reported.

Health minister Susan Deacon said last night the findings were very disturbing and merited further investigation.

She will ask the independent review group set up after the Alder Hey scandal in Liverpool to look at the findings.

"While these events took place some time ago, they will still be very disturbing to the families concerned," she said.

"I have made it clear that the paternalism of the past has no place in a 21st-century health service and parents must be kept involved in any decision affecting their children."

She believed the findings would strengthen the review group's determination to make sure such things never happened again. - (PA)

-------- bulgaria

Bulgaria gets aid for nuclear reactors shutdown

BULGARIA: June 18, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11223&newsDate=18-Jun-2001

LONDON - Bulgaria agreed on Friday the terms of a 100-million-euro, internationally-backed fund to support the decommissioning of ageing reactors at its Kozloduy nuclear power station.

The fund, administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), is supported by the European Union, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK.

"The Bulgarian energy sector still needs support but it has now started on a very good course," Matthias Ruete, director of enlargement, directorate general at the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, said during a signing ceremony in London.

Kozloduy, which has a total capacity of 3,760 megawatts, supplies nearly half Bulgaria's power.

After starting talks on joining the European Union in March last year, Bulgaria has agreed to shut the plant's two oldest 440-megawatt reactors by 2003.

A decision on the closure of another two 440-megawatt units is expected next year.

EBRD said in a statement it expected significant additional contributions to the decommissioning fund after the agreement of a final date for the shutdown of the other two reactors.

-------- china

Putin's China Card

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/opinion/18SAFI.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON - "I like Old Joe," said F.D.R. about Joseph Stalin. Carrying on that self- deluding tradition of snap judgments, George W. Bush looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin, announced, "I was able to get a sense of his soul," and after two heady hours concluded he was "straightforward" and "trustworthy."

Ever since the K.G.B. man emerged as the Russian oligarchs' choice, President Putin has shown himself to be duplicitous (ask the Chechens), anti-democratic (ask the remains of Russia's free press) and untrustworthy (ask the exiled oligarchs). We can hope that the Bush gush was flattery intended to show the U.S. president to be nonthreatening as his administration presses ahead with a missile defense.

The American gave the Russian what he most needs: public deference that salves Russia's wounded pride, and respect to its leader abroad as Putin methodically chokes off opposition at home. Bush topped this off with a pre-emptive concession: agreement to exchange warm ranch-and-home visits, for which Putin was eager, even before any progress was shown in agreement to scrap the old ABM treaty.

The Russian partly reciprocated, as Bush hoped, by accepting the American formulation of "a new architecture of security in the world" and by hinting that "we might have a very constructive development here in this area." That public optimism from Russia takes a little of the steam out of alarmist Franco-German protests that America, in defending its cities from rogue missiles, was starting "a new arms race."

At home, Putin has cracked down on the new freedoms without curbing the old corruption. Example of the rule of lawlessness: his Duma passed a bill last week to make Russia the world's nuclear waste dump, generating $20 billion over the next decade.

That would be the most dangerous boondoggle in history, with little control over 2,000 tons of radioactive garbage yearly. "One hundred million Russian citizens are against it," says Grigory Yavlinsky, one of the few reformers left standing in the Duma, "and only 500 people are for it - 300 members sitting here and 200 bureaucrats who will be getting the money." (Fortunately for the world, the U.S. won't bury our nuclear waste in Russia, where it could be reprocessed and sold to Iran for weapons production.)

Well aware of the weakness of his hand, Putin is emulating Nixon strategy by playing the China card. Pointedly, just before meeting with Bush, Putin traveled to Shanghai to set up a regional cooperation semi-alliance with Jiang Zemin and some of his Asian fellow travelers.

That deft maneuver puts European leaders on notice that Russia - despite all the talk of becoming a "partner" in Europe - knows that the center of America's strategic concern in the coming generation will be Asia.

Putin is signaling Bush: European leaders may resent your economic competition and appeal to their voters by complaining about pollution, but that's merely bickering within the Western alliance. A future recombination of China and Russia, however, would challenge America's status as the world's sole superpower. Therefore, you'd better prop up our Russian economy - with none of your human- rights lectures and expansion of NATO to our borders - lest we undermine your hegemony with a Beijing- Moscow axis.

I wonder if Bush and his advisers are catching that signal. If so, they don't seem to have let Putin's China card affect U.S. policy. In a strong and thoughtful speech in Warsaw, Bush sent a signal of his own: "No more Munichs, no more Yaltas."

That means no more appeasement of threats of aggression (as at Munich just before World War II, or about Taiwan today) and no more carving up of the world into spheres of influence (as at Yalta at that war's end, or blocking the entry of the Baltic nations into NATO today). I read that to mean we will support the entry of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania vigorously, despite Putin's phony worry about NATO being "a military organization . . . moving toward our border."

With the strongest hand any American ever held, Bush comported himself well. But he should remember Reagan's "trust but verify." When the manipulative Russian comes to visit at the Texas ranch this fall, I would hate to hear "I like ol' Vlad."

-------- depleted uranium

Inquiry re: Depleted Uranium radioactivity in KOSOVO

Date sent: Mon, 18 Jun 2001
From: Fayolle Andre <fayollea@yahoo.co.uk>

Right now I am planned to go back home in Uganda reaching there on July first. However, I wish to know which laboratory, possibly independant from NATO and UN, in Zurich, in Rome, in France and why not in Amsterdam, can test me to know wether I have ingested Ceramic insoluble DU and also sulble DU, at what dose and if there is any danger.

I arrived for the first time in my life in Eastern Europe on May 01 2001, in Kosovo, without being aware of this DU business.

Please if you know, give contacts of such laboratory. Possibly what type of test should be carried out on me, how long does it take, what cost, and why not if the French social security could reimbursed ? I am not telling my boss that I am trying to do that. I do not trust so much the UNEP report dated early 2001.

Indeed Kind Regards Andre

-------- europe

Military muscle gap of European Union

Washington Times
June 18, 2001
Austin Bay
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20010618-7637909.htm

"Royal Air Force may recruit Luftwaffe pilots." No, the London Times´ report isn´t a joke employment ad intended to boggle Battle of Britain survivors.

The RAF´s talent search, however, exemplifies Europe´s general decline in military effectiveness and European NATO members´ specific failure to meet modernization commitments. Ultimately, it offers insight into the European Union´s chronic case of collective political weakness, illustrating why even the most sanctimonious of Washington-taunting Euro-promoters secretly rely on U.S. leadership.

Facing a pilot shortage, the RAF is scouring the globe for hi-Mach skills. This spring, when New Zealand´s irresponsible little government decided to defund its own air force, the RAF immediately approached unemployed Kiwi jet jockeys.

But recruiting from the Luftwaffe was too ironic for the press to ignore. In the six decades since the London Blitz, both history and Hollywood have kept alive the memory of Spitfires and Messerschmidts tangling high above the Thames.

Don´t confuse hiring German pilots as indicative of increasing European cooperation. It´s poaching indicative of desperation on the part of the RAF and disenchantment on the part of Luftwaffe pilots disgruntled by Germany´s aging air fleet and declining training time.

Euro politicos have decided their militaries can shrink and make-do with old equipment. The Soviet threat is kaput, and economic prosperity is what really binds Europe, right?

This political decision, however, abrogates NATO´s 1999 "force goals" agreement, forged after the Kosovo War revealed a growing gap between U.S. and European military capabilities. Europeans agreed to improve in five areas: logistics, command and control, survivability of forces and infrastructure, mobility, and "effective engagement" a buzzword for precision-guided weapons.

But the goals simply haven´t been met. Actually, Britain deserves credit for attempting to meet its commitments. Germany has faltered. France, as usual, has invested more in anti-Washington invective than in modernization.

At last week´s NATO defense ministers conference, Secretary General Lord Robertson assayed the failure to pursue military reform. "Elections are rarely won or lost on questions of defense policy," he said. "These are complex and sometimes dry issues . . . hard to package in a sound bite." While globalization offers "our societies the opportunity to become . . . more prosperous, it also makes them more vulnerable," particularly to "states developing weapons of mass destruction."

Lord Robertson warned Europeans, "If crisis comes along, the capability won´t be there." If Europe doesn´t deliver, the result will be a "trans-Atlantic capability gap and a European credibility gap."

The Eurocorps, the "go it alone" force some Americans perceive as a threat to undermine NATO, looks like another Euro-tout turned to Euro-flop. Lack of funding is one reason, European rivalries another. Greece rejected Turkish participation in a joint European defense force. On June 8, Irish voters rejected EU expansion. Like other Western Europeans, many Irish believe an enlarged EU costs them too much money. More than a few also fear that EU "institutional reforms" would require Ireland to participate in the EU´s military force, compromising Irish neutrality. Europe already suffers from other credibility gaps. The euro´s decline against the U.S. dollar was the free market´s comment on Europe´s economic weaknesses. Though Europeans recognize the need for structural and social reform, the will to tackle vested interests and embedded problems is utterly lacking. While crack German pilots may jump to the RAF, ask a Greek engineer about intra-EU labor mobility if he applies for a job in Munich.

American liberals chatter about European "credibility" on environmental issues. That´s another hoo-hah. Romania remains the only European nation to ratify the flawed Kyoto Treaty. However, hammering President Bush about the Kyoto Treaty shields European leaders from the wrath of their domestic greens. Germany´s left-wing government is making extensive use of this bit of guerrilla theater the eco-freaks generate great sound bites and satirizing Mr. Bush deflects attention from the deterioration of the Luftwaffe.

Lord Robertson understands, as do other European defense specialists, that emerging threats require modernization and preparation. However, among key European leaders, only British Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly acknowledged the merit of the Bush administration´s missile defense proposals, new approaches to arms control and new "strategic framework" for collective defense.

But don´t tell that to the crowds of protesters greeting Mr. Bush´s European tour. Check their posters it´s all sound bites, adolescent angst and smug duplicity. The United States is the bogey man, faulted for Middle East conundrums, energy policy, environmental degradation and incredibly impoverishing Cuba. Apparently, some European socialists still can´t criticize communism.

If the defense of the Free World is to remain credible, the United States has to lead it´s all too obvious Europe can´t.

Austin Bay is a nationally syndicated columnist.

-------- india / pakistan

Pakistan Appeals for Sanction Curbs

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-US-Pakistan.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With Pakistan staggering under severe drought, Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar hinted Monday that his country might be forced to rely on nuclear weapons for its defense if U.S. sanctions are not eased.

Sattar, speaking at a conference on the spread of dangerous technology, said the restrictions have haunted Pakistan for more than a decade.

``The sanctions deny Pakistan not merely economic assistance and military sales, but even spare parts for the equipment we purchased,'' Sattar said.

The risk, the Pakistani minister said, is that if nations cannot depend on conventional weapons to deter attack there is a ``consequent increase in reliance on strategic deterrence.''

Pakistan, and its historic rival, India, have fought three wars. Both have exploded nuclear devices and tested ballistic missiles.

Former President Bill Clinton called South Asia the most dangerous part of the world, a view shared by many analysts.

Sanctions against India and Pakistan are under the Bush administration's review, a senior U.S. official said Monday.

There is an inclination to lift some of the sanctions against the two countries sometime soon, but the fact that Pakistan is under military rule and has supported Taliban militia in Afghanistan may slow relief for Pakistan, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Severe drought has damaged Pakistan's agricultural sector over the past year, setting back the country's other successes in stabilizing its battered economy, Finance Minister Sahukat Aziz said recently.

The economy grew 2.6 percent in the fiscal year ending June 30, down from 3.9 percent growth the previous year, he said.

Sattar met with Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, on Monday and is scheduled to see Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday.

A U.S. official said afterward that Rice told the foreign minister the administration was committed to building a good relationship with his country and was looking forward to a return to democracy that would permit fully normal relations.

Sattar told the conference, held by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, that over the last year Pakistan had strengthened control of strategic weapons. He declared Pakistan would not be the first in the region to resume nuclear testing.

The Pakistan government is concentrating on economic revival and strengthening democracy, he said, and ``cannot afford a distraction.''

-------- iraq

Report: Iraq Bought Weapon Material

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-UN-Iraq.html?searchpv=aponline

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Iraq evaded U.N. sanctions in the 1990s, importing military equipment to build missiles and nuclear weapons from companies in Eastern Europe and Russia, according to unpublished U.N. weapons inspection reports.

The American arms control researchers who obtained the reports conclude that Saddam Hussein's shopping spree is likely to intensify as the enforcement of sanctions wanes and Iraq's revenue from illegally smuggled oil grows.

The findings by Gary Milhollin, director of the Washington-based Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a nonprofit watchdog group, and researcher Kelly Motz, are being published in the July-August issue of Commentary magazine.

The unpublished U.N. weapons inspection reports were obtained by sources outside the United Nations, according to Motz. Their release comes at a time when the U.N. Security Council is engaged in tough negotiations on a U.S.-British proposal to toughen enforcement of a decade-old arms embargo on Iraq.

``The new proposal -- whether adopted by the U.N. or not -- has little hope of stopping the Iraqis from sneaking in what they need to rebuild their weapons sites and sneaking out the oil to pay for it,'' they wrote in the article made available Monday. ``Even when the U.N. inspection regime was in place, the Iraqis had already figured out how to do just that.''

A British diplomat disagreed. ``The new resolution will set in place arrangements to monitor the flow of goods into Iraq and to crack down on illegal oil smuggling. So it's not right to claim that it will make no difference,'' the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity. There were no immediate comments from U.S. officials on the report.

The Security Council imposed sanctions on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The sanctions cannot be lifted until U.N. weapons inspectors certify that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs have been dismantled along with its long-range missile program.

But inspectors with the U.N. Special Commission, known as UNSCOM, left Iraq after seven years in December 1998 ahead of U.S. and British missile strikes launched to punish the country for not cooperating with inspectors. For the last 2 1/2 years, the Iraqi government has barred U.N. inspectors from returning, demanding instead that sanctions be lifted immediately.

The two experts from the Wisconsin Project quote an UNSCOM assessment before the inspectors left in 1998 which said that throughout the 1990s Iraq imported goods from at least 20 different countries.

On Iraq's purchase list were ``full-sized production lines, industrial know-how, high-tech spare parts and raw materials,'' the UNSCOM report was quoted as saying. The reports cited have never been made public by the United Nations.

The contraband cargo was almost always flown or shipped to Jordan and then transported by truck across the border into Iraq, the researchers found.

According to the report, Iraq decided in the early 1990s to target Eastern Europe, following the collapse of the Soviet empire, which spurred a wholesale weapons market. In the Commentary article, the experts describe trips by high-level Iraqi delegations to companies in Belarus, Ukraine, Romania and Russia. The only other company mentioned in the article is one based in Taiwan.

Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for UNSCOM's successor agency, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said UNSCOM informed the Security Council over the years of evidence of ongoing efforts by Iraq to buy a variety of items, particularly in the missile area, though it didn't name any countries involved.

The report published by Milhollin and Motz ``showed sanctions didn't do what they were supposed to do because Iraq got hold of some banned items, but it also showed the value of inspections in that we uncovered some of this stuff,'' Buchanan said.

The two researchers said the only way to shut down Iraq's smuggling network would be to control all cargo coming into Iraq and the oil going out -- something the U.S.-British sanctions proposal before the Security Council tries to do.

This would require cooperation of Iraq's neighbors, especially Jordan and Syria. But Jordan's Prime Minister Ali Abu-Ragheb said in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan circulated Monday that the U.S.-British plan would threaten the tiny kingdom's national security and stability.

-------- japan

Powell Seeks Less Okinawa Resentment

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Japan.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell and Japanese Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka on Monday discussed possible U.S. steps to ease resentment in Okinawa about the American troop presence there, officials said.

The first meeting between the Powell and Tanaka came amid uncertainty about security in East Asia and how the United States and Japan, treaty allies, should respond. Part of Tanaka's mission here was to lay the groundwork for a meeting this month between President Bush and Japan's new Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi.

A Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, said Tanaka asked Powell about the possibility of shifting Marine Corps training exercises to other locations and relocating

``Powell said the U.S. presence is important and so are the military exercises,'' the official said, ``but he would pass on to Secretary of Defense (Donald H.) Rumsfeld Japan's concerns about base-related issues.'' That account was confirmed by a State Department official.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Powell made clear to Tanaka that the U.S. goal is to have the smallest presence possible given the security needs of the region.

Another official said the Pentagon is looking at sites elsewhere in Asia to which some training activities could be relocated.

Okinawa's governor, Keiichi Inamine, has urged U.S. officials to cut military forces on his southern Japanese island, following a recent series of crimes and embarrassing remarks by U.S. troops and officers stationed there.

Okinawa is home to about half of the 47,000 U.S. military forces stationed in Japan.

Japan is undertaking a comprehensive security review, part of which involves a parliamentary analysis of constitutional issues. This could give rise to an expanded role for the country's defense forces.

Tanaka told Powell that Japan needs to find its own role on defense issues. U.S. and Japanese sources said Powell and Tanaka discussed the constitutional issue but that Powell took no position.

Tanaka met first with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice at the White House. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney dropped by, and new ambassador to Japan Howard Baker also took part.

The official said Tanaka told Bush and the other U.S. officials that after 50 years of cooperation on security issues, Japan would like ``to look carefully at the benefits and burdens because we have reached a milestone.''

During the meeting at the State Department, Powell talked to Tanaka about the administration's rationale for going ahead with a missile defense program.

Boucher said Tanaka reaffirmed that Japan understands the reasons why the U.S. is eager to push ahead with the program.

At the end of the meeting, Boucher quoted Powell as telling Tanaka, ``You should always remember that the best friend of Japan is the United States.''

-------- korea

North Korea Dismisses Offer by the U.S. to Resume Talks

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/18CND-KOREA.html?searchpv=nytToday

TOKYO, June 18 - In its first official reaction to American proposals to resume bilateral talks, North Korea has dismissed a Bush administration request that the issue of conventional forces be included along with nuclear and ballistic missile control questions.

In a statement read on state radio Sunday, a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman accused President Bush of unilaterally setting the agenda for the talks. The statement said that the United States must remove its 37,000 troops from South Korea before any discussion of North Korean troop deployments would be possible.

The North Korean spokesman said that, with the American request to include conventional arms in the talks, "We cannot construe this otherwise than an attempt of the U.S. to disarm" North Korea "through negotiations."

When Mr. Bush came into office he said that he would not continue President Clinton's talks with North Korea and that negotiations would not resume anytime soon. He said he wanted time to review the talks and United States policy.

Then on June 6 Mr. Bush announced that the United States would restart negotiations with North Korea on a broad range of issues, including that nation's production and exporting of missiles and its stationing of soldiers on the border with South Korea.

The apparent North Korean rejection of talks on conventional troop issues came a day after a conference held on the South Korean island of Cheju marking the first anniversary of the first summit meeting between leaders of North and South Korea.

At the conference, the southern leader, Kim Dae Jung, said that the most important achievement in last year's rapprochement was the North's acceptance of the American military presence in South Korea. "The continued presence of U.S. forces on the Korean peninsula serves the interest of the Korean people," Mr. Kim said he was told by his counterpart in the North.

But when describing North Korea's position, it is often necessary to say "apparent," not only because the country still remains largely closed and secretive but because the announcements of the state news media and even official spokesman often matter little in the end. Major decisions are invariably made at the top, and without high-level contacts it is often impossible to gauge the true disposition of the leadership.

The Bush administration proposal to discuss conventional troop deployments in its talks with North Korea marks a significant departure from the policy of the Clinton administration. The previous efforts focused almost exclusively on eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons production in the North and ending the testing and sale of North Korean ballistic missiles.

In one of her final trips abroad as secretary of state, Madeleine K. Albright visited the North Korean capital, Pyongyang. There she met with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, trying to secure final agreement over controls on the country's nuclear and missile technology and paving the way for a normalization of relations.

Mr. Bush suspended talks with North Korea almost immediately after taking office, ordering a complete review of policy toward the country. But in announcing that he would resume talks, he promised that if North Korea "responds affirmatively" to American proposals, the United States would increase its efforts to help the North Korean people, ease sanctions and take other political steps.

The American announcement that it was prepared to resume talks was made on the eve of a visit to Washington by Foreign Minister Han Seung Soo of South Korea. The South Korea president, Kim Dae Jung, has made his "sunshine policy" of improving relations with the North central to his government, and the American decision to halt talks put a damper on Mr. Kim's policy.

The United States' decision to move ahead with talks was made after the completion of a policy review that pitted hard-line skeptics on North Korea at the Pentagon and the National Security Council against more pragmatic officials at the State Department.

Mr. Bush said that he had directed officials to undertake serious talks with a broad agenda that included "verifiable constraints on North Korea's missile programs and a ban on its missile exports, and a less threatening conventional military posture."

The Bush administration's policy toward North Korea had been awaited by American allies in Asia and Europe because of the perception that Washington was using the threat of North Korea's long-range missiles as a justification to develop a missile defense. In late 1998 North Korea sent a long-range unarmed missile toward Japan.

The American contacts with North Korea began in 1993 over concern that it was using material from nuclear power plants for weapons. During the Clinton administration, a former defense secretary, William J. Perry, laid out a strategy for talks and other actions to try to ease North Korea out of its long-term isolation.

North Korea has an estimated 700,000 troops out of its 1.17 million-member army stationed near the border with the South. The North also keeps thousands of artillery pieces stationed in forward positions, where they threaten the southern capital, Seoul. In recent Congressional testimony, American military officials have described the North Korean conventional threat as growing, largely as a result of increased readiness drills.

North Korea has always maintained that its troops are stationed there as a defensive measure, aimed at warding off an attack by better trained and armed American and South Korean combat aircraft stationed close to the border.

The North Korean spokesman said bilateral talks held during the Clinton administration were "in conformity with the interests of both sides" and produced results helpful to improving relations. "In this sense," he added "we cannot but interpret the U.S. administration's `proposal for resuming dialogue' as unilateral and conditional in its nature and hostile in its intention."

--------

US Rejects NKorea Compensation

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-North-Korea.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States on Monday rejected a North Korean demand for compensation for delays in the completion of two light water reactors planned under a 1994 agreement.

``We don't see any particular basis for compensation,'' State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

North Korea made the demand in its first response to President Bush's proposal two weeks ago that bilateral talks resume for the first time since last fall.

The response was offered by an unidentified North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman in a radio broadcast. His comments made clear that two sides are far apart on both procedural and substantive issues.

Bush wants discussions on the large North Korean troop presence near the South Korean border, but the North Korean said talks should focus on the alleged U.S. failure to keep its end of a 1994 agreement under which the North froze its suspected nuclear weapons program.

The agreement requires a U.S.-led international consortium to provide North Korea with two power-generating light-water nuclear reactors by 2003. However, the $4.6 billion project has been delayed by financing and political tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

Claiming that the delay is causing it a huge electricity loss, North Korea demanded compensation.

``The electricity loss from the delay in building light-water reactors should be taken up as a priority agenda in the talks,'' the spokesman said.

The administration insists 2003 was a target date, not a contractual date. In addition, officials say there is no contractual provision for the extra compensation demanded by Pyongyang.

``We have met and will continue to meet our obligations,'' Boucher said.

The North Korean spokesman also complained that Washington unilaterally set the agenda despite saying the proposed talks have no conditions attached.

``We cannot but evaluate the U.S. proposal as unilateral and conditional in its nature and hostile in its intentions,'' the spokesman said. ``The U.S.-proposed agenda concerns our nuclear, missile and conventional armaments and this all is nothing but an attempt to disarm us.''

The spokesman said any reduction or re-redeployment of North Korea's 1.1-million-member military cannot be discussed before the United States withdraws its 37,000-member military presence in South Korea.

-------- missile defense

Study Says Russia Might Keep Missiles in Face of U.S. Shield

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 18, 2001; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10688-2001Jun16?language=printer

If efforts by the United States to build missile defenses lead Russia to stop reducing its long-range missiles, Moscow could end up in 2010 with 3,500 strategic warheads, three times the number now projected for the end of the decade, according to the directors of a new study of Russian nuclear weapons.

The "Nuclear Status Report on the Former Soviet Union," due for release today, is a nearly 200-page compendium of data on Russia's nuclear arsenal and the state of security at dozens of former Soviet nuclear plants. It was compiled by researchers at two think tanks, the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Monterey, Calif., and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

If current trends continue and U.S.-Russian relations remain stable, they project that Russia's long-range missile and bomber forces will shrink dramatically, from nearly 6,000 warheads today to between 1,086 and 1,546 warheads by the end of the decade.

The authors do not take a position on whether President Bush's missile defense plan will prompt Moscow to reverse that course, or whether the Russian government could come up with enough money to do so. The report does, however, describe some steps that Russian leaders would be likely to take if they decided to begin rebuilding their arsenal.

"The Bush policy counts on Russia going down to 1,000 warheads no matter what the U.S. does, but missile defense may force them to make their deterrent secure by putting more warheads on missiles and stepping up production of new ones," said Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project at Carnegie.

The report notes that only 20 of Russia's newest SS-27 ballistic missiles, each of which carries a single warhead, have been deployed since they became operational in 1999. Production has been "greatly lagging behind projections, fewer than 10 missiles per year instead of the planned 30-40," it says. Moreover, although the missile is designed to be mobile, all those deployed are in fixed silos, the report says.

At the current production rate, Russia would have only 100 SS-27s by the end of 2007. But if Moscow is determined to be able to overwhelm a U.S. missile defense, it could increase funding to produce 20 a year and could easily modify the SS-27 to carry three or four warheads each, giving Russia 600 to 800 warheads on 200 advanced, land-based ICBMs by 2010, the report says.

The SS-18, granddaddy of all big missiles with 10 warheads on each launcher, originally was deployed by the Soviet Union in 1975. About 180 remain at four locations in Russia. But because the SS-18 was designed and built in Ukraine, new ones are not available, and under the START II agreement, the existing ones are to be eliminated by 2007.

According to the report, the Russians could extend their lives and keep 90 missiles (with a total of 900 warheads) operational -- if Moscow follows through on its threats to stop adhering to the START II treaty should the United States pursue missile defenses and withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

"That shows there is a real national security cost to be paid for missile defense," Cirincione said.

To encourage Russia to continue reducing its nuclear forces, Bush has held out the prospect that the United States will unilaterally cut its own arsenal, although he has not proposed any specific reductions.

The report credits U.S.-Russian cooperative programs, funded by more than $3 billion from the U.S. government over the past decade, with helping Russia to dismantle and destroy 258 intercontinental ballistic missiles, at least 50 ICBM silos, 42 strategic bombers and 17 nuclear-powered submarines containing 256 ballistic missile launchers.

In the next few years, the cooperative programs are expected to eliminate an additional 700 Russian land- and submarine-based ICBMs, including Moscow's largest, the SS-18s and SS-24s that each carry 10 warheads.

The new study also credits U.S.-Russian cooperative programs with improving security over Moscow's nuclear storage sites, which contain both warheads and materials such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Although more than 45 sites with weapons-usable materials have been secured, at least 24 remain untouched, in part because the Russians have refused to provide U.S. experts direct access to those facilities.

For example, the reports says, security upgrades have not begun at the nuclear warhead assembly and disassembly plant at Sarov. Although U.S.-supplied monitoring devices and other security equipment were delivered in 1998, installation has been delayed because of the access issue.

Jon B. Wolfsthal, one of the report's three principal authors, said that "tens to hundreds of tons of Russian nuclear materials" remain in facilities without upgraded security. He also noted that this is one of several Energy Department programs whose funds are slated to be cut in Bush's fiscal 2002 budget.

Another Energy program facing a deep budget cut provides aid to Russian scientists who formerly worked on nuclear weapons in closed cities. A National Security Council study of several U.S.-Russia programs is underway, one part of which is to review charges by some members of Congress that the so-called Nuclear Cities program has not been successful in developing nonmilitary businesses and instead has provided support to scientists who still work on Russian military programs.

In a news conference Saturday after his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush said Russia "has got a resource that's invaluable in this new era, and that's brain power." Without mentioning the U.S. budget cuts, Bush added that "Russia has got great mathematicians and engineers who can just as easily participate in the high-tech world as American engineers and American mathematicians. That's an area of great interest to me. . . . It's an area where we can begin fruitful dialogue."

Another program that is under review calls for each country to dispose of 34 metric tons of excess, weapons-grade plutonium -- enough to build thousands of warheads. A multibillion-dollar plan to turn the weapons material into fuel for nuclear reactors, signed in June 2000, has been stalled, partly for lack of funds.

-------
-------- pacific

Sad Tales of the Pacific Islands

New York Times
June 18, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/opinion/L18ATOL.html?searchpv=nytToday

To the Editor:

Re "Dark Side of Security Quest: Squalor on an Atoll" (news article, June 11):

My family lived for a number of years on Kwajalein Atoll, and I myself was born there. We have wonderful memories of the place, but these are tempered by a firsthand knowledge of the cost of American defense activities to the people of the Marshall Islands.

These islands were given to the United States as a trust territory by the United Nations. There is no doubt whatsoever that we violated that trust, and the trust of the inhabitants. We used a land not our own to test and develop the deadliest devices known to history, and the people of the Marshalls continue to bear the cost, and will do so for thousands of years.

The United States could improve the situation for the people of these islands for a small amount of money, yet we continue to oppose doing so. It remains to be seen whether we will ever redeem the trust we violated. PAUL C. GRAVES

New York, June 11, 2001

To the Editor:
Re "Dark Side of Security Quest: Squalor on an Atoll" (news article, June 11):

As a Navy pilot who landed a Coronado seaplane at Kwajalein in 1944 while the smoke and stench of victory still hovered over the secured atoll, and as one who made the devastated tropical paradise my home for several months along with my squadron mates while we patrolled Pacific waters to prepare for the next island conquests, I now feel shame instead of pride.

Now that the results of our cruel colonialist policy have been exposed, what will our government do about it? Our missile defense is certainly a priority, but so is our moral obligation to the human beings swept aside into the radiation-polluted pockets of disease and squalor.

ROBERT E. A. LEE
Baldwin, N.Y., June 11, 2001

•To the Editor:
Re "Dark Side of Security Quest: Squalor on an Atoll" (news article, June 11):

In the mid-1950's, as a medical officer in the Navy, I participated with a team from the Brookhaven National Laboratory in examining inhabitants of an atoll who were irradiated by fallout from a poorly planned nuclear test that left their island uninhabitable. Less well known is the occurrence of a severe outbreak of polio in the islands in the late 1950's. This outbreak occurred several years after the mass vaccination of our own population.

Despite being a United Nations trust territory under United States control, the Marshall Island natives never received the polio vaccine. And despite my inquiries to the Department of the Interior at that time, no explanation for this inexcusable health oversight was given.

It is sad to note that some 45 years later, our un-benign neglect of the Micronesians continues.

JAMES P. NOLAN, M.D.
Buffalo, June 12, 2001
The writer is a professor of medicine, SUNY, Buffalo.

-------- russia

Putin displeased with peacekeepers

By Fisnik Abrashi
June 18, 2001
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010618-103725.htm

PRISTINA, Yugoslavia -- Russian President Vladimir Putin, heading home after his first meeting with President Bush, made an unscheduled stop yesterday in Kosovo, where he harshly criticized NATO commanders who call the shots for some 3,000 Russian peacekeeping troops.

The first Russian president to visit Yugoslavia since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, Mr. Putin was balancing a desire to reassert Russia´s interests in the Balkans with his professed willingness to work with the Western alliance.

"We came here to see what kind of cooperation exists, what kinds of problems exist here and how to address and resolve those problems," he said in brief comments before departing for Moscow.

Mr. Putin arrived in Yugoslavia late Saturday direct from his summit in neighboring Slovenia with Mr. Bush. Although he and Mr. Bush discussed the region´s problems broadly, Mr. Putin said, "We did not touch in detail on any specific issues."

That was not the case in Belgrade, where Mr. Putin and Yugoslavia´s new pro-democracy leader, President Vojislav Kostunica, criticized NATO and the U.N. administrators who have run Kosovo since NATO´s 1999 bombing campaign drove Yugoslav authorities out.

"Wrong moves" by the international community have "destabilized the entire region," Mr. Kostunica said.

Instead of then flying back to Moscow as announced, Mr. Putin went to Kosovo, where he handed out medals to Russian peacekeepers and met with Danish Lt. Gen. Thorstein Skiaker, the commander of the NATO-led force, and U.N. officials.

His flight was announced at the last minute because of security concerns in the province, where ethnic Albanians view Russia as pro-Serbian because of historic ties between the two Slavic nations.

A source who was at the meeting, speaking on the condition of anonymity, described Mr. Putin as "very critical" of the 45,000-strong peacekeeping force´s performance.

Russia has been pushing for NATO to do more to disarm ethnic Albanian extremists who have been attacking the remaining Serbs in Kosovo and contributing to clashes with government troops in neighboring Macedonia.

"We discussed with him in quite frank terms ... should we be confident in going forward because some things are going wrong, or should we be confident in going forward because some things are going right," said Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the United Nations.

Since taking office, Mr. Putin has sought to strengthen Russia´s role in areas of former influence like the Balkans, where the West holds increasing sway through the presence of NATO troops.

But the assertiveness sometimes bumps against a desire not to be left out.

Even though he voiced deep apprehension at his summit with Mr. Bush over NATO expanding toward Russia´s borders, Mr. Putin recently revived Russian participation in its Partnership for Peace program.

Although Russia has cultural, religious and historic ties to Yugoslavia´s Serbian and Montenegrin populations, it was critical of former President Slobodan Milosevic´s "ethnic cleansing" campaign against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Russia opposed the 1999 NATO bombing campaign yet played a large diplomatic role in persuading Mr. Milosevic to accept the terms of the U.N. resolution ending it.

Once the bombs stopped in June 1999, the Russians then flew into Kosovo before any NATO troops and quickly took control of the airport near Pristina.

After days of negotiations, Russian and U.S. representatives reached a compromise that allowed them to keep control of the airport and have some flexibility in defining their mission but not their own sector to patrol, as they had wanted.

--------

Russia: No Nuclear Help to Iran

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-US-Russia-Nuclear.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin denied that Russia was helping Iran's nuclear weapons program. He called on the United States Monday to respond to Russia's proposal for negotiations to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.

Igor Sergeyev, who advises Putin on strategic issues, said the technology Russia provides to Iran is for use in a light water reactor, much like technology the United States is giving to North Korea under an agreement to freeze that country's nuclear weapons program.

``To obtain weapons from the light water reactor in Iran is impossible,'' he said at a conference on proliferation problems held by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Sergeyev acknowledged that controls on technology exports beyond the range of the Russian government had been a ``headache'' in the early 1990s.

But he said the list of prohibited materials for export has grown through the years.

At the same time, Sergeyev said the United States had failed to respond to proposals by Putin to place a ceiling of 1,500 on U.S. and Russian long-range nuclear warheads.

``It's paramount to start negotiations immediately,'' he said.

The Russian official said he found hope in a general willingness of the Bush administration to reduce stockpiles.

At the same time, he defended the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Bush wants to abandon to make way for a U.S. shield against missiles.

The spread of sophisticated technology has become more dangerous, he said.

``The world may be entering a phase in which the use of nuclear weapons is more likely than before,'' the former Russian defense minister said.

In fact, he said, Russia is more vulnerable than the United States to theft of nuclear technology and accidental launches of missiles by other nations.

``We are hoping to improve our export control,'' he said. ``It is one of the best control systems.''

--------

A Promising Start With Russia

New York Times
June 18, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/opinion/18MON1.html?searchpv=nytToday

The quick rapport struck between President Bush and Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, during their initial meeting Saturday exceeded even optimistic expectations, all the more so considering the rhetorical chill that briefly crept over relations between Washington and Moscow earlier this year. On Saturday, Mr. Bush seemed genial and at ease, although his comment that he had looked Mr. Putin in the eye and found him an "honest, straightforward man," whom Americans can trust, struck some observers as naïve. Even so, Mr. Putin, whose usual steely demeanor recalls his long years as a Soviet K.G.B. operative, visibly warmed to the personal chemistry of the occasion.

To be sure, there should be no underestimating of the difficulty of the problems that could potentially divide America and Russia over the next four years. These include American missile defense plans, the next round of NATO expansion and Russia's problematic sales of nuclear material and technology to Iran. But if the two leaders stay committed to their vision of Washington and Moscow as potential partners, even the hardest problems can be constructively resolved.

The most pressing disagreement between the two countries right now concerns missile defense. Mr. Bush has talked of renouncing the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty so that he can quickly build a missile shield against unpredictable countries like North Korea. He has offered Russia incentives to accept this course, including military aid, joint antimissile exercises and the purchase of Russian surface-to-air missiles. Moscow has resisted, concerned that abandoning the ABM Treaty would allow America to test advanced defensive technology that could one day blunt Russia's nuclear missile force.

On Saturday, Mr. Putin again warned that if Washington developed a missile shield without some understanding with Russia, it could severely complicate relations. But he emphasized his hope that some form of agreement could be reached. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will begin a series of meetings with their Russian counterparts on these and other issues in the coming weeks.

On NATO expansion, Mr. Bush last week called for the eventual inclusion of all European democracies, including the three Baltic nations that once formed part of the Soviet Union, a step strongly opposed by Russia. But in the same speech, Mr. Bush stressed that "NATO, even as it grows, is no enemy of Russia," a stance welcomed on Saturday. Russia should not have a veto over future NATO members, but further expansion must be handled in ways that do not appear provocative or threatening.

No visible progress was made on Russian arms sales to Iran or Moscow's assistance to the Iranian nuclear power industry, which Washington fears could speed Tehran's development of nuclear weapons. Further discussion of this issue will be needed when General Powell and Mr. Rumsfeld meet with Russian officials and when Mr. Bush meets again with Mr. Putin at next month's economic summit meeting of industrial nations in Italy. Mr. Putin also accepted an invitation to visit Mr. Bush's Texas ranch this fall and will host President Bush in Russia at a date still to be determined. The closer engagement signaled by Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin is a healthy development.

--------

Highlights of Putin's Interview

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Russia-US-Highlights.html?searchpv=aponline

Russian President Vladimir Putin met with American journalists Monday to discuss his summit with President Bush. Here are some highlights:

--BUSH: Putin describes Bush as a ``very attentive'' listener and says the two leaders had achieved ``a high level of trust.''

--MISSILE DEFENSE: Russia and the United States do not agree on the nature of the threats each country faces, Putin says. He proposes joint efforts by U.S and Russian secret services to help identify threats.

--IRAN: Putin says Russia does not provide weapons to Iran, which the United States and Israel consider a threat. He denies that Russia spreads weapons of mass destruction.

--NORTH KOREA: Putin says North Korean missile technology is antiquated and couldn't pose a threat to U.S. security.

--CHECHNYA: Putin says he is tired of explaining Russia's campaign to end rebel efforts to break away from Russia. He says Russia will not allow Chechnya to be a launching ground for terrorist attacks against the United States.

--FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Putin says he favors a free media but that it must serve society.

--KGB: Putin says the KGB helped him learn to work with people, to absorb large amounts of information, and to love his country.

--ENGLISH: Putin says Bush put up with his attempts to speak English: ``I attempted to say a few words to President Bush in English.''

``He was extremely nice about it. He pretended to understand what I was talking about.''

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

Clinton appointee to help with sick nuclear workers program

June 18, 2001
Las Vegas Sun
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2001/jun/18/061810654.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has tapped a Clinton appointee to help administer a program to compensate sick Cold War-era nuclear weapons workers.

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao announced Monday that she had hired former Assistant Secretary of Energy David Michaels as a consultant.

"I am honored that Secretary Chao has asked me to help the Department of Labor implement this very important program," Michaels said. "These workers were harmed in the service of their country."

The program approved last year by Congress offers lifetime medical care and $150,000 to ailing workers who were employed in the nuclear weapons complex, at factories that worked for the Energy Department, or at nuclear test sites in Alaska and Nevada.

Lawmakers who represent districts with Cold War-era weapons plants urged the administration to bring Michaels on board.

"I have worked closely with Dr. Michaels over the last two years in creating this historic compensation program and have a great deal of respect for his dedication and attention to detail," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky.

Chao also filled several other positions that are expected to help get the compensation program up and running by the end of July.

The program is limited to those with cancer associated with radiation, silicosis or chronic beryllium disease. Eligibility rules for some workers have been set by law, and the Labor Department must work out qualification guidelines for the rest.

-------- us nuc politics

A Good Week's Work . . .

Washington Post
By Robert Kagan
Monday, June 18, 2001; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12839-2001Jun17?language=printer

You'd never know it from the "Backslapping Bush Achieves Nada" headlines, but the president actually accomplished a lot in Europe last week. No, he didn't single-handedly bridge the transatlantic culture gap. But European flapping over the "toxic Texan" got more press play than it deserves.

Don't worry about a transatlantic crisis: European leaders don't have time for one. When Americans aren't around, they live in a trance of Euro-solipsism. And when Bush left the continent last week, they went right back to jousting and jostling over their favorite obsession: themselves, or (more formally) the future of the European Union. The American president, on the other hand, did what they couldn't do: He laid out some big ideas for the next decade of transatlantic policy. He was even -- dare one say it? -- visionary.

Ironically, the same Bush portrayed in the European press as a knuckle-dragger did well precisely because he ignored the advice of conservative supporters both inside and outside his administration. Hardy Bush boosters such as my colleague Charles Krauthammer tried to fit the president out with a new "Bush doctrine" of "humble" American unilateralism, designed to "maintain, augment and exploit" American predominance. How the United States can maintain global predominance without a healthy set of alliances, or how we can purport to lead those alliances while proclaiming a policy of unilateralism, "humble" or otherwise, Krauthammer did not explain. Nor did he explain how we could build an effective missile defense against Iraq and Iran without allied cooperation and access to allied territory.

But no matter. Bush rejected Krauthammer's friendly suggestion. "I am not a unilateralist," Bush declared in Europe. He wanted to prove that the United States is a "loyal ally and friend."

And he did prove it, with more than words. In fact, Bush left NATO a lot healthier than he found it last week because he rejected the counsel of some of his advisers that the United States start pulling its troops out of the Balkans soon, with or without the allies. The "no-more-peacekeeping" doctrine of the Republican Congress had been pushed during the campaign by Condoleezza Rice, with her call for a military "division of labor" within the alliance, and more recently by Donald Rumsfeld, with his premature declaration that the American military mission in Bosnia was over.

Last week Bush deep-sixed those bad ideas and sided with Colin Powell, who's been doggedly trying to repair the damage done in Europe by his colleagues. "We went in together and we will leave together," Bush said, "and I swear to you again today that I will keep that promise." Bush didn't rule out the possibility that NATO forces might be needed in Macedonia.

Bush dodged another conservative folly when he refused to treat the European Union as America's newest and most dangerous enemy. American and British conservatives have gone ballistic over the EU's meager efforts to put together a minuscule "Rapid Reaction Force." You'd think this force of 60,000 troops, which still exists only in European imaginations, was about to drive the United States off the continent.

Andrew Sullivan, the New Republic's in-house Bush fan, recently suggested, in a bout of geopolitical dementia, that the EU could become America's "most formidable competitor since the Soviet Union." But Bush eschewed hyperpower hyperventilation. The "United States would welcome a European force" that was "properly integrated" with NATO, Bush said, assuming EU members spend the money to build "real capabilities." No panic, no hostility, just appropriate skepticism about a European "air-ball," as Powell recently put it.

And for all the headlines suggesting otherwise, Bush really did make progress on missile defense. Britain's Tony Blair all but endorsed it, declaring that "there are highly unstable states developing nuclear arsenals, and we have to look at all ways, including missile-defense systems, of countering that threat." Bush won support from Italy, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Turkey and some other European governments -- and, yes, they count, too.

Even French and German grumbling hardly amounted to the kind of defiance American journalists trumpeted. Did anyone think France's Jacques Chirac would publicly endorse any American plan on any subject? Bush even found a surprisingly open-minded Russian president in Slovenia on Saturday -- which makes Chirac's opinions irrelevant. The truth is, missile defense faces a smoother ride in Europe than in the Democratic-controlled American Senate. Last week's trip may have been a turning point in the selling of Bush's missile defense system -- assuming Rumsfeld's Pentagon actually can make the thing work.

Even more historic, however, was Bush's ambitious outline for the future of NATO enlargement. Anyone who wondered whether Bush was thinking big can stop wondering. In a Reaganesque speech in Warsaw, Bush announced that "All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea . . . should have the same chance for security and freedom" that the current members of NATO have: "No more Munichs. No more Yaltas."

Champagne corks were popping in Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius, and rightly so. Bush all but endorsed Baltic membership in the next round of enlargement. This from a president whose Cabinet contains not a single passionate devotee of NATO enlargement. All in all, it was a good week's work -- heavy lifting, as State Department types like to say. Strange as it may seem given this president's limited experience and, until now, limited interest in Europe, Bush actually has offered both Europeans and Americans a vision of a different political and strategic future. And it's not a future where the United States goes it alone.

The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

---

. . . From a No-Wobble Bush

By Charles Krauthammer
Monday, June 18, 2001; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12848-2001Jun17?language=printer

"Remember George, this is no time to go wobbly." So said Margaret Thatcher to the first President Bush just days after Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait. Bush did not go wobbly. He invaded.

A decade later, the second George Bush came into office and immediately began a radical reorientation of U.S. foreign policy. Now, however, the conventional wisdom is that in the face of criticism from domestic opponents and foreign allies, Bush is backing down.

Has W. gone wobbly? In his first days, he offered a new American nuclear policy that scraps the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, builds defenses against ballistic missile attack and unilaterally cuts U.S. offensive nuclear forces without wrangling with the Russians over arms control, the way of the past 30 years. He then summarily rejected the Kyoto protocol on climate control, which would have forced the United States to undertake a ruinous 30 percent cut in CO2 emissions while permitting China, India and most of humanity to pollute at will.

Bush's assertion of American freedom of action outraged those -- U.S. Democrats, Europeans, Russians -- who prefer to see the world's only superpower bound and restrained by treaty constraints, whether bipolar (ABM) or multipolar (Kyoto), in the name of good international citizenship.

The word now, however, is that Bush has gone soft. He sends Secretary of State Colin Powell to Europe to try to get agreement on missile defenses. He tries, reports the New York Times in high scoop mode, to cook an ABM deal with the Russians -- shades of the old days. He then concedes there is global warming and promises action. "When President Bush announces . . . that he will seek millions of dollars for new research into the causes of global warming," reported the Times just one week ago, ". . . it will mark yet another example of how global and domestic politics have forced him to back away from the hard-line pronouncements of his first five months in the White House."

The Bush administration, explained Newsweek, began by "playing the bully." But then "the Bushies began to see that they could not simply impose their agenda on a balky and complex world."

The alleged cave has been greeted with smug satisfaction from those on the left who see Bush returning, after a brief flirtation with the mad-dog ideological right, to the basic soundness of post-Cold War foreign policy as established by the Clinton administration.

Dream on.

Has Bush gone wobbly? Not at all.

Ask yourself: If you really wanted to reassert American unilateralism, to get rid of the cobwebs of the bipolar era and the myriad Clinton-era treaty strings tying Gulliver down, what would you do? No need for in-your-face arrogance. No need to humiliate. No need to proclaim that you will ignore nattering allies and nervous ex-enemies.

Journalists can talk like that because the truth is clarifying. Governments cannot talk like that because the truth is scary. The trick to unilateralism -- doing what you think is right, regardless of what others think -- is to pretend you are not acting unilaterally at all. Thus if you really want to junk the ABM Treaty, and the Europeans and Russians and Chinese start screaming bloody murder, the trick is to send Colin Powell to smooth and soothe and schmooze every foreign leader in sight, have Condoleezza Rice talk about how much we value allied input, have President Bush in Europe stress how missile defense will help the security of everybody. And then go ahead and junk the ABM Treaty regardless. Make nice, then carry on.

Or, say, you want to kill the Kyoto protocol (which the Senate rejected 95-0 and which not a single EU country has ratified) and the Europeans hypocritically complain. The trick is to have the president go to Europe to stress, both sincerely and correctly, that the United States wants to be in the forefront of using science and technology to attack the problem -- but make absolutely clear that you'll accept no mandatory cuts and tolerate no treaty that penalizes the United States and lets China, India and the Third World off the hook.

Be nice, but be undeterred. The best unilateralism is velvet-glove unilateralism.

At the end of the day, for all the rhetorical bows to Russian, European and liberal sensibilities, look at how Bush returns from Europe: Kyoto is dead. The ABM Treaty is history. Missile defense is on. NATO expansion is relaunched. And just to italicize the new turn in American foreign policy, the number of those annual, vaporous U.S.-EU summits has been cut from two to one.

Might the administration yet bend to the critics and abandon the new unilateralism? Perhaps. But the crowing of the Washington foreign-policy establishment that this has already occurred is wishful thinking.

Will he wobble? Everything is possible. But anyone who has watched Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, read Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, known Vice President Cheney or listened to President Bush would be wise to place his bet at the "no wobble" window.

--------

Author to Sue U.S. Over Book on China's Nuclear Advances

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/18BOOK.html?searchpv=nytToday

An American expert on China's nuclear arms establishment plans to sue the United States government today to end its 18-month delay on publication of his 500-page memoir, which the government says contains federal secrets.

The case is attracting attention because the expert, Danny B. Stillman, concludes that China made its nuclear breakthroughs on its own, contrary to accusations by the United States that China used stolen American secrets to make its advances. Mr. Stillman contends that the government may be blocking publication of the book, "Inside China's Nuclear Weapons Program," for reasons of politics rather than national security.

Mr. Stillman once directed intelligence at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico and worked there for 28 years before retiring in 1993. He made nine trips to China between 1990 and 1999 as a federal analyst and as a private citizen. He met top officials, toured nuclear institutes, and compiled a detailed history of China's program. His book includes information on its 46 nuclear tests and more than 2,000 Chinese scientists who have had major involvement in the program.

In January 2000, Mr. Stillman gave the government his manuscript, which he was required to do as a condition of his having obtained a secret clearance, and it has languished at federal agencies ever since. Yesterday, Mr. Stillman's lawyer said he would file a suit in federal district court in Washington today, charging that the government is wrongfully blocking the book's publication and Mr. Stillman's freedom of speech.

The suit names the Department of Defense, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Energy and the Central Intelligence Agency as the parties involved in blocking the book.

"Danny's got a white hat on," said Mark S. Zaid, his lawyer. "He's not threatening to go public with classified information. He's willing to work with them, whatever the concerns. But from Day 1, the government has refused to allow the manuscript to be published."

Glenn E. Flood, a spokesman for the Defense Department, said it was still reviewing the manuscript to see if it contained secrets.

"We haven't reached a decision," he said. "There's a lot of staff work involved in this." He said that any lawsuit would be handled by the Justice Department and that he had no idea when the manuscript review might be completed.

Among other things, Mr. Stillman said in an interview, the book describes a tirade delivered to American visitors in May 1999 by Hu Side, a weapons designer and former chief scientist director of China's bomb- makers. "He chastised us for calling them spies," Mr. Stillman said. Dr. Hu described how Chinese arms builders had been hampered not by a shortage of insights that necessitated espionage but by a lack of powerful computers for design computations.

After acquiring the computers, Mr. Stillman said, China was able to make a breakthrough in miniaturizing their hydrogen bombs. It occurred on Sept. 25, 1992, in a nuclear test in China's western desert.

Dr. Hu said the Chinese had come up with the breakthrough idea on their own in the 1970's. But it was only in that 1992 test, Mr. Stillman said, recalling Dr. Hu's claims, "that it went out and worked perfectly."

Experts say the book, if it sheds light on that explosive test, could be central to resolving a major controversy over whether China made its scientific advances as a result of stealing nuclear secrets from the United States.

Mr. Stillman said his long investigations had led him to concur with the Chinese claim. "I think they did it on their own," he said of China's scientific advances. "I don't think it was espionage."

Monitored by the United States, the 1992 Chinese advance led American intelligence officials to charge that China had stolen secrets for the W-88, America's most advanced nuclear warhead, which Los Alamos had designed. By 1995, suspicions of espionage centered on Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwan-born scientist at Los Alamos who had a history of contact with Chinese scientists. After a limited investigation, Dr. Lee was jailed in December 1999, shortly before Mr. Stillman submitted his manuscript for review.

But prosecutors never proved the charge. They discovered that Dr. Lee had downloaded much weapons information, but he was freed in September 2000 after pleading guilty to one felony count of mishandling secrets. Dr. Lee's backers say racial bias lay behind the case.

Weapons experts say Mr. Stillman's book promises to give the most authoritative view of China's side of the W-88 story.

--------

Ex - Nuclear Official Sues Over Book

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scientist-China-Book.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A retired Los Alamos nuclear security official filed a lawsuit Monday to try to force the government to allow the release of his book on the Chinese nuclear weapons program.

For the last 18 months the government has blocked the publication of Danny Stillman's book while various agencies scrutinize each line to decide if it divulges national security secrets, according to his attorney, Mark Zaid.

``We're not threatening to release classified information,'' Zaid said. ``We're challenging the government to prove their case and we don't think they're going to be able to do it.''

The suit against the Defense Department, Energy Department, Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington. It alleges the agencies have violated their own rules for classifying material and Stillman's constitutional right to publish the book.

Defense Department spokesman Glenn Flood said the review of the manuscript is continuing.

``We plan to do a thorough job. We're not going to rush it,'' he said.

Stillman worked for 28 years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, 14 as the head of the intelligence division. He retired in 1993.

Between 1990 and 1999, Stillman made nine trips to China, visiting a nuclear test site and a nuclear lab, meeting with scientists and attending lectures.

None of the trips was taken at the request of the U.S. government, although he was voluntarily debriefed by government officials when he returned.

Stillman took notes of his trips and compiled them into a 500-page manuscript entitled ``Inside China's Nuclear Weapons Program.'' In January 2000, Stillman turned over the manuscript to the government for a security review -- a prepublication condition imposed on any government worker granted security clearance.

Since then, Stillman and his attorneys have pressed the Energy Department and Defense Department to finish the review.

A Defense Department memo from last September said the Pentagon objects to publication of any portion of the manuscript because of security concerns. The memo also said publication could ``damage American foreign relations with China,'' according to the lawsuit.

Zaid said that argument is absurd, since the Chinese scientists and other officials in the program gave Stillman all of the information for the book.

``This can't embarrass China, because the Chinese expected this information to get (out),'' Zaid said.

In his book, Stillman argues that the Chinese weapons advances were made without the benefit of espionage.

About the time Stillman finished his manuscript, Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese-born Los Alamos scientist, was arrested amid fears of Chinese espionage.

Lee was charged with 59 counts of illegally downloading nuclear secrets, not espionage, and eventually pleaded guilty to one count of mishandling information. A judge apologized for the nine months Lee spent in solitary confinement, saying he had been misled by prosecutors.

Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said national security is not a blanket excuse to limit free speech rights.

``It would be one thing that if they said there is this or that detail that needs to be modified in the interest of national security, but it is completely implausible to claim the entire manuscript needs to be suppressed,'' he said.

-------

Bush's Warmth Toward Russian Leader Stirs Skeptics

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By JANE PERLEZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/18DIPL.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, June 17 - The warm rapport shown between President Bush and the Russian president, just one day after Mr. Bush declared that he wanted NATO to expand up to Russia's border, represented a significant achievement for the Americans, a senior official who helped plan the Bush trip said today.

But critics on Capitol Hill said Mr. Bush was too willing to pronounce the Russian, Vladimir V. Putin, to be trustworthy after the two met on Saturday in Slovenia for the first time.

In Europe, the administration official said, ``the president saying one day that NATO was expanding - and this meant everyone - and the next day it was all smiles with Putin, was supposedly impossible.''

He was referring to the unexpected reference in Mr. Bush's speech in Warsaw on Friday that NATO should try to include Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - a position Russia has held anathema - and the juxtaposition of the two men's genial encounter the next day.

On Capitol Hill, where the Democrats in the Senate are now in a position to put a brake on Mr. Bush's foreign policy agenda, particularly missile programs, there were expressions of relief that the initial overseas journey for a relative foreign policy novice did not go badly.

But there was criticism that Mr. Bush had gone too far.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, said Mr. Bush's mission with Mr. Putin was made easier by the fact that the Russian, like Mr. Bush, wanted good news at home, too. ``I'm just happy the president went and didn't make things worse,'' Senator Biden said of the meetings with European leaders.

The public display of warmth by Mr. Bush seemed in marked contrast to the chilly attitude toward Russia in the first months of the administration, when Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld lambasted Moscow, and the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, warned European diplomats that Russia only respected toughness.

Senator Biden, who met President Bush at the White House just before he left for Europe, questioned whether trust was the right word to use about Mr. Putin, a former operative of the K.G.B., the Soviet intelligence service, and former head of Russia's domestic intelligence service. At their news conference in Slovenia, Mr. Bush said of Mr. Putin: ``I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.''

Senator Biden said that for his part, ``I don't trust Mr. Putin; hopefully the president was being stylistic rather than substantive.''

Another senior Democratic Senator, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and backs a limited missile defense, said he was struck by Mr. Bush's ``very conclusively positive'' statement about Mr. Putin after a ``first two-hour meeting.''

It appeared that the White House had decided to extend that warmth in a determined effort to reassure European allies that Washington was serious about trying to get Moscow's blessing for its missile program, said Michael A. McFaul, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

European leaders have stressed to Mr. Bush that in their own strategic and political calculations on the missile proposal, it was important that Russia not be hostile to the idea.

But Mr. Bush may well have sent the wrong signal to the hard-line political elites surrounding Mr. Putin, Mr. McFaul said, by allowing them to think the United States is interested almost exclusively in missile defense and not in human rights, press freedom and the Russian Army's behavior in Chechnya.

`'I can understand the strategy on rapport, but it went too far,'' said Mr. McFaul. ``I think there is plenty of good reason not to trust President Putin. This is a man who was trained to lie.''

Mr. McFaul, who was invited to brief Mr. Bush on Russia before his trip, said he doubted that Mr. Bush had casually chosen the word ``trust.'' All the same, he said, it seemed ``like a rookie mistake, saying in his first meeting that he was `trustworthy.'''

One of the most clear-cut policy developments came in Mr. Bush's forward-leaning speech in Warsaw, where he declared that the ``new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between,'' should have the same chance to ``join the institutions of Europe.''

That theme expressed the behind- the-scenes work of a bipartisan group, the United States Committee on NATO, some of whose members now hold senior positions in the administration, including the deputy secretary of defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and the deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley.

``It couldn't have been improved,'' Bruce Jackson, the president of the committee, said of the speech in Warsaw. ``The president expressed his vision of a unified Europe, and we can anticipate a major step at Prague,'' the site of the NATO summit meeting in November 2002, when new members will be invited to join the alliance.

Mr. Jackson said the three Baltic nations, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, along with Slovakia, Slovenia and ``one or two countries from southeastern Europe'' were now frontrunners for membership.

While Mr. Putin did not let the NATO proposal undermine the meeting with Mr. Bush, he did express his strong opposition to it. At the news conference, he said of NATO: ``Look, this is a military organization. It's moving toward our border. Why?''

On the outcome of Mr. Bush's meetings with other leaders, there was some uncertainty about what would emerge in the longer term.

``The objectives were modest,'' said Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said he sat next to Mr. Bush at a baseball game in Omaha discussing foreign policy just before the trip.

`'He wanted to lay down a foundation with the other leaders in Europe,'' Mr. Hagel said, and he knew that on the most pressing issues of missile defense and the environment he was not going to get instant accommodation. ``Now we will have to see how the leaders in Europe respond on policy.''

In further detailing Mr. Bush's session with Mr. Putin, a senior administration official said no one subject dominated.

In the longer 90-minute meeting, where the presidents were accompanied by their national security advisers, Ms. Rice and Vladimir B. Rushaylo, Mr. Bush raised three broad issues: the future of the United States-Russia relationship; missile defense and the role of an expanded NATO. In a 20-minute session, a larger number of aides on both sides attended.

The agenda also included press freedoms and Chechyna, two issues of interest to Republicans.

An earlier Russian proposal to establish two committees of American and Russian experts to discuss offensive and defensive weapons had been replaced by an American proposal to have officials from the State Department and the Pentagon talk to their counterparts about the issues, the official said. It is not clear when those talks would begin.

-------- us nuc waste

PLANS READY FOR SHIPMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

June 18, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2001/2001L-06-18-09.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The Department of Energy (DOE) has completed its plan for the cross country transportation of spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors by the end of June 2001.

This will be the 20th shipment under the Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Program, a national non-proliferation program. Spent fuel eligible for shipment contains uranium that was enriched and provided to European reactors by the U.S.

Under this program, up to 20 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from research reactors in 41 countries may be shipped to the U.S. through 2009 for disposition. The U.S. accepts the spent fuel to prevent its use in nuclear weapons or other dangerous applications.

The next shipment will include nine casks - or storage containers - from Europe.

The spent fuel will be delivered to the DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Six casks will be unloaded and stored at the Savannah River Site, and three casks will be sent by truck to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

These two DOE sites manage the disposition of spent fuel based on type.

Under Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, spent fuel is shipped on interstate highway routes that offer a limited time in transit. Routes are selected through a peer reviewed selection process.

Satellite tracking will monitor the shipment. Specific safety measures agreed to by the state of Missouri and the DOE will govern the Missouri leg of the shipment.

Missouri officials have undergone special safety training, including a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection training course completed by members of the Missouri Highway Patrol on June 7. Other states have completed similar training.

Missouri will be allowed to track movement of the nuclear shipments via controlled computer access.

More information is available at: http://www.nsc.org/ehc/rad/frrsf.htm

-------- MILITARY

-------- africa

Revelations Of Torture No Surprise
In Algeria France Faces a Dark Past that Victims Never Forgot

By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 18, 2001; Page A13
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12868-2001Jun17?language=printer

ALGIERS -- France is astir with an aging general's disclosures that he and his men routinely tortured and executed people in Algeria during that country's war for independence four decades ago. But here at the scene of the crime, it's difficult to elicit any response.

The Algerian government has had almost nothing to say. "The political class is very timid on this question," said Toufik Chellal, spokesman for the Committee Against Torture and Disappearances During the National Liberation War. "Until now, there has not been an official reaction."

"France effectively institutionalized torture in our country," he said. "It's difficult to understand why the state is silent." The likely reason, he said, is that the current government is accused of torturing people in its campaign against Islamic insurgents and street protests. "Everybody knows that, so they are afraid of the question," he said.

As for the relatives of torture victims, the attitude seems to be: For us, this is no revelation. "These are things that were well known," said a former cabinet minister who is a veteran of the independence struggle. "Most of these things were put in documents in the 1950s and given to the U.N. human rights commission."

The disclosures came in "Special Services, Algeria 1955-57," the memoir of former Gen. Paul Aussaresses, 83. It followed publication of "The Dirty War," written by a former Algerian special forces officer who detailed assassinations and torture against Islamic extremists in recent years.

Some people in the Algerian power structure take the close proximity of the publication of these two books as a sign of a French effort to destabilize the current government. "They say it's a provocation, to interfere in Algerian affairs," said one European diplomat.

Yacef Saadi, a top figure in the independence movement, knew Aussaresses "indirectly," mostly by reputation as "Commandant O," Saadi recalled in a May interview at his seaside villa on the outskirts of Algiers. "Torture was institutionalized," said Saadi, and Aussaresses "was a specialist in inventing things for torture."

In his book, Aussaresses maligned Saadi as a turncoat who, after being arrested during the 1954-62 war, told French commandos the whereabouts of another top independence leader, Ali la Pointe. "He spoke spontaneously, in order to save his life" after his arrest, Aussaresses wrote of Saadi. He implied that Saadi was jealous of la Pointe's popularity within the movement.

Saadi said the Aussaresses book was mostly fiction. "Why did he wait 40 years?" Saadi asked. "Who is he playing for? Is he playing to affect [a recent] election in France? . . . Maybe he is senile. Maybe he has nightmares and cannot sleep at night. What is the reason?"

Saadi, who helped produce the award-winning film "The Battle of Algiers," has written his own history of the struggle by the same name, with historical citations and documents. Aussaresses, he said, offered no proof to substantiate most of his statements, and Saadi refuses to engage the general in long-distance debate. "Enough," he said. "My conscience is clear."

In France, reverberations continue. This month, the government expelled the retired general from the military reserves. "The retiring of Gen. Aussaresses was motivated by his repeated statements defending unjustifiable behavior and presenting it as legitimate during the Algerian conflict," said the defense minister, Alain Richard.

The sanction is largely symbolic, meaning only that Aussaresses will no longer be allowed to wear his uniform. But along with calls for a parliamentary hearing and a criminal investigation, it is a measure of the emotion he has unleashed concerning a period that France has not examined closely.

-------- arms sales

Tech firms fight for 'star wars' trade
Fabrice Bregier: important to get involved in star wars programe

By the BBC's John Terrett at the Paris Air Show.
Monday, 18 June, 2001, 17:12 GMT 18:12 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1395000/1395314.stm

Necks may be craned upwards to watch the flying, but on the ground at the Paris Air Show, other issues dominate the agenda.

First, there are reports that EU regulators have effectively shot down plans by US giants GE and Honeywell to merge, by demanding concessions that the firms say are just too great.

Le Bourget airport is awash with rumours and speculation about the outcome of the EU probe, and the impact it will have on the aerospace industry.

John Weston, chief executive of BAE Systems, says he is watching events closely.

"Clearly for all of us as industrialists... there are some significant issues for us if we end up in a situation where the European and US regulators look at these things in a different way," he said.

Jockeying for position

And the other hot topic is the proposal by US president, George Bush, for a stars wars-style nuclear missile protection shield.

Analysts say Mr Bush got a better reaction than expected from European government heads at the weekend.

And the region's leading edge defence firms are already jockeying for position hoping for a serious payday.

Tri-national defence conglomerate MBDA is one enterprise anxious to be involved.

It will be very improtant for us to join it," Fabrice Bregier, managing director of MBDA, said.

"It will be extremely important to develop new technologies, to maintain key skills and jobs in Europe."

Defence analysts say behind closed boardroom doors, missile makers can hardly believe their good fortune.

Independent analysts Paul Beaver said:

"The European companies... are already knocking on the door of the Pentagon and saying 'look, we have existing systems.

"'Even if you do not use us for your American national system, for theatre missile defence, you really should look at the technologies that we have got'."

But others are more cautious questioning whether 'Son of Star Wars' will fly.

"Defence companies are experts at following the money," Jon Kutler, chief executive at Quarterdeck Investment Partners

"Right now they are being told that this is where the money is, so they are trying to position themselves to take advantage of it."

But while there may be short term gains for firms involved in research and development, the programme may eventually be crippled by it expense, he added.

"By the time the programme gets rolling, it probably will die as being prohibitively expensive when there are substantial other places to spend money in today's environment."

-------- asia

Taiwan Denies Developing Medium - Range Missile

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-ta.html?searchpv=reuters

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Taiwan, ever sensitive to relations with China, issued a statement on Monday denying a newspaper report that it was secretly developing a medium-range ballistic missile to counter China's growing missile threat.

The mass circulation United Daily News quoted sources as saying the missile, with a range of 620-1,240 miles was under development by the military's Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology.

``The media report is not true. The military has never conducted any related research plan,'' the Ministry of National Defense said in a statement.

Taiwan leaders have warned of an ever-growing battery of missiles on the Chinese coast where up to 500 missiles have been deployed within easy range of Taiwan's main political, economic and military facilities.

Over Beijing's objection, Washington agreed in 1993 to sell Taiwan the Patriot Advanced Capability, or PAC-2, anti-missile system. Taiwan has said it would test-fire its Patriot missiles this month but has given no details.

PAC-2 is deployed only in northern Taiwan to protect the Taipei area, the island's political and economic center.

China views Taiwan as a breakaway province and has vowed to attack if the island declares independence or drags its feet indefinitely on unification talks.

-------- arms sales

Yugoslavia Wants Arms Embargo Ended

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-UN-Yugoslavia.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Yugoslavia has asked the U.N. Security Council to lift a three-year-old arms embargo imposed because of the campaign to clear the Serb province of Kosovo of its ethnic Albanian population.

In a letter to the Security Council made available on Monday, Yugoslav Ambassador Dejan Sahovic argued that his nation has undergone a major leadership change and is complying with the U.N. resolutions.

It was unclear when or how the Security Council, currently on a mission to Kosovo and the Yugoslav capital, Belgrade, may respond to the request.

The arms embargo was imposed in March 1998, almost a year before NATO began 78 days of bombing to end then-President Slobodan Milosevic's crackdown on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and drive his forces from the province.

It called for a ban on the sale and supply of arms and established a committee to monitor the embargo.

The United States and European nations imposed their own economic sanctions against Yugoslavia but began to lift those once Milosevic was voted out of power in October elections.

The letter noted that international peacekeepers now in Kosovo work to prevent illegal arms shipments to the province and said Yugoslavia will do the same ``in compliance with assumed international obligations.''

-------- colombia

Colombian Indians Resist an Encroaching War
Indigenous People Join To Search for Leader

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 18, 2001; Page A10
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12765-2001Jun17?language=printer

TIERRALTA, Colombia -- For the past several days, they have been arriving on airplanes and in caravans of cramped buses and wooden rafts, filling the central square of this frontier town with garish hammocks, tarps and the acrid smell of campfire smoke.

More than 1,000 of Colombia's indigenous people have traveled to Tierralta, where the country's northern plains give way to lush mountains, to protest a war that is consuming their land, language and people.

Their stand has taken the form of a largely symbolic search for Kimy Pernia Domico, a leader of the Embera Katio tribe that controls strategic stretches of northwestern Colombia. Domico was seized here June 2 by three gunmen presumed to be members of the right-wing paramilitary United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). He has not been seen since.

The Indians gathered in the cluttered square -- their faces and legs marked with ritual tattoos, walking on bare, broad feet, speaking in languages that predate the Spanish colonization -- hold out little hope that Domico will be found alive. But in the coming days, without government sanction and with little security, they will venture onto the cattle ranches of Cordoba province, whose owners help fund the AUC, and seek the return of a man who tried to keep war and economic interests from overwhelming tribal land.

"We want him given back to us -- dead or alive," said Luis Ondino Duave, 23, a student and Embera Katio member who traveled three days by bus from Choco province along the Pacific Coast. "We may be here for weeks, it all depends. If God permits, we will find him."

As Colombia's decades-old civil war has expanded in recent years, so has the threat to the country's 700,000 Indians, who belong to 84 tribes and speak 64 languages. They live on more than 50 million acres of land granted to them by the government, much of it located in strategic, resource-rich regions coveted by the armed groups.

In recent years, the government has signed accords with the Indians ensuring their autonomy and human rights, but tribal members say those agreements have been largely ignored as the war has sprawled into virtually every corner of the country.

"The objective of this search is a call to the state to respect our autonomy and territory," said an Embera Katio leader who said he feared being identified by name. "The government must comply with these accords."

The Latin American Association for Human Rights says that half of Colombia's indigenous tribes face extinction because of the encroaching violence. Displacement is fracturing families and diluting tribal languages, and forced recruitment into guerrilla ranks and selective assassinations by paramilitary forces are scattering tribes like the Embera Katio that have lived along Colombia's swift rivers and thick jungles for centuries.

In southern Amazonas province, the leftist guerrilla army, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) requires each indigenous family to provide two people to its ranks, according to the human rights group. FARC seeks recruits as young as 14 who are prized for their knowledge of jungle terrain. In past three years, more than 1,500 Indians have been forced into guerrilla ranks, the human rights group said.

Domico's disappearance followed a rash of violence against indigenous leaders by paramilitary forces and the FARC. The AUC, especially here in northern Colombia, has chosen to eliminate powerful tribal leaders who resist the right-wing group's territorial ambitions. At least 10 leaders of the Embera Katio and Zenu tribes in Cordoba, and neighboring Antioquia and Choco provinces, have been killed by the AUC in the past three years, according to the human rights association. Embera Katio leaders say 16 tribal members have been killed over that period, half by the paramilitary forces and half by the FARC.

"For these groups, it is dangerous to have a leader who is much listened to by his people, someone who says, 'This is our territory, not yours,' " said an adviser to the two Embera Katio leaders who oversee tribal land between the Sinu and Verde rivers southwest of here. "We have come here to look for [Domico] in [the paramilitary forces'] house."

Domico's plight is in some ways similar to that of the thousands of Colombians trying to remain neutral during the intensifying civil conflict, which is fueled by the vast profits the armed groups receive from the drug trade. Tribal members say that in recent months, Domico was resisting pressure from the AUC to begin growing coca -- the raw material used to make cocaine -- on tribal land.

Tierralta sits on a volatile border between the two military forces, and in the past 18 months drug crops have sprung up on land once used to grow bananas, rice and timber. Last month, FARC forces operating along the Sinu River slaughtered more than two dozen farmers, sometimes using machetes, who were allegedly working AUC-controlled coca fields.

At the same time, Domico was continuing a long battle against the government and international corporations over a dam erected against the tribe's will in Embera territory. After decades of study, a corporation comprising Canadian and Swedish interests began building the Urra Dam on the Sinu River six years ago. The tribe won a brief injunction suspending construction, but subsequent legal rulings resulted in the 1998 flooding of a fertile valley filled with the tribe's banana plantations.

For the first time in their history, many of the 142 Embera Katio families living between the Sinu and Verde rivers were going hungry after the flooding devastated the fishing stock. Domico had been leading the crusade for government compensation, angering many powerful business interests.

Colombian officials have shown little interest in the Domico case. Col. Henry Caicedo, Cordoba's police chief, said without offering any evidence that Domico's disappearance was related to involvement in the drug trade. He retracted his comments, but only after Abadio Green of the Indigenous Organization of Antioquia said: "If they kill Kimy [or] any other of our colleagues, the colonel will be responsible."

Then, Cordoba Gov. Jesus Maria Lopez prohibited the indigenous caravan from entering his state on the grounds that it could interfere with a national ranching festival. He said he would do nothing to stop the procession, but offered no security.

So those who arrived here did so under less than safe circumstances, and remain vulnerable during what could be a weeks-long demonstration. The main square, strung with hammocks and draped with scraps of plastic that serve as tents, offers the Indians little protection from paramilitary or guerrilla forces.

A few army patrols stand guard as dozens of children, barefoot and dirty, play ball and tag in the streets. Around each person's neck hangs a laminated picture of Domico on a string, a crude credential meant to identify participants.

Three hundred people arrived by raft from Alto Sinu, the Embera Katio region that is Domico's home, including Rigoberto Domico, a member of the tribe, his wife and 6-month-old son. "He was our leader, and we will stay until we find him," he said. "How long it takes is not important."

Hundreds more arrived in a caravan of buses from Medellin to the south, braving perhaps the most contested stretch of highway in Colombia with little protection.

"The government should be looking for Kimy's killers and arresting these paramilitaries," said Jennifer Harbury, an American lawyer who has accused the CIA of complicity in the 1992 death of her husband, a Guatemalan guerrilla. She made the trip from her home in Texas to search for Kimy, whom she showed around Washington two years ago. "These people should not have to risk their lives for this."

-------- europe

Military muscle gap of European Union

June 18, 2001
Austin Bay
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20010618-7637909.htm

"Royal Air Force may recruit Luftwaffe pilots." No, the London Times´ report isn´t a joke employment ad intended to boggle Battle of Britain survivors.

The RAF´s talent search, however, exemplifies Europe´s general decline in military effectiveness and European NATO members´ specific failure to meet modernization commitments. Ultimately, it offers insight into the European Union´s chronic case of collective political weakness, illustrating why even the most sanctimonious of Washington-taunting Euro-promoters secretly rely on U.S. leadership.

Facing a pilot shortage, the RAF is scouring the globe for hi-Mach skills. This spring, when New Zealand´s irresponsible little government decided to defund its own air force, the RAF immediately approached unemployed Kiwi jet jockeys.

But recruiting from the Luftwaffe was too ironic for the press to ignore. In the six decades since the London Blitz, both history and Hollywood have kept alive the memory of Spitfires and Messerschmidts tangling high above the Thames.

Don´t confuse hiring German pilots as indicative of increasing European cooperation. It´s poaching indicative of desperation on the part of the RAF and disenchantment on the part of Luftwaffe pilots disgruntled by Germany´s aging air fleet and declining training time.

Euro politicos have decided their militaries can shrink and make-do with old equipment. The Soviet threat is kaput, and economic prosperity is what really binds Europe, right?

This political decision, however, abrogates NATO´s 1999 "force goals" agreement, forged after the Kosovo War revealed a growing gap between U.S. and European military capabilities. Europeans agreed to improve in five areas: logistics, command and control, survivability of forces and infrastructure, mobility, and "effective engagement" a buzzword for precision-guided weapons.

But the goals simply haven´t been met. Actually, Britain deserves credit for attempting to meet its commitments. Germany has faltered. France, as usual, has invested more in anti-Washington invective than in modernization.

At last week´s NATO defense ministers conference, Secretary General Lord Robertson assayed the failure to pursue military reform. "Elections are rarely won or lost on questions of defense policy," he said. "These are complex and sometimes dry issues . . . hard to package in a sound bite." While globalization offers "our societies the opportunity to become . . . more prosperous, it also makes them more vulnerable," particularly to "states developing weapons of mass destruction."

Lord Robertson warned Europeans, "If crisis comes along, the capability won´t be there." If Europe doesn´t deliver, the result will be a "trans-Atlantic capability gap and a European credibility gap."

The Eurocorps, the "go it alone" force some Americans perceive as a threat to undermine NATO, looks like another Euro-tout turned to Euro-flop. Lack of funding is one reason, European rivalries another. Greece rejected Turkish participation in a joint European defense force. On June 8, Irish voters rejected EU expansion. Like other Western Europeans, many Irish believe an enlarged EU costs them too much money. More than a few also fear that EU "institutional reforms" would require Ireland to participate in the EU´s military force, compromising Irish neutrality.

Frankly, Europe already suffers from other credibility gaps. The euro´s decline against the U.S. dollar was the free market´s comment on Europe´s economic weaknesses. Though Europeans recognize the need for structural and social reform, the will to tackle vested interests and embedded problems is utterly lacking. While crack German pilots may jump to the RAF, ask a Greek engineer about intra-EU labor mobility if he applies for a job in Munich.

American liberals chatter about European "credibility" on environmental issues. That´s another hoo-hah. Romania remains the only European nation to ratify the flawed Kyoto Treaty. However, hammering President Bush about the Kyoto Treaty shields European leaders from the wrath of their domestic greens. Germany´s left-wing government is making extensive use of this bit of guerrilla theater the eco-freaks generate great sound bites and satirizing Mr. Bush deflects attention from the deterioration of the Luftwaffe.

Lord Robertson understands, as do other European defense specialists, that emerging threats require modernization and preparation. However, among key European leaders, only British Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly acknowledged the merit of the Bush administration´s missile defense proposals, new approaches to arms control and new "strategic framework" for collective defense.

But don´t tell that to the crowds of protesters greeting Mr. Bush´s European tour. Check their posters it´s all sound bites, adolescent angst and smug duplicity. The United States is the bogey man, faulted for Middle East conundrums, energy policy, environmental degradation and incredibly impoverishing Cuba. Apparently, some European socialists still can´t criticize communism.

If the defense of the Free World is to remain credible, the United States has to lead it´s all too obvious Europe can´t.

Austin Bay is a nationally syndicated columnist.

-------- iraq

U.S. Scales Back Iraq Mission

Associated Press
June 18, 2001 at 9:16:59 p.m.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/intl/ap/jun01/ap-patrolling-iraq061801.asp

INCIRLIK AIR BASE, Turkey - U.S. warplanes have significantly reduced their bombings of northern Iraq this year, with pilots concerned that Saddam Hussein is hiding his guns in civilian areas and could shoot down an American plane.

Recently, Iraqi gunners have opened fire almost every day, according to American pilots, and experts say Saddam has beefed up his missile forces with Chinese and possibly Yugoslav help.

Nearly six months into this year, U.S. warplanes patrolling a no-fly zone over northern Iraq struck at targets just seven times, despite Iraq's having opened fire on the aircraft 48 times. The United States struck 47 times in all of last year.

The dangers and the estimated $1 billion cost have led officials in Washington to question a mission that has sent more than 200,000 flights over Iraq during the past decade.

``With every day that goes by, the odds ... of losing an aircraft go up,'' said Col. Maury Forsyth, the U.S. officer who draws up the allied flight plans for the northern no-fly zone. He spoke from his concrete command bunker in Incirlik air base in southern Turkey.

Saddam ``is doing everything he can to shoot us down,'' Forsyth added.

Forsyth said the Iraqis have continuously been shooting during his 22 months in command of the aircraft. Saddam recently has been hiding some of the anti-aircraft guns in civilian areas.

``I prefer to ... stay away rather than endanger the civilian population,'' Forsyth said. ``That may account for some of the decrease'' in U.S. strikes.

Pilots say the shooting is constant.

``It seems like you see a gunner almost everywhere in the no-fly zone,'' said Navy Cmdr. Tom Tack of Allen Park, Mich.

Iraq has apparently ordered its gunners to shoot as much as possible to down an American aircraft, according to experts.

``It would be an enormous propaganda victory,'' said Nick Cook of Jane's Defense Weekly.

Experts say Iraq apparently hired Chinese workers to use fiber-optic cables to link up its radar systems - an allegation noted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on a visit to Incirlik this month, but denied by the Chinese government.

``We've been very fortunate that we've not had a loss,'' Rumsfeld said at the time. ``The risk grows to the extent that other nations assist Iraq in strengthening its military capabilities, its air defense capabilities.''

The radar network would give Iraqi commanders an overall picture of the allied flights and help them direct anti-aircraft fire. The surveillance radar that watches planes is located outside the no-fly zone.

Other reports say Slobodan Milosevic, while president of Yugoslavia, dispatched air defense experts to advise the Iraqis on how to improve their anti-aircraft capabilities.

During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, anti-aircraft missiles and artillery scored a number of hits on U.S. and allied planes, bringing down an F-117 stealth bomber and an F-16 Fighting Falcon, and damaging others. The Yugoslav defenses forced NATO to order its pilots to remain at altitudes of over 16,400 feet, from which it proved difficult to strike entrenched troops in Kosovo.

Some of the squads in NATO's Yugoslav campaign now operate over northern Iraq.

The no-fly zone was set up in 1991 after the Gulf War to protect rebellious Iraqi Kurds from Saddam's forces. A similar zone was set up over southern Iraq a year later and is also patrolled by U.S. and British aircraft.

The job of patrolling the zones became more dangerous in December 1998, when Iraqi gunners began routinely firing on the aircraft.

On Monday, some 40 aircraft streaked down the runway at Incirlik air base toward northern Iraq. U.S. F-15 fighters armed with air-to-air-missiles flew first and were quickly backed up by F-16 fighters carrying anti-radar missiles.

Radar jamming aircraft and planes carrying laser-guided bombs also joined the mission. The bombers are there to attack any site that opens fire on the other planes.

Pilots said that although Iraqi gunners fire often, their chances of hitting an aircraft are slim.

``I think the threat is fairly minimal, but there is always the threat of a lucky shot,'' said Tack, who flies an EA6-B Prowler, an aircraft designed to jam enemy radar.

The Iraqis are so afraid of U.S. anti-radar missiles that they usually fire their missiles without turning on their short-range targeting radar, giving them little chance of hitting an aircraft, pilots say. Unlike the surveillance radar, the targeting radar is located within the no-fly zone and is therefore vulnerable to U.S. attack.

Although the volume of Iraqi firings appear to have increased, pilots say Iraqi gunners with heavy machine guns usually fire only short bursts.

``It's almost like the gunner fires and runs away,'' said Tack. ``We never see more than a single or two air burst explosion.''

The success of the mission is clear.

More than 200,000 flights have been flown without a single plane damaged. No Iraqi plane has violated the northern zone since November, 1999, a violation that ended without incident.

``From the military perspective, it has worked,'' Tack said. ``We've kept him in his little military box that we let him play in.''

But with the dangers growing, Washington is reconsidering the mission.

According to some experts, that could include phasing out the daily patrols, but ordering aircraft to respond immediately if Iraqi forces threaten the northern Kurdish enclave.

----

U.N. Sanctions Didn't Stop Iraq From Buying Weapons

New York Times
June 18, 2001
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/18IRAQ.html?searchpv=nytToday

UNITED NATIONS, June 15 - Two American arms control experts, combing through unpublished reports by a disbanded arms inspection commission, say they found evidence that Iraq continued to buy prohibited weapons or parts long after United Nations sanctions were imposed in 1990.

Many of the purchases appear to have been made in Central and Eastern Europe, the experts, Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in Washington, and Kelly Motz, a project researcher, say in a new independent report. They found documents concerning illegal sales or potential sales by companies in Ukraine, Belarus and Romania. Among the purchases made by the government of Saddam Hussein were missile components and high- technology machine tools.

In the past, United Nations arms inspectors for Iraq had been reluctant to identify countries in public reports, in part because there have also been suspicions of illegal trading by companies in Russia, a powerful member of the Security Council.

The report by the Wisconsin Project, to be published on Wednesday in the magazine Commentary, appears as the United Nations Security Council is debating a new "oil for food" program for Iraq that would lift most restrictions on sales of civilian goods to Iraq.

The Council is stymied over American insistence that, given Iraq's past subterfuges in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the plan must include an extensive list of items that could only be sold after a review to make sure they were not intended for military use.

"What this shows is that Saddam's procurement network is alive and well and has been working steadily despite the sanctions," Mr. Milhollin said in an interview on Thursday. "To stop it, we need to do better.

"There are a lot of companies out there willing to break the embargo, and they're also going to be willing to take advantages of weaknesses in this list, which means the list ought to be as strong as we can make it. Given his proclivities to divert things and to stop selling oil for his people in order to leverage us out of controlling his money, if there are going to be mistakes made, we ought to make them on the side of being more careful about what he is allowed to buy."

The sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, after it invaded Kuwait. The oil for food program allows Iraq to sell oil to alleviate suffering of the civilian population under the sanctions. The United Nations monitors expenditure of the profits, with part going to Kurds in the north and reparations for the Persian Gulf war.

France, Russia and China are objecting to the American list of items that would have to be reviewed under the broadened program.

They contend that some items, beyond clearly prohibited arms, are unnecessarily restrictive and will prolong hardships in Iraq that the new oil-sales plan was intended to alleviate.

Some independent experts say United States intelligence agencies are trying to keep certain items out of Iraq that it could use to make American eavesdropping harder, if not impossible.

In negotiations this week in Paris and New York, the Americans agreed to trim the list somewhat, diplomats said. But continuing disagreements over its scope it could cause the Council to miss another deadline, July 3, for establishing the new oil-sales program.

In their article, Mr. Milhollin and Dr. Motz dismiss the debate over the new plan as largely irrelevant. "The new proposal - whether adopted by the U.N. or not - has little hope of stopping the Iraqis from sneaking in what they need to rebuild their weapons sites and sneaking out the oil to pay for it," they wrote. "For the truth is that even when the U.N. inspections regime was in place, the Iraqis had figured out how to do just that."

Iraq continues to argue that it has disarmed as required by the Security Council and that sanctions should be lifted without further preconditions. Russia and France, the Council members with the closest ties to Iraq, say that while an automatic lifting of sanctions is not possible, Iraq should be told clearly what it still needs to