------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Troops, Ships, Minesweepers for G8
Study Suggests Way to Fight Radiation Side Effect
Peace activist Helen Caldicott to stand for Senate
Some big names fail UK's test for goodness
S.Korea Plans 10 More Nuclear Plants
Senate Democrats Blast Bush's Missile Defense Plan
The ABM Ambush
Bush Speeds Missile Defense Plans
Pentagon to Begin Missile Defense Construction in April
Work to Begin on Site for Testing Missile Defense
U.S. Sets Missile Defense Plan, Threatening 1972 ABM Pact
Russia Warns on U.S. Missile Plans
A Missile Defense Test for Congress
Senate Dems Challenge Missile Plan
State Notifies US of Missile Plans
Putin opens gates for nuclear fuel imports
RUSSIA: OPEN DOOR TO NUCLEAR WASTE:
Colo. Nuclear Plant Problems Cited
The Secretary Bombs, Again

MILITARY
Gaddafi Sweeps Into Zimbabwe in 80 - Car Convoy
Korea Retaliates Against Japan Over Textbook
Nationalists on Taiwan Try to Regroup
Britain Takes Issue with U.S. on Gun Lobbies
Albania could help resolve crisis in Macedonia, says NATO chief
U.S. Grapples with Biological Weapons Compliance Protocol
A Fatal Battle Worsens in Colombia: The War on Journalists
Jakarta arms Aceh militias as toll soars
Israelis Debate West Bank Invasion
Israeli War Plan Revealed
Russia Issues List of Closed Cities
Navy Drops Padre Island for Bombings
Air Force Seeks Combat Gear

OTHER
Senate Vote Further Limits Bush Drilling Options in Monuments
Washington DC Landlord Lied About Lead Paint Hazards
Kyoto backer fears U.S.
Legacy of Poison in Twice-Excavated Yards
Fiscal Effects of Warming Studied
For Clinic, Stem Cell Test Is Rebirth of Old Debate
Conservatives Pressure Bush in Cell Debate
Leaders Urged to Support AIDS Fund
Report Criticizes Human Trafficking
Russia to Limit Political Parties
China Denies Falun Gong Deaths
Suspected Witches Reported Killed
French 'sect lists' criticized in House hearing
Troops, Ships, Minesweepers for G8
EU Wants WTO Probe into US Rules
Indonesia's Wahid Orders Arrest of Police Chief
Russian Accused of Spying Still Held

ACTIVISTS
Priest Freed After 83 Days in Prison
STOP THE BOMBING OF VIEQUES
Campus Greens Founding Convention,
Nuclear Free Great Basin Gathering
Priest Freed After 83 Days in Prison
Moscow Cops Hold Pro - Tibet Activists
Detroit's 'Mother' Waddles Dies
Backup Ordered for Abortion Protests
Protesters storm Capitol over income tax plan


-------- NUCLEAR

Troops, Ships, Minesweepers for G8

The Associated Press
Thursday, July 12, 2001; 1:11 p.m. EDT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010712/aponline131158_000.htm

ROME -- Thousands of troops, including specialists in chemical, nuclear and biological warfare, will be part of the security used to protect world leaders at next week's Group of Eight summit in Genoa, the Defense Ministry said Thursday.

Minesweepers and other ships are also headed to the port city, and a missile defense system was installed earlier this week, the ministry said.

The government plans to use 2,700 army, navy and air force troops during the summit, but none will be deployed against demonstrators, according to the Defense Ministry. They will be used for air and sea patrols, and some surveillance work.

Crowd control is being left to between 12,000 and 16,000 police officers, who will be armed with tear gas, water cannon and batons.

Anti-globalization protesters are expected in the thousands at the July 20-22 summit in the Italian port city.

Protests have evolved into a fixture of international meetings since riots rocked the 1999 World Trade Organization conference in Seattle and the 2000 meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the Czech Republic.

The anti-missile system set up as a precaution is a short-range, anti-aircraft battery similar to those deployed at several of the country's airports, Col. Paolo Bressan said.

Dubbed the SPADA, the land-based system consists of missiles capable with a range of more than 9 miles and an altitude of 5,000 feet, Bressan said.

Citing security reasons, Bressan refused to say how many missiles the system contained.

With many leaders, aides and journalists being lodged on ships or in hotels near the port, and with the conference sites also near the sea, water security is considered crucial.

Navy personnel, including divers, will be involved in inspecting ship hulls for mines as well as sea patrols. A torpedo destroyer and a minesweeper are part of the fleet.

Air force planes will survey the city from the skies, and the army is supplying paratroopers and bomb disposal experts.

The G-8 will be attended by leaders of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia.

----

Study Suggests Way to Fight Radiation Side Effect

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/health/health-effects.html?searchpv=reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - In an unexpected finding, experiments in mice show that the toxic gastrointestinal side effects of radiation therapy are caused by damage to the cells lining tiny blood vessels in the gut.

But treatment with a growth factor blocked the harmful effects in mice, suggesting a potential way to prevent the side effects in people undergoing radiation therapy for cancer, New York researchers report in the July 13th issue of Science.

Radiation therapy can destroy cancer cells, but the treatment can also wreak havoc on the gastrointestinal tract, leading to diarrhea, dehydration, infections and even death. Experts have long thought that the symptoms were caused by damage to stem cells in intestinal glands called crypts.

But a team at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has found that, in mice at least, a single dose of radiation causes cells lining tiny blood vessels in the intestine to commit suicide. According to Dr. Richard Kolesnick and colleagues, the death of these cells probably triggers the damage to stem cells in the intestinal crypts.

This research represents ``an example of the new biology,'' Kolesnick told Reuters Health in an interview. This means that rather than looking at radiation damage on the cellular level, ''we are starting to ask how tissues work,'' he said.

Kolesnick and his colleagues have been trying to figure out ''which components of the tissue are the components that respond to damage and are critical to the protection of the tissue.''

These new findings suggest that the gastrointestinal side effects of radiation are ``in fact mediated not by direct damage to critical stem cells, but indirectly by damage to blood cells,'' Kolesnick explained.

Moreover, now that researchers have a better idea of how radiation damages tissue, it may be possible to block this damage, the report indicates. Treating mice with a substance called bFGF, or basic fibroblast growth factor, blocked the damage to the blood vessel cells in the animals' guts.

The investigators were also able to block the destruction in the gut by manipulating the genes of the mice. In mice that had the gene for acid sphingomyelinase--an enzyme found in cells lining vessels and tissues that is involved in the cell-death process--radiation did not cause widespread destruction in the cells of the blood vessels.

In an interview with Reuters Health, study co-author Dr. Zvi Fuks said the research suggests it may be possible to manipulate the response of tissue to radiation. He explained that tumors have a range of responses to radiation. Until now, it has been a ``near mission impossible'' to identify which response is the prevailing one, he said.

If the findings are confirmed in humans, however, ``then we significantly improve the ability to design methods of controlling the response,'' Fuks said.

But the researcher stressed that it is too early to know whether the approach will be effective in people. ``There is a lot more work that needs to be done,'' he said.

Besides its implications for reducing the side effects of radiation treatment, this research could also be relevant to therapies that aim to cut off the blood supply to tumors, according to two Boston researchers.

The study ``prepares the way'' for studying the effects of radiation on the cells lining tiny blood vessels, Dr. Judah Folkman, of Children's Hospital, and Dr. Kevin Camphausen, of Harvard Medical School, state in an editorial that accompanies the report.

The editorialists suggest that it may be possible to make tumors more sensitive to the effects of radiation by first treating them with so-called anti-angiogenic therapy, which aims to prevent tumors from growing new blood vessels. Then it may be possible to destroy tumors using lower doses of radiation, Folkman and Camphausen note.

SOURCE: Science 2001;293:293-297.

-------- australia

Peace activist Helen Caldicott to stand for Senate

Australian Broadcast News,
July 12, 2001
From: "HELEN CALDICOTT" <hcaldic@cci.net.au>

Peace activist Helen Caldicott is to stand for the Senate at the upcoming federal election.

The long-term anti-nuclear campaigner is to register her own political party, Our Common Future.

Dr Caldicott says part of her decision to stand for the Senate is her opposition to Australia's involvement in the United States' proposal for an anti-ballistic missile defence system.

"We've got 30 US bases... the Russians 5,500 nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert," she said. "Certainly we're targeted, we could have been attacked in 1995 when we almost had a nuclear war.

"America's pressuring us to have more bases for missile defence."

-------- business

Some big names fail UK's test for goodness

By SOPHIE BARKER LONDON
Thursday 12 July 2001
http://www.theage.com.au/business/2001/07/12/FFXT0EJZZOC.html

Tesco, BHP-Billiton, Safeway, Royal Bank of Scotland, and BG Group are among the companies excluded from the controversial ethical index FTSE4Good, which was launched yesterday.

FTSE chief executive Mark Makepeace defended the anomalies in the FTSE4Good UK Index, which includes oil giants with tarnished environmental and human rights records, such as BP and Shell, but excludes their smaller rival BG Group.

He pointed to BG's failure to publish a human-rights policy while it invests in Egypt. In contrast, BP, which has a 5 per cent stake in Tibet-based Petrochina, has a published human-rights policy.

Royal Bank of Scotland was excluded because it invests in Indonesia without publishing a similar policy. Tesco and Safeway were both excluded because they do not publish environmental reports.

Newly merged and London-listed BHP Billiton was an unconditional exclusion because the company mines uranium. Billiton contributed a uranium mine in Arizona to the merged entity's mix of assets.

The index, which is designed to enable institutions and funds to invest in "socially responsible" companies, is to begin operating on July 31. Constituent companies were judged on their environmental, human rights and social policies.

Tobacco producers, weapons companies, nuclear power station operators and uranium miners were automatically shut out of the index.

Spokesmen for the excluded groups expressed surprise at their failure to make FTSE4Good's grade.

A BHP Billiton spokesman said the Smith Ranch uranium mine had a good environmental track record. The global miner is included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

A Tesco spokesman said the group recycled 155,000 tonnes of card last year.

Safeway's spokesman described the compilers of FTSE4Good as having "seriously faulty eyesight" because the supermarket's environmental policy was on its website.

While one of the excluded companies described the new index as arbitrary, ethical investing has been attracting serious amounts of investment dollars. UK investors, in particular, are drawn to a growing range of ethically focused funds.

But the FTSE4Good came in for criticism from the CBI, which was concerned that excluded companies would be considered by the media and the public as "bad".

EIRIS, the consultancy that handled FTSE4Good's research, admitted that some companies might have been excluded because they had not chosen to publish certain policies or because they had failed to fill in a questionnaire.

The FTSE's Mr Makepeace said: "This is not random at all. Clearly people have moral agendas, but we are trying to get away from that."

Companies on the outer ...
Royal Bank of Scotland: Invests in Indonesia; no published human rights policy.
Tesco: Does not publish an environmental report.
Anglo American: Mines uranium for nuclear power stations.
Rio Tinto: Mines uranium for nuclear power stations.
British American Tobacco: Tobacco is a "controversial" business.
BAE Systems: Makes defence weapons systems.
BG Group: Invests in Egypt; no published human rights policy.
Amvescap: No published details of stakeholder and social relations.
BHP Billiton: Mines uranium for nuclear power stations.
Reed International: No published details of stakeholder and social relations.
National Grid: Owns or operates nuclear power stations.
Marconi: Invests in Burma and China; no published human rights policy.
3i Group: Investment trusts are not included.
Reckitt Benckiser: Does not publish an environmental report.
Old Mutual: No published details of stakeholder and social relations.

-TELEGRAPH

-------- korea

S.Korea Plans 10 More Nuclear Plants

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-SKorea-Nuclear-Plants.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea said Thursday it plans to build 10 more power-generating nuclear reactors by 2011 to meet its growing electricity demand.

A long-term plan, adopted by a government committee chaired by Prime Minister Lee Han-dong, calls for the country to build two reactors by next year, two more by 2006, two more by 2008 and four more by 2010 and 2011.

If the plan goes smoothly, South Korea will have 24 nuclear power plants by 2011 and will be able to meet nearly 40 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power. South Korea now gets 40.9 percent of its electricity from nuclear generation.

Some of the plants are already under construction, said officials at the Ministry of Science and Technology.

All but two of the new reactors will have a generating capacity of 1 million kilowatts each. The other two will have a 1.4 million-kilowatt capacity each.

South Korea has the technology to build nuclear power plants on its own. It can produce reactors and other key equipment.

-------- missile defense

Senate Democrats Blast Bush's Missile Defense Plan

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 13, 2001; Page A05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53626-2001Jul12?language=printer

Senate Democrats sharply criticized the Bush administration's missile defense plan yesterday, saying they did not want to vote on an $8 billion request for the program without knowing whether it would violate an arms control treaty.

Pentagon officials responded that they could not say whether the accelerated testing and initial construction planned for fiscal 2002 would break the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, because that was a matter of interpretation.

The conflict emerged as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz gave Congress its first detailed description of the program, which goes well beyond the ground-based interceptor system pursued by the Clinton administration. President Bush's plan includes sea-launched missiles and lasers mounted on airplanes, both of which are prohibited by the ABM Treaty.

"We will not conduct tests solely for the purpose of exceeding the constraints of the treaty," Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "But neither will we design our program to avoid doing so. . . . Such an event is likely to occur in months, rather than in years."

The admission sparked an angry response from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee's chairman. He noted that the official seated beside Wolfowitz, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, told the panel three weeks ago that none of the testing planned for fiscal 2002, which begins Oct. 1, would violate the treaty.

"That's what you told us, general," Levin said. "Three weeks ago. Something's changed in the last three weeks."

"We are in a gray area," Wolfowitz replied. He said it is not clear whether breaking ground next month for a test facility in Alaska would violate the treaty "if you harbor the intention" of turning the test site into an interceptor base, as the administration does.

In Moscow, meanwhile, Russian officials warned that scuttling the treaty could set off an arms race and prompt Russia to refit its missiles with multiple warheads, which have been removed in recent years. Igor Sergeyev, a security adviser to President Vladimir Putin, accused Washington of using "the smoke screen" of consultations to obscure that it "has obviously made the decision to leave the 1972 ABM Treaty."

Publicly, Russian officials did not explain at what point they would consider the treaty to be violated. But the Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed, high-ranking defense official as saying, "We will view the first cubic meter of concrete laid under the launching pad to intercept missiles in Alaska as the U.S.'s formal withdrawal" from the pact.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, speaking at a policy forum on Capitol Hill, said the only action contemplated in Alaska in the near future was the clearing of trees for a test site at Fort Greely, near Fairbanks. "Tearing down trees -- no lawyer that I know thinks that is a treaty violation," Rumsfeld said.

He, like Wolfowitz, said the administration has not been secretive that its plans eventually will "bump up against" the ABM Treaty, which bans any nationwide shield against long-range missiles.

Both officials said, however, that they did not intend to abrogate the treaty. Rather, they promised to seek negotiations with Russia over a new security framework that would permit development of a missile shield.

"If we found there was no way to reach a truly mutual agreement, you would have to then say, 'Well, we do need to have missile defense, we do need to go forward, and therefore we need to give the six-month notification' " required before withdrawing from the treaty, Rumsfeld said. "Is that going to happen? No, I think we're going to find a way to have some mutual understanding."

Sen. John Warner (Va.) and other Republican members of the Armed Services Committee strongly supported the administration's missile defense plan. Not all Democrats opposed it, either.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Ct.) complimented Wolfowitz and Kadish for "speaking directly about this new approach."

"I, for one, will not shy away from supporting authorization or an appropriation that might necessitate a withdrawal from the ABM Treaty if I am convinced that it is necessary to do so for . . . national security, and that the administration has made every possible effort to negotiate . . . with the Russians," Lieberman said.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) spoke for many of his fellow Republicans when he told Wolfowitz and Kadish, "Spending money to defend the United States of America from intercontinental ballistic missiles ought to be the top priority that we have."

Correspondent Susan Glasser contributed to this report from Moscow.

----

The ABM Ambush

By Philip E. Coyle
Friday, July 13, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55505-2001Jul12?language=printer

Despite claims by some in the Bush administration, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is not an obstacle to proper development and testing of a national missile defense system.

The development of any such system, even one with only a limited capability to destroy long-range missiles, will take at least a decade because of simple technical and budgetary reasons.

A national missile defense system can be designed to shoot down enemy missiles at all three stages of flight: the initial liftoff or "boost phase," the mid-course phase and the "terminal phase," which occurs when the missiles approach and re-enter the atmosphere over the United States. Another approach, known as a "layered defense" system, would try to hit the incoming missiles during all flight stages.

Now that the Bush team has provided new details in testimony to Congress on July 12, it is clear that the new focus is on a layered defense system. Of course, a mid-course system -- such as was being planned by former President Clinton -- will be a part of any layered defense. The mid-course technology, which is a fixed-site system designed to intercept long-range missiles high about midway through their trajectory, is the approach farthest along in development and testing.

Development and testing of mid-course missile defense is permitted under the ABM treaty. In fact, the Pentagon has been developing and testing technologies necessary for such a system for at least a decade. Most flight testing is done at the Army's Kwajalein Missile Range in the Pacific Ocean, a test site permitted under the ABM treaty.

Eventually, intercepts would be attempted at greater distances from Kwajalein to demonstrate more realistic engagements. But this also would be permissible under the ABM treaty.

When the program is ready to move from a developmental stage to true operational testing, the use of real soldiers and the mimicking of battlefield or attack conditions will be required. These tests probably would require modifications to the ABM treaty, but such real-world testing is many years away.

What about boost-phase missile defense? While the ABM treaty prohibits the development and testing of mobile missile defense systems, there is plenty of work on boost-phase systems that could be done before running afoul of the treaty. Boost-phase interceptors can be launched from Navy ships or from land. Either way the interceptors must be close enough to the enemy launch site that they can catch up before the enemy missile has traveled too far and deployed its payload. The process of detection and classification of a hostile missile must begin within seconds of its launch, and intercept must occur within only a few minutes. So a boost-phase system would need to be essentially autonomous, commanded by computers.

Naturally, any administration would want extensive testing of such a system to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the computer network. But again, the ABM treaty would not be an obstacle. Testing could be done at various U.S. testing centers, including Kwajalein and the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Boost-phase systems, whether on land or aboard ship, would require fast rockets and high-acceleration maneuvering -- more so than a land-based system. Such new rockets would take years to develop and test. The interceptor rocket for a mid-course missile defense system has been under development and testing for many years, and within accepted interpretations of the ABM treaty. Faster rockets for a boost-phase system could be tested in the same way.

With respect to the airborne laser and the space-based laser, each has its own special challenges that have little to do with the ABM treaty. A Boeing 747 aircraft loaded with heavy laser apparatus, and flying close to an enemy, makes an inviting target. To permit the 747 to stand back from the forward edge of battle, the airborne laser needs very high power to find its targets through the atmosphere. Development of such lasers is going on at test facilities in full compliance with the ABM treaty. As for the space-based laser, the current prototype is too heavy to be launched into space by existing U.S. boosters. Perhaps it can be made lighter and more powerful, but this will take at least a dozen years. The ABM treaty currently is not an issue here.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for national missile defense right now is building realistic simulators to model how all the elements of a system, from launcher to interceptor to radar to command and control networks, might work together. The national missile defense program is years behind in this area, but not because of the ABM treaty.

The United States faces a complex and difficult set of expensive missile defense development problems -- problems that abrogating the ABM treaty will not overcome. Thus, the administration's insistence that it will be only "months" before testing abrogates the treaty is hard to understand. Rather than focusing on the red herring of the ABM treaty, proponents of missile defense would do better to concentrate on crafting long-term, affordable approaches to technology development.

The writer, a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, is the former director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon, where he was responsible for overseeing missile defense testing.

----

Bush Speeds Missile Defense Plans

By Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 12, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47591-2001Jul11?language=printer

The Bush administration intends to break ground in Alaska next month on a missile defense test site and to develop a multi-layered shield that will include ship-launched missiles and lasers mounted on airplanes within four years, senior Pentagon officials said yesterday.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is scheduled to outline the plan to Congress today. Officials said he would make clear that the administration is moving as fast as possible to build at least rudimentary missile defenses by 2005, regardless of probable objections by Moscow that the United States is violating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Although President Bush has repeatedly stated his determination to build a missile shield, yesterday was the first time that the administration had laid out a detailed plan and timetable for erecting an initial system for shooting down enemy missiles.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld described the effort as an ambitious and accelerated testing program, saying the administration has no intention of breaking the 1972 ABM Treaty any time soon.

"We have every intention of working out an arrangement with the Russians, and I think we will," Rumsfeld told reporters last night. "I can assure you that if the United States of America intended to do something that would violate the treaty in July or August or September, I would know about it."

The ABM Treaty allows each side to build one land-based anti-missile system to protect a single city or field of missile silos. Russia has such a system around Moscow, and the United States originally chose to build one around a missile field in Grand Forks, N.D. But the treaty forbids any system intended to defend the entire nation. It also prohibits the development, testing or deployment of sea- or space-based defenses against long-range missiles.

Last week, the State Department instructed U.S. embassies around the world to inform foreign governments that the United States plans to test not just land-based interceptor missiles but also "other technologies and basing modes, such as air- and sea-based capabilities" against long-range missiles.

"As we have informed our allies and Russia, these tests will come into conflict with the ABM Treaty in months, not years," the department said.

By announcing the plans yesterday, the Bush administration signaled that it intends to proceed regardless of whether a flight test scheduled for Saturday -- the first in a year -- is a success or failure.

After the "kill vehicle" failed to hit a dummy warhead in the previous test last summer, President Bill Clinton delayed a decision on whether to begin construction of a limited missile defense system, saying that more testing and consultation with allies were necessary.

Already, the Bush plan faces an uncertain future on Capitol Hill, where leading Democrats in the Senate have expressed reservations about a fiscal 2002 defense budget that includes a 57 percent increase for missile defense while cutting spending on procurement of other weapons.

The administration plans to notify Congress immediately of its plan to begin clearing trees next month for a new test facility at Fort Greely, Alaska, near Fairbanks, officials said.

Although the administration's plan calls for basing five interceptor missiles there and upgrading a "Cobra Dane" radar installation on Shemya Island in Alaska by 2004, Rumsfeld said that none of the work at Fort Greely would violate the ABM Treaty this year.

In the past, government lawyers and arms control advocates have offered differing interpretations of what amount of construction would be allowed under the treaty. "As soon as the construction site becomes recognizably a strategic ABM interceptor launcher, it would violate the treaty," John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a defense think tank, said yesterday.

Experts also offered various predictions about how Russia would react, but all agreed that the stakes for the administration are high. "I'm sure they will protest it as a violation of the treaty," said Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., president of the Arms Control Association and an arms control official in the Nixon administration, which negotiated the treaty with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.

In Saturday's test, an interceptor missile carrying a "kill vehicle" will be fired from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands at a dummy warhead and a single decoy launched minutes earlier from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

But defense officials said yesterday that even a failure would not derail the program. "If it succeeds, it will give us more confidence," said a senior official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity. "If it fails, we'll learn more."

He added that the Bush plan, with its emphasis on "layered" missile defenses, differs dramatically from the Clinton administration's pursuit of a single ground-based system designed to intercept long-range missiles high in space, about mid-way through their trajectory.

The Bush plan calls for multiple systems to target short-, medium- and long-range missiles at all three stages of flight, including "boost phase," which lasts about five minutes after liftoff; mid-course, which lasts about 20 minutes; and "terminal phase," which lasts 30 seconds when an incoming missile traveling at very high speed has re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.

With the addition of the new test site at Fort Greely and introduction of a sophisticated "X-Band" radar, either on a ship or at a ground station in Hawaii, officials said, the Pentagon would be able to carry out more realistic testing.

Some of the tests would involve Boeing 747 jets carrying lasers, a weapon in development that is designed to destroy missiles in their boost phase. The Pentagon also hopes to place interceptor missiles aboard destroyers equipped with advanced Aegis radars, which could track and destroy missiles in either boost phase or mid-course, officials said.

Although no firm cost estimates have been developed beyond fiscal 2002, officials said basic testing of all those technologies could be sustained for about $8 billion a year, the amount now included in the defense spending plan that goes into effect Oct. 1.

A total of 17 tests -- 10 of ground-based systems and seven of sea-launched missiles -- are planned over the next 14 months, officials said.

The new test range, officials said, would enable launches of multiple missiles from several locations in realistic flight paths toward the United States -- unlike the current system, in which missiles carrying dummy warheads are fired from Vandenberg, away from the U.S. mainland.

"We could potentially have an airborne laser shoot at one of the targets in a layered system, deliberately let one go and have the mid-course [system] engage it," another official said. "That's what this test bed is all about."

Development of the new technologies is designed to allow rudimentary versions of the airborne laser, sea-launched missile and the current ground-based system to become operational by 2005, they said, if policymakers determine that missile threats from countries like North Korea, Iran and Iraq have escalated substantially and pose unacceptable risks.

"The idea here is that we would start many different paths in basing and in technology," an official said. "And all that can lead to . . . test assets that can be made operational if the situation warrants it. But that's not our intention, to make those operational right off the bat."

Staff writer Alan Sipress contributed to this report.

----

Pentagon to Begin Missile Defense Construction in April

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/politics/12wire-missile.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon plans to begin construction next April for new tests of a missile defense, which could violate a 1972 treaty banning national missile shields, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, Wolfowitz did not describe in detail the proposed test facility. But he appeared to be referring to sites in Alaska, which he said would be part of an expanded network of facilities for testing missile defenses.

He said there would likely be legal arguments about whether such activities violate the Antiballistic Missile Treaty but added that the administration intends to reach a new understanding with Russia shortly that would make such questions moot.

"As the program develops and the various testing activities mature, one or more aspects will inevitably bump against treaty restrictions and limitations. Such an event is likely to occur in months, rather than in years," Wolfowitz told the committee. "It is not possible to know with certainty whether that will occur in the coming year."

The State Department has notified its diplomats around the world that the tests will come in conflict with that 1972 treaty with Moscow.

The Pentagon has scheduled for Saturday its first flight test in a year of interceptors designed to shoot down long-range missiles. An attempt last July failed.

The State Department memo drew immediate reaction from the Russian government.

According to the Interfax news agency, Vladimir Rushailo, head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, told reporters in Belarus: "Russia, as well as many other countries, believes that a unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM treaty would lead to the destruction of strategic stability, a new powerful spiral of the arms race, particularly in space, and the development of means for overcoming the national missile defense system."

The Pentagon intends to notify Congress as early as next week that it will begin ground-clearing work in August for a new missile defense test site in Alaska, a senior Pentagon official said Thursday.

The site at Fort Greely will be part of an expanded network of missile defense test facilities that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hopes will accelerate development of a variety of missile defense technologies.

The Pentagon intends to place between five and 10 silo-based missile interceptors at Fort Greely for testing against target missiles fired from an aircraft and perhaps from ground-based locations.

Rumsfeld, meantime, planned to address a Capitol Hill conference Thursday on missile defense, focusing on what he and others argue are new missile threats from smaller states antagonistic to the United States.

"The world has changed fundamentally and the rationale for Cold War arrangements no longer exists," says the memorandum sent to U.S. embassies and consulates July 3.

It is intended to provide American diplomats with talking points to help persuade other governments to support President Bush's aspirations for a missile shield.

Answers to prospective questions are provided. Among "misconceptions" the American diplomats are cautioned to anticipate is that "states like North Korea and Iran would not dare attack the United States, knowing they would pay a terrible price in response."

Deployment of an interim ground-based system in Alaska could be completed as early as 2004, the memorandum said.

Bush has called the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia a relic of the Cold War. It bans deployment in any state except North Dakota of a U.S. shield against long-range missiles.

Russian President Putin opposes setting aside the treaty and has warned it could touch off a new nuclear arms race. He has suggested negotiations to reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals.

Many U.S. allies are skeptical or noncommittal of the Bush administration's aspirations.

On Wednesday, Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, agreed with Bush's assessment of a growing nuclear danger in the world. But he signaled on a visit to Washington that his government intends to withhold a judgment on an anti-missile system while the administration weighs its options on the program's possible variations.

Putin proposed on July 6 that the five long-established nuclear power states -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- start negotiations aimed at eliminating 10,000 warheads in the next seven years.

Putin is expected to bring up the proposal with Bush this month at an economic summit meeting in Genoa, Italy.

The Russian leader is not likely to get very far. A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Putin's proposal is not going to win over the administration.

--------

Work to Begin on Site for Testing Missile Defense

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By JAMES DAO
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/politics/12MILI.html

WASHINGTON, July 11 - The Pentagon will notify Congress on Monday that it plans to begin preparatory work in mid-August on a new missile-defense test site at Fort Greely, in Alaska, the first step in a more aggressive testing program.

Pentagon officials said today that they would award a contract of more than $8 million by Aug. 15 for preliminary work on five missile silos.

Senior Pentagon officials also said the Bush administration wanted to have an emergency antimissile system in operation by 2005 or earlier. That rudimentary system, the officials said, might include not only missile interceptors based in Alaska but also lasers and interceptors launched from ships.

Deploying any kind of system intended to protect the entire nation against long-range ballistic missiles would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

For that reason, arms control advocates have called the Alaska test site a ploy to abrogate the treaty. The Pentagon denies that, saying the new site will allow for more realistic tests than currently possible.

The preparatory work at Fort Greely, which would initially involve little more than clearing trees, would not violate the ABM treaty, Pentagon officials said.

But the Pentagon has devised a new test schedule for antimissile technology that is far more aggressive than the plan under the Clinton administration, the senior Pentagon officials said today. Many missile defense critics have said they expect this new schedule to speed up tests that are likely to violate the treaty.

Indeed, new tests are likely to come into conflict with the treaty "in months, not years," according to a Bush administration official.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said tonight in a meeting with reporters that "we have no plans at the present time to deploy."

Mr. Rumsfeld said that given the short summer construction season in Alaska, it would be all but impossible to do the kind of work this year that would violate the treaty.

--------

U.S. Sets Missile Defense Plan, Threatening 1972 ABM Pact

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/politics/12CND-MISS.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, July 12 - The Pentagon wants to start construction in April of facilities for a missile-defense shield that could put the United States in violation of a 1972 treaty banning such defenses, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told lawmakers today.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Wolfowitz did not describe the facilities in detail. But he appeared to be referring, at least in part, to the Pentagon's already announced intention to begin preliminary work next month on a new missile-defense site at Fort Greely, Ala.

Mr. Wolfowitz told the senators that violations of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow might occur sooner rather than later, yet he held out optimism that hard feelings between the United States and Russia might be softened at the same time.

"Will these tests exceed the limits of the treaty?" Mr. Wolfowitz asked. "In each case, you will be able to find lawyers who can argue all three sides of the coin."

In any event, he said, Pentagon planners hope to clear up disagreements with Moscow almost as fast as they come up. "We would expect to identify any such issue six months in advance of its occurrence," he said.

"At that point, we will either have reached an understanding with Russia - in which case, the question would be moot - or we would be left with two far-from-optimal choices: either to allow an obsolete treaty to prevent us from doing everything we can to defend America or to withdraw from that treaty unilaterally, which we have every legal right to do."

President Bush has contended that the 1972 treaty is now outmoded because the Soviet Union and the cold war have passed into history and been supplanted by more diverse and unpredictable threats from terrorists and rogue nations, and Mr. Wolfowitz reiterated those themes today.

"The time has come to lift our heads from the sand and deal with unpleasant but indisputable facts," he said. "We must dust off technologies that were shelved, consider new ones, and bring them all into the development and testing process."

The Pentagon has scheduled a test flight on Saturday of interceptors designed to shoot down long-range missiles. An attempt a year ago ended in failure.

Skeptics of the missile-defense idea have expressed unease not only about the treaty aspects but about whether it is even practical.

"All of us hope that Saturday's test will be successful," said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the committee. "However, the future of a research program will not hinge on the success or failure of any one test. Learning whether or not a system can be developed and understanding the true cost will take many tests over many years."

"But there's a more fundamental uncertainty than the outcome of Saturday's test or future tests," Mr. Levin went on. "Would a national missile-defense system that is unilaterally deployed and in conflict with a treaty produce a destabilizing response from other countries and increase the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?"

Senator John Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the committee, took a different view. "I think it's far too early to get tangled up in the small details of the lawyers trying to determine, `Does this or does that not comply with the ABM Treaty,' " he said. "So far as I know, the president has made good faith efforts in consultation with our allies, he has had preliminary discussions with Russia. This system which defends us against only perhaps as many as a dozen missiles is not a threat to the awesome - and I repeat, awesome - inventory of missiles that Russia has today in an operational status."

Many such discussions and debates lie ahead, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. For now, Mr. Wolfowitz said, the emphasis should be on peace and understanding, not saber-rattling.

"We're optimistic about the prospects of reaching an understanding with Russia because the cold war is over, the Soviet Union is gone, Russia is not our enemy, we are not longer locked in a posture of cold war ideological antagonism," he said.

"The missile defenses we deploy will be precisely that - defenses. They will threaten no one. They will, however, deter those who would threaten us or our friends with ballistic missile attack. "

--------

Russia Warns on U.S. Missile Plans

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-US-Missile-Defense.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- A senior Russian official warned the United States on Thursday that its unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would spark a news arms race.

The statement by Vladimir Rushailo, the head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, came after the State Department notified American diplomats that U.S. tests for the planned missile defense system would soon come into conflict with the 1972 treaty with Moscow.

``Russia, as well as many other countries, believes that a unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty would lead to the destruction of strategic stability, a new powerful spiral of the arms race, particularly in space, and the development of means for overcoming the national missile defense system,'' Rushailo told reporters on a trip to Belarus, according to the Interfax news agency.

The Russian Foreign Ministry refrained from immediate comment, saying it reacts only to ``official statements and concrete actions, but not leaks,'' but added that it would ``closely watch the U.S. actions in that sphere,'' Interfax reported.

The unclassified State Department memorandum to all U.S. diplomatic posts, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, warned that tests of the anti-missile system ``will come into conflict with the ABM treaty in months, not years.''

Deployment of an interim ground-based system in Alaska could be completed as early as 2004, the memorandum said.

While the Foreign Ministry refrained from comment, a senior Russian Defense Ministry official warned Washington that plans to deploy an anti-missile defense system in Alaska would ``clearly and flagrantly'' violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

``We will view the first cubic meter of concrete laid under the launching pad for interceptor missiles in Alaska as the United States' formal withdrawal from the ABM Treaty,'' the official, who did not give his name, told Interfax.

Washington wants to deploy a missile defense system to fend off threats from smaller states antagonistic to the United States and says it wouldn't pose a threat to Russia. But Russia has strongly opposed the U.S. plans, warning that the deployment of such system would offset the strategic balance and make other arms control agreements void.

--------

A Missile Defense Test for Congress

New York Times
July 12, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/opinion/12THU3.html?searchpv=nytToday

The Pentagon has not yet developed any technology that can reliably shoot down enemy missiles. Yet the Bush administration seems determined to sidestep Congressional and European misgivings and the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and start building a rudimentary missile shield during its first term. Its latest gambit is a plan for a new test site in Alaska, with a few interceptor rockets stored nearby for possible emergency use. Some details remain unclear, but the arrangement could dangerously blur the distinction between testing and the fielding of an operational system.

Congress should insist that testing programs remain within the limits of the ABM treaty. It should not approve the deployment of an operational system until it is satisfied that the technology has been reliably proven and that every effort has been made to preserve the benefits of existing arms agreements. Senior Pentagon officials will testify today on missile defense issues before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senators should use this hearing to press for more information on the Alaska plan and should demand assurances that it will not be used to circumvent the ABM treaty.

That treaty allows almost unlimited testing of ground-based defenses, but confines such testing to two designated sites, currently Kwajalein Island in the Pacific and White Sands, N.M. A new test from Kwajalein is scheduled for Saturday.

Shifting future tests to Alaska would require Russia's agreement. Moscow understands as well as everyone else that Alaska is where the United States would want to put a functioning missile defense base aimed at thwarting attack from North Korea. By agreeing to a change in test sites, Russia would, in effect, be taking the first important step toward modifying the ABM treaty to accommodate limited national missile defenses. Such agreement would be welcome. But it may not come in time for construction to start this summer on the Alaska test site, as the administration envisions.

Last month Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to promise that nothing planned for the next budget year would breach the ABM treaty. Congress must insist on such a pledge before it approves any money for the Alaska test site.

------

Senate Dems Challenge Missile Plan

The Washington Times
JULY 12, 17:09 EST
By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer
http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=MISSILE%2dDEFENSE

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's plan to accelerate work on missile defenses, which could put the United States in conflict with an arms control treaty by early next year, ran into strong Democratic opposition in the Senate on Thursday.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., criticized Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for failing to clarify for Congress whether missile defense tests planned for the budget year starting Oct. 1 would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. The treaty explicitly prohibits the missile defenses President Bush wants to build.

``I've yet to receive an answer,'' Levin told Wolfowitz, who later said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration's missile defense tests will inevitably ``bump up against'' treaty restrictions, and that this was likely to occur ``in months rather than in years.''

At first Wolfowitz insisted that ``bump up against'' did not mean putting the United States in conflict with the ABM treaty, but a visibly agitated Levin showed him a copy of an administration paper issued Wednesday which said it had informed U.S. allies and Russia that missile defense test efforts ``will conflict'' with the treaty in a matter of months.

In response, Wolfowitz said, ``There are activities in this budget that will raise issues of treaty interpretation, and we have not yet come to resolution of those issues.''

His voice rising with emotion, Levin expressed incredulity that the administration was asking Congress to approve a 57 percent increase in missile defense spending in the 2002 budget, to a total of $8.3 billion, before it has a legal determination on whether the planned tests would violate the ABM treaty.

``You're proceeding without it and you're asking us to proceed without it. And I hope we don't,'' Levin said. Levin is chairman of the committee and a leading skeptic on national missile defense. Republicans on the committee said they supported the acceleration of work on creating missile defenses.

Russia, China and some other countries oppose the administration's approach.

Vladimir Rushailo, the head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, said Thursday that if the United States withdraws from the ABM treaty it would open a new challenge to world security.

``Russia, as well as many other countries, believes that a unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM treaty would lead to the destruction of strategic stability, a new powerful spiral of the arms race, particularly in space, and the development of means for overcoming the national missile defense system,'' Rushailo told reporters in Belarus, according to the Interfax news agency.

During the Senate hearing, Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., questioned the wisdom of proceeding with a missile defense system that the Pentagon itself has acknowledged will not work 100 percent of the time.

``All it takes is one nuclear warhead to ruin our day,'' Cleland said.

Separately, in remarks at a missile defense conference on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld said plans to begin ground-clearing work in August at Fort Greely, Alaska, for a new missile defense test facility would not violate the ABM treaty.

``Everyone's hung up on tearing down some trees in Alaska, as though we're going to violate the treaty. We're not. Period. Full stop,'' Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld was asked when the missile defense testing program will come in conflict with the treaty.

``There's no way to know,'' he said. ``That's why they call it research and development - you're looking for things you don't know the answers to and you don't know how fast they're going to go or how successful they're going to be.''

Wolfowitz said a number of missile test activities will raise treaty compliance questions, including the start of construction in April 2002 on a new missile defense test facility. He did not identify the site but other officials said he was referring to Fort Greely and Alaska's Kodiak Island, where the Pentagon plans to build missile interceptor silos for test launches.

Rumsfeld said that if the administration is not successful in persuading Russia to amend the ABM treaty or replace it with an arrangement permitting robust missile defenses, then the administration would withdraw from the treaty - after giving six months' notice - rather than violate it. The treaty includes a provision allowing the signatories to withdraw after six months' notice.

----

State Notifies US of Missile Plans

Thursday July 12 2:40 AM ET
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010712/pl/missile_defense_6.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department has notified its diplomats around the world that tests of a U.S. anti-missile system soon will come in conflict with a 1972 treaty with Moscow.

The Pentagon (news - web sites) has scheduled for Saturday its first flight test in a year of interceptors designed to shoot down long-range missiles. An attempt last July failed.

The tests, a 14-page memorandum to all U.S. diplomatic posts said, ``will come into conflict with the ABM treaty in months, not years.''

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, who runs the missile defense office at the Pentagon, testify Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) on the accelerating program.

The chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (news - bio - voting record), D-Mich., has been skeptical of the technical feasibility of a missile defense. He is expected to press for more reviews before implementing a missile defense system.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meantime, planned to address a Capitol Hill conference Thursday on missile defense, focusing on what he and others argue are new missile threats from smaller states antagonistic to the United States.

``The world has changed fundamentally and the rationale for Cold War arrangements no longer exists,'' says the memorandum sent to U.S. embassies and consulates July 3.

It is intended to provide American diplomats with talking points to help persuade other governments to support President Bush (news - web sites)'s aspirations for a missile shield.

Answers to prospective questions are provided. Among ``misconceptions'' the American diplomats are cautioned to anticipate is that ``states like North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran would not dare attack the United States, knowing they would pay a terrible price in response.''

Deployment of an interim ground-based system in Alaska could be completed as early as 2004, the memorandum said.

Bush has called the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia a relic of the Cold War. It bans deployment in any state except North Dakota of a U.S. shield against long-range missiles.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) opposes setting aside the treaty and has warned it could touch off a new nuclear arms race. He has suggested negotiations to reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals.

Many U.S. allies are skeptical or noncommittal of the Bush administration's aspirations.

On Wednesday, Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, agreed with Bush's assessment of a growing nuclear danger in the world. But he signaled on a visit to Washington that his government intends to withhold a judgment on an anti-missile system while the administration weighs its options on the program's possible variations.

Putin proposed on July 6 that the five long-established nuclear power states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - start negotiations aimed at eliminating 10,000 warheads in the next seven years.

Putin is expected to bring up the proposal with Bush this month at an economic summit meeting in Genoa, Italy.

The Russian leader is not likely to get very far. A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Putin's proposal is not going to win over the administration.

The unclassified memorandum to U.S. diplomatic posts, obtained by the AP, said the most urgent threat stems not from thousands of Russian missiles but from missiles in the hands of countries armed with small numbers of weapons of mass destruction.

``Those states also possess a large numbers of short and medium-range missiles that pose a significant threat to deployed U.S. forces and friends and U.S. allies abroad,'' it said.

As a result, the memorandum continued, ``the United States needs release from the constraints of the ABM treaty to pursue the most promising technologies and basing modes to field limited, but effective missile defenses.''

At the same time, the memorandum acknowledges that the 1972 treaty prohibits a U.S. nationwide defense and sharing anti-missile defenses with allies.

As a result, it said, the administration will pursue a ``robust'' program to be able to deploy such defenses to protect the United States, its forces, friends and allies.

Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman, confirmed that ``we have given to our embassies basic arguments on the need for a new strategic framework, for moving beyond the strategies of the Cold War.''

-------- russia

Putin opens gates for nuclear fuel imports

RUSSIA: July 12, 2001
Story by Margarita Antidze
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11527

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin signed bills on Wednesday opening Russia to imports of spent nuclear fuel, a move that has enraged ecologists but which the country's nuclear power industry says will earn Moscow windfalls.

The Kremlin said Putin had also ordered a special commission to be set up to oversee contracts under the programme in what looked like a move to appease public criticism of the bills.

The choice of respected Nobel prize-winning physicist Zhores Alphyorov to head the body also appeared to be aimed at easing public fears that unusable nuclear waste, rather than recyclable fuel, might find its way into Russia under the legislation.

To give the commission more clout, Putin asked parliament to amend the newly-signed bills to make sure that no deal on importing nuclear materials under the laws could be struck without its approval.

But despite all the efforts to convince Russians that the laws would do more good than harm to the country where hi-tech industries, such as the nuclear sector, struggle to survive, the legislation's opponents cried foul.

"He (Putin) allowed imports of nuclear waste which will be a threat for Russia and its citizens for hundreds and thousands of years," the Russian outlet of international environment campaigner Greenpeace said in a statement.

Greenpeace said Russians had been subjected to a massive public relations campaign by the media to defend Putin's expected approval of the bills, which shut out any dissenting voices. It promised a non-violent fight against nuclear imports.

Grigory Yalvinsky, leader of the liberal Yabloko party, condemned Putin for signing the bills and vowed to push ahead with efforts to call a referendum on the strength of opinion polls showing that Russians overwhelmingly reject the bills.

MINISTER ON THE OFFENSIVE

But Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said Russia only stood to gain from the laws which rather than turning the country into the world's nuclear dump were opening new frontiers for its ailing nuclear sector.

"These laws potentially support domestic producers...They open opportunities for Russia to get to the world markets with its technologies," Rumyantsev told a news conference.

He added that setting up the special commission could delay signing contracts with spent nuclear fuel exporters.

Rumyantsev said work to secure deals was already under way to win enough contracts to live up to projected earnings of some $20 billion over the next 10 years.

"There are contacts (with potential exporters), but so far no shipments have been agreed," he said.

Critics say Russia may never win contracts to give it enough cash to build the capacity to reprocess all of the imported fuel and suspect the ministry might choose to leave it in the ground indefinitely, or start importing nuclear waste.

Rumyantsev also defended his ministry against attacks that the cash-strapped industry might not be up to the task of dealing safely with the flood of radioactive materials.

"We have not had a single emergency in 24 years," he said.

The laws allow Russia to accept money for storing spent nuclear reactor fuel until 2021, when it is deemed that accumulated funds will allow it to build plants to reprocess it.

Rumyantsev said Russia was due to import 20,000 tonnes of spent fuel overall, roughly 10 percent of the world stock.

There are four nuclear storage sites in Russia with a total capacity of 4,000 tonnes. Moscow plans to upgrade and put into use reserve sites to boost the figure to 9,000 tonnes.

--------

RUSSIA: OPEN DOOR TO NUCLEAR WASTE:

July 12, 2001
World Briefing
Agence France-Presse
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/international/12BRIE.html?searchpv=nytToday

President Vladimir V. Putin signed a bill to allow import and storage of up to 20,000 tons of spent fuel, which the Kremlin says could earn Russia $21 billion over 10 years. Mr. Putin set up a commission to study the environmental impact of "temporary" storage of the nuclear waste and named a Nobel laureate physicist, Zhores I. Alferov, to lead the commission.

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

-------- colorado

Colo. Nuclear Plant Problems Cited

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Rocky-Flats.html

DENVER (AP) -- The former chief security officer at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant said it had serious security problems five years ago and people who complained faced retaliation from the federal government.

Edward McCallum, now an anti-terrorism official with the Defense Department, told a federal judge Wednesday that the government barred investigators from looking into security complaints for a month.

He also said he believed he was the target of retaliation for exposing security risks at the now-closed plant 16 miles northwest of Denver.

Jennifer Thompson, a spokeswoman for Kaiser-Hill Co., which is cleaning up the plant under a federal contract, acknowledged there were security problems in 1996. But she said the problems have been fixed and the company is getting satisfactory ratings from the Energy Department, which operated the plant.

U.S. Magistrate Patricia Coan is hearing testimony this week on a motion to dismiss a $400 million lawsuit filed by three former security workers at Rocky Flats.

Named as defendants are Kaiser-Hill, security contractor Wackenhut Services and EG&G Rocky Flats, a former operator of the plant. The plaintiffs are seeking to recover money paid to contractors, claiming they ignored security in a rush to clean up the plant.

McCallum, who testified for the plaintiffs, was allowed to speak only after the government put a specialist in the courtroom to advise both sides on what matters were official secrets that could not be discussed.

McCallum said Rocky Flats officials made misleading statements when they said the plant had no serious security deficiencies.

``I don't know if I would use the term 'cover-up.' I was aware of deficiencies that existed over numerous years that were not corrected,'' McCallum said.

McCallum also said he was prevented from testifying about some of the problems before Congress, and the government tried to prevent other whistle-blowers from going public.

The plant, which closed at the end of the Cold War, still holds 14 tons of weapons-grade plutonium and six tons of enriched uranium. The government hopes to turn Rocky Flats into a wildlife preserve.

-------- us nuc politics

The Secretary Bombs, Again

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, July 13, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59116-2001Jul13?language=printer

On the ninth night of the NATO air war in Kosovo in 1999, two B-1 bombers from Ellsworth Air Force base, South Dakota, conducted their first missions over Yugoslavia, dropping bombs on military staging areas. Over the next two months, just five B-1s flew 74 combat missions from England, dropping some 5,000 bombs, or about 18 percent of all the bombs dropped by approximately 500 NATO strike aircraft.

The B-1s flew 100 percent of their assigned strikes with on-time take-offs, thwarting air defenses with a combination of sophisticated radar jamming and towed decoys. The decoys registered at least one "save," when a surface-to-air missile homed in on its spoofing package, causing only minor damage to the targeted jet.

The B-1, in other words, pulled its weight and more. Yet some critics still dismiss the bomber as a flying Edsel and a "hangar queen," by citing poor readiness and a looming upgrade program. Such portrayals of the B-1 makes the Defense Department's recent decision to cut back the force from 93 to 60 planes seem like a courageous political decision, a "poster boy for defense reform," as some are calling it, and a necessary move to pare down a Cold War relic.

But the B-1 initiative is nothing of the sort. It is an internal Air Force decision that says nothing about the future of the military. It says nothing because the new administration still cannot articulate even a most basic "strategy." No, the B-1 decision is just another poorly thought-out, badly handled decision, thrust out almost intentionally for Congressional rejection, an example to be redeployed in the future when the hapless Rumsfeld team will inevitably argue that it is everyone else's fault that the Pentagon monster can't be reformed.

Blame Congress

I'm no fan of Congress, and I decry pork barrel politics as much as the next guy, but the Secretary of Defense and his staff need to get a grip. They screwed up. This is not some Washington parable about Congressional refusal to allow unneeded military bases to be shut down. In fact, the B-1 decision could be a way to force Congress to finally bite the bullet on base closures. That is, if the Pentagon had any guts.

"Part of my frustration," Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas told Secretary of the Air Force James Roche last week, "is that this B-1B move was done quickly, quietly, with zero consultation -- more stealth, by the way, than any B-1 or B-2 has." Roche couldn't disagree, telling the Armed Services Committee that Rumsfeld had already "apologized" to the Air Force for how the decision was unveiled. And Roche apologized as well "We thought we would have time to consult, and we failed to make our case strongly enough that we needed that time," he said.

If everyone wants to eliminate 33 B-1s and shut down some bases, here's what I would do: Move all of the B-1s to the Air National Guard and close down the two expensive active force bases, Dyess AFB near Abilene, Tex., and Ellsworth near Rapid City.

Brig. Gen. T. C. Jones, deputy director of programs on the air staff and a former B-1 pilot, says that the readiness rates of B-1 units in the reserves and active force are "within a percentage point of each other." Congressional delegations are arguing that the Guard consistently keeps B-1s flying more often and more cheaply than active duty units. So there is no reason why reserve units wouldn't be able to respond as quickly to wartime needs as active duty units.

And then there's the societal question. The National Guard embodies the ideal of citizens first and soldiers second. "The military now is structured around the idea that you can't wage war without the Guard and Reserve," says Maj. Gen. David Poythress, Georgia's top officer in the Guard. Removing B-1s from the reserves further erodes dependence on citizen-soldiers to wage war. The problem is not a bloodthirsty professional military class, it is that the military could become a cost-free tool employed at the whims of civilian politicians.

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

Because few in the Pentagon think creatively, the idea of drawing down B-1's from the active force and not the reserves was never even considered. Gen. Jones raises a number of valid concerns about base closures and incorporation of the bombers into day-to-day war plans and operations. But given the political hot potato the B-1 bombers have become, one proposal would be no more difficult to implement than another. And surely President Bush has the political clout to convince his own home state that they should take the lead in base closures for the sake of defense transformation and American national security.

Long before Rumsfeld botched the B-1 announcement, Gen. Jones says the Air Force concluded that it would never get the $2 billion it needed "to fix the whole fleet." So the Air Force planned to recoup some $165 million annually by getting rid of one-third of the B-1s. Given the increased capability of the upgraded B-1s to carry smart weapons and their greater reliability and survivability in combat, Air Force sources insist that the smaller force will also be more capable.

That's plausible. But even if a smaller B-1 fleet makes sense, I'd rather save useful combat power and get rid of marginal forces, bloated bureaucracies and headquarters instead. Considering all of the unneeded, surplus, and redundant forces all over the world, the B-1 decision is especially depressing. If Congress merely wants to spread the pork around, it could do better by further drawing down obsolete and wasteful forces and bases from Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Middle East and putting them in Texas and South Dakota.

Appearing on CNN's Moneyline on June 28, Rumsfeld said "there's a great deal of pressure in this town to keep things exactly as they are. The pressure in the building, the pressure in the Congress, the pressure in the contractor community." Poor Donald Rumsfeld. No creativity, no political finesse, no vision. And it's all someone else's fault.

-------- MILITARY

-------- africa

Gaddafi Sweeps Into Zimbabwe in 80 - Car Convoy

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-zimbabw.html

HARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi arrived to cheering crowds in Zimbabwe's capital Harare on Thursday after driving 330 miles from neighboring Zambia in an 80-car motorcade with his female bodyguards.

Flanked by two armored cars and helicopters flying overhead, the motorcade passed by thousands of people lining the road to President Robert Mugabe's office in central Harare.

The flamboyant Libyan leader had been in the Zambian capital Lusaka for the summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), which is being transformed into a more economically-focused African Union (AU).

The flamboyant Libyan leader was warmly acknowledged at the summit as the main architect of the AU project.

``Welcome to Zimbabwe -- Father of the African Union,'' read one poster in the crowd.

Another proclaimed: ``Libya is Africa's Pride.''

Most of the people lining the streets to State House were supporters of Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF party.

State television on Wednesday night had called for a huge turnout to welcome Gaddafi, who is otherwise known as the Guide.

Gaddafi, eschewing air travel, had crossed into Zimbabwe over the Otto Beit Bridge with a convoy of more than 80 cars and trucks, mainly carrying his female bodyguards and officials.

Zimbabwean state radio reported that Gaddafi and his entourage had stopped in the town of Chinhoyi, about 60 miles northwest of Harare, where he gave a short speech to local ZANU-PF supporters.

Libyan officials have said the 59-year-old leader will speak about land reform during his visit to Harare.

Self-styled independence war veterans in Zimbabwe have seized hundreds of white-owned farms with government assent.

Gaddafi was the driving force in shaping the 38-year-old OAU, which spent most of its life battling colonialism and apartheid in South Africa, into the stronger AU.

-------- asia

Korea Retaliates Against Japan Over Textbook

By Kim Myong-hwan,
Thursday July 12
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20010712/wl/korea_japan_textbook_dc_3.html

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea said on Thursday it will scale back cultural and military contacts with Japan in retaliation for Tokyo's refusal to amend a history textbook that critics say whitewashes Japan's wartime atrocities.

There were also public protests in different parts of the country against the textbook, Yonhap News Agency reported.

But Japan stood fast, saying it had no intention of making any changes to the book.

``We will stop reviewing plans to open our market additionally for Japanese cultural products until Japan shows sincere attitude toward resolving the textbook issue,'' the Ministry of Culture and Tourism said in a statement.

The Defense Ministry said it has canceled a visit to Japan this month by the head of Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as an invitation for Japanese naval vessels to visit Korea in September.

``Military exchanges should be based on a correct and accurate interpretation of history and mutual trust,'' the ministry said in a statement.

South Korea, China and other Asian nations have criticized the book, set to be used in Japanese classrooms next year, for attempting to justify Japan's invasion of much of Asia in the first half of the 20th century.

South Korea will raise the textbook issue in the international conference against racism, scheduled August 31-September 7 in Durban, South Africa, Seoul's Foreign Ministry said.

The ministry said it had decided to boycott an annual meeting aimed at promoting cultural exchanges between South Korea and Japan, originally due to open on August 6 in Tokyo.

NO CHANGE IN JAPAN'S POSITION

Japan's top government spokesman Yasuo Fukuda said Korea's retaliatory measures were regrettable, but his government had no plan to change its position on the textbook issue.

``I think it is regrettable that such decision was made,'' Fukuda told a news conference. ``We would like to hold talks to promote exchanges.''

``The only way is to continue asking South Korea to understand our screening system,'' Fukuda said. ``There is nothing more we can do but to explain.''

Seoul's defense ministry said it would maintain some military contacts with Japan, such as education exchanges for senior-level officers.

``Further retaliatory measures will be taken depending on how the situation on textbooks develops,'' said a ministry spokesman.

Yonhap said public rallies were held around South Korea against the textbook.

It said in the southern city of Kimje protesters burned effigies of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Japanese emperor Akihito.

President Kim Dae-jung, winner of last year's Nobel Peace Prize, expressed shock earlier this week at Tokyo's refusal to adopt many of South Korea's suggested amendments to the book.

Japan said on Monday it would make just two of 35 revisions Seoul had demanded, rebuffing calls to amend passages on Japan's past imperialism, including its occupation of the Korean peninsula from 1910 to 1945.

Seoul has also bristled at the omission of the plight of over 100,000 women, most of them Korean, forced to provide sex to Japanese troops during World War Two.

The textbook has touched off anti-Japanese demonstrations in Seoul and calls by civic groups for a boycott of Japanese goods.

Korea and Japan have worked to improve their long-strained relations in recent years and are set to co-host soccer's 2002 World Cup finals.

(additional reporting by Kazunori Takada in Tokyo)

----

Nationalists on Taiwan Try to Regroup

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By MARK LANDLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/international/12TAIW.html

TAIPEI, Taiwan, July 7 - When Taiwan's Nationalist Party was swept out of the presidency last year after 55 years, its leaders spent months in the political wilderness licking their wounds and falling out among themselves about who should take the blame for the defeat.

Now the party of Chiang Kai-shek is regrouping. In a bid to reclaim its place at the center of politics, the Nationalists have floated a new proposal about how to break the deadlock with China.

Rather than declare its independence or bow to unification, the party says, Taiwan should form a confederation with China. Each side would keep control over domestic and diplomatic affairs, including the military. But they would live under "the same roof." The two could then hammer out a more formal integration.

"The government has not proposed any new directions," the chairman of the Nationalists, Lien Chan, said in an interview. "So we see this as one of the choices. It is not the only option, but it is an option."

Mr. Lien, who was defeated in the presidential election by an opposition leader, Chen Shui-bian, said the proposal steered a middle course between Mr. Chen's party, which formally endorses independence, and pro-unification factions, which have gained some popular support here in recent months.

"The KMT is a centrist party," Mr. Lien said, using the initials for its Chinese name, Kuomintang. "We are based on the status quo."

Experts say that far from anchoring the political debate, the proposal could inject a combustible new element into it. In proposing a confederation, the party has clearly rejected the policy of its former leader and Taiwan's retired president, Lee Teng-hui.

Mr. Lee had called for Taiwan to negotiate with China on a "special state-to-state" basis, a formula that outraged China's leaders because, they said, it suggested that Taiwan was veering toward independence.

China views Taiwan as a breakaway province that has to be unified with the mainland. Its preferred solution is not confederation, but "one country, two systems," the arrangement under which it took control of Hong Kong, the former British colony, in 1997.

"Nobody talks about `special state to state' anymore," said Su Chi, a former chairman of the Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council, who drafted the Nationalists' confederation proposal.

Mr. Su said his proposal would be debated at the party's annual congress on July 29 and 30. If approved, it would become part of the Nationalist platform to be used by candidates who are running in legislative elections in December.

By spurning Mr. Lee's policy, the Nationalists may have driven him into the arms of their longtime rival, Mr. Chen. Mr. Lee, 78, has thrown his support behind the president and given his tacit endorsement to a new party that will ally with Mr. Chen's Democratic Progressive Party.

"Increasingly, people on this island have become polarized on the issue of how we approach our gigantic neighbor," said Chu Yun-han, a professor of political science at National Taiwan University.

On one side are those, like Mr. Chen and Mr. Lee, who favor keeping distance from China. On the other side are those, like the Nationalists, who believe that some type of integration is inevitable.

The Nationalists are quite likely to be joined by Taiwan's other power broker, James Soong, who finished second in the presidential race, ahead of Mr. Lien. Mr. Soong, who defected from the Nationalists after clashing with Mr. Lee, says he generally agrees with his old party on China policy.

"I certainly don't believe in the old saying, `Better red than dead,' " Mr. Soong said in an interview. "But we should not advocate hostility toward China across the Taiwan Strait."

Mr. Soong, who has formed his own People First Party, is not yet talking about merging his forces with the Nationalists. But the parties are jointly backing candidates in some provincial races.

For the Nationalists, the thornier challenge will be convincing people here that the confederation proposal will not put Taiwan on a slippery slope toward unification. Mr. Su noted that some confederations, like that of Egypt and Syria in the late 1950's, collapsed. Others, like the German confederation in the early 19th century, ended up as a unified empire.

-------- arms sales

Britain Takes Issue with U.S. on Gun Lobbies

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-un.html

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Britain gingerly took issue with the United States on Thursday, warning that a U.N. conference to curb small arms should not be ``blown off course'' by gun lobbying groups.

Saying the devastation wrought by small arms and light weapons was one of the ``greatest humanitarian challenges,'' of the day, Ben Bradshaw, the Foreign Office's undersecretary of state, called on the conference to take ``real and decisive action'' without giving specifics.

John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, laid down the gauntlet on the opening day of the conference on Monday, rejecting key provisions of a draft document that is to end the two-week meeting on curbing small arms and light weapons.

He said some draft measures were ``contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms'' and criticized any constraint on legal trade and arms manufacturers.

In response, Bradshaw said the purpose of the conference was not to interfere with domestic laws but to cut down on the more than 500 million light weapons in the world that have caused devastation in conflict zones.

``We should not allow ourselves to be blown off course by unfounded fears spread by powerful lobbying organizations,'' he said, referring to the U.S. National Rifle Association, a major supporter of the Bush administration.

Bradshaw said Britain would donate a minimum of 19.5 million pounds, or more than $27.3 million, over the next three years to U.N. agencies and other disarmament organizations seeking to combat the flow of small arms.

LEGALLY BINDING CONVENTION

The European Union wants the conference to take steps toward a legally binding convention to control trafficking in small arms and light weapons as well as have a follow-up conference in five years. The United States objects to both measures and Bradshaw did not mention them.

He said he would be speaking to Bolton about the conference because ``we think it is more constructive to speak about what they can support.''

But he also criticized to reporters a U.S. trend to stand alone on major international issues, including the small arms conference and the Kyoto pact on global warming.

``If I were a congressman I would be concerned about how my country was seen abroad,'' he said.

A senior U.S. official, briefing reporters, denied as ''disinformation'' allegations the United States would walk out of the conference if it did not get its way.

``We don't intend to walk. We intend to stay and negotiate constructively and in the hope that we can have a consensus document outcome which everybody can accept which will have a practical and real effect in beginning to address this serious problem,'' said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The United Nations defines small arms as revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, light machine guns, heavy machine guns, mortars, hand grenades, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns and portable missile launchers.

The senior U.S. official predicted the conference would not be able to agree on a definition and said the question would probably be left to individual governments to decide.

-------- balkans

Albania could help resolve crisis in Macedonia, says NATO chief

July 12
AFP
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/010712/1/197ao.html

TIRANA, NATO Secretary General George Robertson said Thursday that Albania could help resolve the crisis in Macedonia by preventing cross-border incursions by militants.

Albanian authorities must "ensure that those who are exporting violence are stoppped from doing so," Robertson said at the end of a brief visit to Tirana accompanied by ambassadors from all 19 NATO member states.

He said Tirana must make clear that "a sustainable political solution is the only answer."

Macedonian authorities have repeatedly charged that militants have crossed into the west of the country from Albania to recruit members for the so-called National Liberation Army, an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group fighting Macedonian government forces since February.

Albanian Prime Minister Ilir Mehta, who accompanied Robertson to the airport, said his country shares "the position that both sides have to be reasonable."

The NATO delegation was scheduled to travel to Sarajevo later Thursday on a two-day visit to the region.

The trip comes as NATO awaits the results of an inter-ethnic political dialogue in Skopje before deploying a brigade in Macedonia to disarm ethnic Albanian rebels.

Referring to the possible NATO disarmament operation, Robertson said: "I know that Albania is more than willing to give help for logistics."

-------- biological weapons

U.S. Grapples with Biological Weapons Compliance Protocol

July 12, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2001/2001L-07-12-01.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The U.S. State Department's special negotiator for chemical and biological arms control says the Bush administration has "serious substantive concerns" with the existing text of a proposed protocol to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention.

The 1975 treaty, which bans the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxic weapons, lacks a mechanism to check suspected violations.

Diplomats have been negotiating for six years on the Compliance Protocol that would tighten control on exports of biological weapons technology and establish the means to verify that countries are in compliance with the treaty. They hope to conclude the protocol by November.

Under the administration of former President Bill Clinton, the U.S. supported the Compliance Protocol.

Testifying Tuesday before a subcommittee of the House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform, the negotiator, Ambassador Donald Mahley, said the administration is "grappling with its final decision" with respect to the protocol.

Ambassador Donald Mahley is the U.S. State Department special negotiator for chemical and biological arms control. (Photo courtesy U.S. State Department)

The 52 countries that are Parties to the BWC and three signatory States to the Convention are taking part in the work of the Ad Hoc Group negotiating the Compliance Protocol.

Within the Ad Hoc Group, the United States is part of the so-called Australia Group, set up under an Australian initiative, which now consists of 32 signatory countries, including the European Union and Japan.

China, Iran, Cuba, Indonesia and five other countries called for disbanding the Australia Group at a negotiating session in May, Japan's Kyodo News Service reported.

Mahley told the subcommittee that the U.S. already has in place a strong biodefense program "to protect both our armed forces and our population from rogue states and terrorists."

A dozen countries in the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia are believed to possess such weapons, or to be actively seeking them.

In what Mahley said was an effort to clarify inferences that could be drawn from recent press coverage of the issue, he stressed that the United States "is not thinking about withdrawing its support from the Biological Weapons Convention."

Researcher investigates infectious bacteria. (Photo courtesy New York State Dept. of Health)

These negotiations are only open to countries that are parties to the convention, "states that have already forsworn biological weapons completely," Mahley reminded the committee. "The mandate for the protocol negotiations specifically prohibits any result from modifying, reducing, or altering the basic obligations of the convention itself," he said.

Mahley said the U.S. does not view the protocol negotiations as a discussion of trade access but of national security. "We are not prepared to undermine, weaken, or otherwise compromise our overall approach to countering proliferation of biological weapons capability through any protocol," he said.

Malhey also expressed the concerns of U.S. biotech companies about sharing their proprietary information that the protocol's text, proposed by Ad Hoc Group Chairman Ambassador Tibor Toth of Hungary, does not fully satisfy.

Some concerns relate to the "enormous" costs of research and development that U.S. companies invested. They now want to reap the economic benefits without "unfair competition." Mahley said.

But security and defense concerns are at the core of U.S. objections to the protocol. Providing information about the U.S. biodefense program in an unclassified format to an international organization under the guise of "transparency" runs the risk of providing a proliferator or terrorist with a roadmap to exploit our vulnerabilities, Mahley told the committee.

The Bush administration's opposition to this protocol has put the United States at odds with its allies in Europe, widening the divide opened by U.S. rejection in March of another protocol, the Kyoto Protocol to limit global warming.

The European Parliament passed a resolution June 14 expressing "concern" that the U.S. policy review of the Compliance Protocol has recommended that the U.S. government reject the current draft compromise proposal.

A Conservative at his in the UK, Member of the European Parliament Bill Newton Dunn represents the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, the third largest EU parliamentary group. (Photo courtesy European Parliament)

MEP Bill Newton Dunn of the United Kingdom, noted the "very alarming signals" that the new U.S. administration is "backing off and is unwilling to support the terms that have been negotiated to date, including by its own predecessors."

"If that is the case, and if there is not final agreement on containing biological and toxic weapons," he asked, "what kind of message will it send out to what President Bush calls the 'rogue' states of the world?"

A history of Compliance Protocol negotiations is online at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/bwc/news/

U.S. position in depth is available at: http://www.fas.org/bwc/news.htm

A comprehensive list of biological weapons links is at: http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/garryfavwebbw.html

-------- colombia

A Fatal Battle Worsens in Colombia: The War on Journalists

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By JUAN FORERO
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/international/12COLO.html

BOGOTÁ, Colombia, July 11 - Óscar Vásquez had warned his brother, the news director of a radio station in a violent town, Florencia, to tone down his reporting. But the newscaster, José Dubiel Vásquez, continued disseminating news about local corruption and the conflict between rebels and paramilitary groups.

On Friday, Mr. Vásquez paid the price, colleagues and relatives said. As he drove home with a fellow reporter after the morning broadcast, a gunman stepped up to Mr. Vásquez's car and shot three bullets into his head. He died immediately, becoming the second news director from Caracól Radio to be gunned down since December.

Mr. Vásquez was the sixth Colombian journalist slain this year. One was shot to death two days later, the fourth in 12 days, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York. In all of last year, seven journalists were killed, at least three as reprisals for their work, the committee said.

"I would say, `Man, do not denounce so many things,' " Óscar Vásquez said. "This place does not place any value on life. But he would say: `This is journalism. You have to criticize. You have to denounce the criminals and the crisis.' "

Colombia has long been one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. In the drug kingpins' reign of terror in the late 1980's, journalists were frequently killed; a major newspaper was bombed, shocking even this country.

Nowadays, journalists' killings receive little attention. But the journalists' committee said that with 34 slayings in the last decade, Colombia is by far the most dangerous country in Latin America for journalists. Worldwide, Russia and Algeria have recorded more killings.

Press freedoms are being attacked as Colombia suffers a wave of political violence. Armed groups - mostly right-wing death squads, rights groups say - focus on labor advocates, professors, student leaders and human rights workers.

"The parties in the conflict care a great deal about how they are portrayed in the media," said Marylene Smeets, who overseas the committee's research in Latin America. "So the parties in the conflict are willing to force journalists to spread their word. They are also punishing those journalists who don't give out the message they would like to give out."

Many of those killed here in distant provincial towns, where the state presence is weak and criminal networks rule. Florencia lies outside a rebel-held zone in the south and is the base for right-wing paramilitary gunmen.

"We can't expect to be far from the conflict when we're in a hot zone like Florencia," said Freddy Díaz, who worked with Mr. Vásquez. "Because this is a small city, everyone knows who the journalists are, where they live, where they work."

Although rights groups say paramilitary groups are most responsible for the journalists' deaths, the rebels have also killed reporters. Yet in most of the killings, as in Mr. Vásquez's case it remains unclear exactly who is responsible.

A decade ago, Ms. Smeets noted, drug cartels were most responsible for killing reporters. Now, she said, "it's much harder to point a finger."

José Vásquez had reported on municipal bribery and irregularities in the provincial government. "He was a person who was born for journalism," his brother said. José Vásquez, 47, is survived by his wife and three children.

-------- indonesia

Jakarta arms Aceh militias as toll soars

By Lindsay Murdoch,
Sydney Morning Herald Correspondent in Jakarta,
July 12, 2001
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0107/12/world/world3.html

Indonesia has started forming East Timor-style militias in oil- and gas- rich Aceh, where scores of civilians are being murdered under the cover of a brutal crackdown against separatist rebels, say Acehnese leaders and human rights workers.

The death toll in the province at the tip of Sumatra has soared to 848 this year, most of them since the launching in April of a Jakarta-sanctioned military operation to crush the Free Aceh Movement (GAM).

A top Acehnese leader, Mr Hasballah Saad, yesterday appealed to Jakarta to order the military to stop attacking civilians and to allow international observers to monitor the conflict.

"Grave injustices are being committed," Mr Hasballah told the Herald. "The violence is only turning the Acehnese further away from Jakarta's rule. The people are being radicalised."

Mr Hasballah said that of the 848 deaths he had confirmed this year, more than 460 of them were neither members of the security forces nor GAM fighters.

"Many are women and children," he said. "There are sinister forces at work ... we don't know who is doing most of the killing. So international observers should be allowed to go there to monitor the situation."

Human rights activists in the provincial capital, Banda Aceh, say the extent of the violence over the past several weeks is largely unknown because the security forces are intimidating journalists and human rights workers to stop them going to many rural areas.

Mr Mohammad Nazar, the head of the Aceh Referendum Information Centre, said the military killings were worse than ever before. "We cannot investigate and the local journalists are too intimidated ... but we know massacres are being committed on a horrific scale," he said.

In one of the latest incidents, 16 people were burned to death when a hand grenade was thrown into a small hut. Military spokesmen claimed all of the victims were GAM members. GAM denied the claim, saying only four were fighters and that the rest were innocent civilians.

Up to 40 bodies were found several days ago in one remote gorge.

The dead have included babies, school children, school teachers, civil servants, rebels, soldiers and police, human rights activists say.

With Indonesia's President, Mr Abdurrahman Wahid, embroiled in a political crisis that threatens to plunge the country into crisis, the escalating violence in Aceh has received little media coverage in Jakarta and has prompted virtually no public debate.

When his cabinet approved a battalion of about 800 specially trained troops to be sent to Aceh in April, Mr Wahid claimed they would only be involved in a limited operation to protect so-called vital installations such as the ExxonMobil gas fields.

But within days troops started attacking villages suspected of harbouring GAM rebels, human rights activists say.

Several weeks ago, a further 300 troops from the elite Kopassus special forces were sent to the province, bringing to about 30,000 the number of armed troops and police stationed there.

Kopassus troops trained and armed the militias that rampaged through East Timor in 1999.

Reports from central Aceh say the training and arming of pro-Jakarta militias by Indonesian security forces has alarmed locals.

The squads are being formed in an area dominated by an estimated 260,000 Javanese settlers, many of whom arrived in the province under a government trans-migration program.

Tempo magazine this week quotes a military spokesman as confirming the formation of the militia, saying it was part of a long-established civilian home defence force.

-------- israel

Israelis Debate West Bank Invasion

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Winds-of-War.html

JERUSALEM (AP) -- After months of violence, Israelis are now openly debating the possibility of a military invasion of the West Bank and Gaza aimed at crushing the Palestinian Authority and ending the rule of Yasser Arafat.

Military and political officials confirm the army has readied plans for stepping up the use of force -- but the cost in lives and the possibility of a wider regional conflict clearly are giving the government pause in going all-out.

``The army has plans to cover all the possibilities, but what counts is the Cabinet decisions,'' said Raanan Gissin, spokesman of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

``There are three options: surrender to Arafat, to go ahead with this plan -- to occupy -- or to continue the current course of restraint and self-defense. The government has said it's committed to peace but this situation can't last forever.''

One military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a large-scale attack was about to be launched June 2 -- the day after a suicide bomber killed 21 young people outside a Tel Aviv disco -- but it was put off by Arafat's announcement, under intense European pressure, of a cease-fire.

Talk of a massive assault has since intensified as Israelis have grown increasingly exasperated with the failure of a cease-fire to take hold. Mortar attacks and even bombings inside Israel continue, and Jewish settlers are targeted in near-daily shootings.

The Israeli media has taken to treating the possibility of a serious escalation -- even a reoccupation of the West Bank and perhaps Gaza -- as something of an inevitability, set to be triggered by the next major terrorist attack.

``An unusual consensus has taken hold (and) all roads are leading to a catastrophe,'' wrote Chemi Shalev in the Maariv daily. ``A few days after the war breaks out, suddenly everyone will remember how horrible war is ... when it will be too late.''

Palestinian Planning Minister Nabil Shaath said Sharon -- currently visiting Italy -- presented far-reaching plans to American and European leaders.

``I know that both President Bush and (French President Jacques) Chirac spoke very clearly to Sharon about this issue and warned him against the great dangers of such a policy,'' he told The Associated Press. ``One has to take this seriously because other threats have been carried out.''

Commentator Haim Hanegbi warned Israel's leaders that if they ordered an invasion they could eventually face the same fate as Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president now facing a war crimes trial in The Hague.

But Communications Minister Reuven Rivlin told AP that continued attacks ``will not leave Israel any alternatives. I have no doubt the prime minister wants to avoid a war as much as possible ... but if Arafat forces us to go to war, we will go to war.''

The Yesha Council representing the 200,000 Jewish settlers, a key source of support for Sharon, issued a statement Thursday calling on the prime minister to wait no longer and ``order the army to ... distance Arafat from the region and dismantle the Palestinian Authority, the largest terrorist organization in the world.''

Industry Minister Dalia Itzik, a member of the moderate Labor Party, warned that such pressure from Sharon's political base might have an effect.

``The scent of war is in the air,'' she said. ``It is as if it is an unimportant matter, as though at the end of this war we won't be burying our dead. Apparently nobody has learned from history. I very much hope that the prime minister will withstand this pressure.''

A top military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AP that one plan proposed by the army was to move into Palestinian areas and arrest the dozens of militants who are behind the violence -- then move out and leave Arafat's regime in place.

But Israeli and foreign media have been rife with detailed reports about more far-reaching proposals as well.

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres on Thursday denied a report in the British journal Foreign Report, which said the Israeli military submitted a plan to the Cabinet to send 30,000 troops into the Palestinian areas, if another large-scale Palestinian terror attack takes place.

Under the reported plan, the Israeli troops would seek to destroy the installations of the Palestinian Authority, disarm the Palestinians and cause the flight of the entire leadership, including Arafat.

Analysts agree that under such a scenario hundreds of Israelis and probably thousands of Palestinians would be killed.

But Gerald Steinberg, director of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies, said that some rhetoric was intended just for effect.

``One of the reasons that you talk about plans is to send out a warning, not just to Arafat but also to the international community to sit on Arafat not to allow this level of violence,'' he said.

``There are still a lot of lesser steps Sharon could take. I would be very surprised if (the invasion plan) was adopted.''

----

Israeli War Plan Revealed
Would Involve 30,000 Troops; Israeli Officials Deny Plan Exists

July 12, 2001
CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,301038-412,00.shtml

JERUSALEM, Israeli generals are planning for a possible massive invasion of Palestinian territories if the current Mideast cease-fire fails, says a published report denied by Israeli officials.

The report, published by the Jane's Information Group in London, says the goal of the action would be to destroy Palestinian armed forces and the Palestinian Authority, forcing Chairman Yasser Arafat back into exile, as he was for 12 years after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

The plan calls for air strikes by F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers, a heavy artillery bombardment, and then an attack by a combined force of 30,000 men, including paratroopers, tank brigades and infantry, reports CBS News Correspondent David Hawkins.

Israel's Arab neighbors, Syria, Jordan and Egypt are expected to stay out of the fight - but the report considers the possibility that Iraq might try to intervene with troops, who would be destroyed by the Israeli airforce. It also states that Egypt could invade the Sinai peninsula, forcing Israel to call up its reserves.

The report indicates that Israel expects up to 300 of its troops to die in such an attack, with Palestinian deaths in the thousands.

The report says the Israeli invasion plan would be launched after another suicide bomb attack which causes a large number of deaths, like the one at a Tel Aviv disco last month.

"That there is an Israeli contingency plan to re-occupy the Palestinian areas comes as no surprise at all," said Francis Tusa, a defense analyst. "That it is being pushed up the list and that it's a leading option - this is coming as a bit more of a surprise and a worrying one."

The Jane's report indicates that the plan was presented to the Israeli cabinet on July 9. It reflects a possible change in thinking in the current government; earlier governments rejected a military solution to the Middle East dispute.

But Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dismissed the rumors of war Thursday, saying he has no plans to escalate the conflict.

"There is no imminent danger of war ... I also don't see either a deterioration or escalation but I definitely see a situation in which terrorism continues," Sharon told reporters on his plane en route to his first official visit to Italy.

"People in the military get paid to make plans all the time," cautioned Hirsch Goodman, an Israeli military analyst. "There are plans and there are plans."

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said no such plan was ever submitted or discussed. "I'm so happy to see that such an important journal has such a fertile imagination. It simply didn't happen," he told Israeli army radio.

Four Jewish settlers, including a baby, were wounded in shootings Thursday, reports CBS News Correspondent Robert Berger.

In response, Israeli tanks shelled Palestinian targets in Nablus, killing a Palestinian policeman. More than 10 tank shells exploded within seconds of each other, sending white smoke into the air over Nablus.

An Israeli military official said soldiers took over a hill overlooking Nablus. The incursion is one of only a few such incidents - which anger Palestinians - since Israel and the Palestinians adopted a U.S.-brokered truce on June 13.

Learn more about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Late Thursday, a heavy exchange of fire broke out in Hebron between Palestinians and the Israeli military, after two Israelis were seriously wounded in a Palestinian gunfire attack. Witnesses said Israeli tanks shelled Palestinian buildings, setting one on fire.

Overall at least 480 Palestinians, 124 Israelis and 13 Israeli Arabs have been killed since a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza erupted last September after peace talks stalled.

A meeting of Israeli and Palestinian security officials assessing the implementation of the U.S.-brokered cease-fire broke up late Wednesday amid bitter recriminations.

Palestinian officials complained of what they said were serious Israeli truce violations, including the killing of a Palestinian woman near an Israeli checkpoint Wednesday, and the demolition of Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem this week.

-------- russia

Russia Issues List of Closed Cities

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-Closed-Cities.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- Formalizing restrictions that date back to Soviet times, the Russian government has issued a list of about 90 cities, towns and villages that are normally closed to outsiders for security reasons.

The order, signed by Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, was published in the government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta on Wednesday. Kasyanov said the order was intended to officially establish the names of the settlements.

The list includes the nuclear centers of Zheleznogorsk in Siberia and Snezhinsk in the Ural Mountains, the chemical center in Shikhany in the Volga River region, and the Arctic naval bases of Polyarny, Severomorsk and Vidyayevo.

All the sites on the list have been closed to visitors since Soviet times. But in the Soviet era, their residents often enjoyed high wages and other government privileges; now many are struggling for survival, with diminished government subsidies since the 1991 Soviet collapse.

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

Navy Drops Padre Island for Bombings

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Padre-Island-Bombing.html

PADRE ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE, Texas (AP) -- The Navy removed Padre Island from a list of potential warfare training sites to replace controversial Vieques Island, a spokesman said.

The Navy instead will focus its search on sites that already have training facilities because it needs to end bombing at Vieques by 2003, Capt. Kevin Wensing said.

The news heartened environmentalists, who opposed the training because it would have taken over 20 miles of national seashore that is a haven for a host of endangered species.

``I'm delighted, but because they did the original planning in total secrecy, I'm not sure I accept what they're saying as the final word,'' said Pat Suter, chairwoman of the Coastal Bend Sierra Club.

Gov. Rick Perry had also said he was ``deeply troubled'' by the potential for environmental damage to the world's longest undeveloped barrier island.

The island's white sand beaches, interior grasslands and ephemeral ponds are home to protected species like Kemp's Ridley sea turtles, piping plovers and redhead ducks. Tourists come for sunbathing, wind surfing and fishing, but even a tire tread on a dune can draw a $5,000 fine.

The Navy now uses Vieques for training that includes ship maneuvers, amphibious landings and anti-mining procedures.

Residents have protested the shelling and complained about health damage, especially since a civilian security guard was killed in 1999, and President Bush has pledged to end shelling there by May 2003.

--------

Air Force Seeks Combat Gear

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/news/AP-Combat-Gear.html

DAYTON, Ohio (AP) -- Terri Bise didn't hesitate after hearing the Air Force needed uniforms and equipment from the Korean and Vietnam wars to help identify the remains of missing U.S. soldiers.

She promptly donated a pair of fatigues worn by her husband, a 26-year Air Force veteran who served in a medical unit in both wars and died a year ago.

``During the Vietnam War, he was really interested in identifying the MIAs,'' said Bise, 65. ``I know my husband would have really appreciated me doing this for him. It's an honor for me.''

It is the first time the Air Force clothing office, based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, has asked for such donations from the public.

The items that are collected at Air Force bases will be compared with clothing and equipment found at aircraft crash sites in Vietnam and Korea to help in investigations of U.S. soldiers missing in action. Matches can help date a crash and determine if Americans were among the victims.

``This stuff is so rare it's unbelievably hard to find,'' said Elton Hudgins, chief of the Life Sciences Laboratory at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, where MIA material is examined.

The lab especially needs helmets, flight suits, survival vests, gloves and boots.

Hudgins said the Air Force did not keep the gear because the material is continually updated and officials did not know it might eventually be needed. Flight suits, for example, have been modified at least 30 times since 1966, he said.

Hudgins said the idea for the public appeal came after several veterans offered to donate their clothing when they realized it could help in MIA investigations.

Clothing and equipment found at the site can help show what happened -- whether the victims were injured in the crash or there was an explosion, for example, Hudgins said.

When remains cannot be found, the clothing and equipment can be used to build a circumstantial case of what probably happened.

``In a lot of cases, this is the only closure a family will have,'' Hudgins said.

-------- OTHER

-------- energy

Senate Vote Further Limits Bush Drilling Options in Monuments

New York Times
July 12, 2001
By DOUGLAS JEHL
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/politics/12DRIL.html

WASHINGTON, July 11 - In a new limit on the White House's energy options, the Senate today approved a measure barring the Bush administration from developing new sites to extract oil, gas or coal in lands designated as national monuments.

The vote, on an amendment to an Interior Department appropriations bill, followed a similar prohibition passed by the House last month and effectively kills for at least the next year any chance that the administration could authorize energy development in the monuments.

As part of its energy plan, the administration had argued that the monuments should not be excluded from efforts to identify public lands that should be candidates for exploration. But neither the White House nor the Interior Department had specifically advocated energy development in the monuments. And administration officials suggested tonight that, even before the vote, such a plan was not high on their agenda.

The measure, sponsored by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, passed on a voice vote after an effort to squelch it was defeated.

"Our national monuments are treasures that should not be exploited for oil and gas that would add very little to our national energy resources," Senator Durbin said.

Still, some Western Republicans had fought hard to block the measure, regarding it as a culminating blow to those delivered by President Bill Clinton, who put millions of acres of Western land off limits to development by designating more than 20 national monuments.

Most of those designations were made in Mr. Clinton's final weeks in office, and many were made without support from state and local officials. Many Republicans had argued that the new administration should at least preserve the option to allow energy development in new monuments like the Missouri Breaks in Montana and the Grand Staircase Escalante in Utah, where Interior Department studies have shown that there may be significant energy reserves.

Senator Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, warned that the congressional measure would "enshrine" what he called the Clinton administration's process of "cramming it down the people's throats without any opportunity for comment and then declaring that it is forever and ever inviolate."

But in the House and the Senate, majorities in recent weeks have shown decided support for pre-emptive action, at least in erecting obstacles to energy development on some sensitive lands and in offshore areas.

A measure passed by the House, with strong Republican support, to impose a six-month moratorium on energy exploration off the Florida coast was followed last week by a major scaling back of the administration's plans for that area. The administration now hopes to drill in an area one-fourth the size it had originally planned.

In the case of the monuments, the interior secretary, Gale A. Norton, has said she would not seek to reverse the designations made by Mr. Clinton. But Ms. Norton has left open the possibility of shrinking their boundaries and permitting mining, energy exploration and other activities that the Clinton administration had intended to prohibit.

Tonight an Interior Department spokesman, Mark Pfeifle, called the new measure unnecessary.

"We're somewhat puzzled and bewildered why the legislation would be proposed, since there is nothing in the president's energy policy calling for new energy exploration in the monuments," Mr. Pfeifle said.

-------- environment

Washington DC Landlord Lied About Lead Paint Hazards

By Cat Lazaroff
July 12, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2001/2001L-07-12-06.html

WASHINGTON, DC, A Washington, DC area landlord has pleaded guilty to obstructing justice and making false statements to federal officials, in order to conceal his failure to notify tenants of the presence and hazards associated with lead based paint. The case is the first ever criminal prosecution in the United States related to lead hazard warnings that are required by the federal Lead Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.

David Nuyen of Silver Spring, Maryland, admitted to the charges in a plea agreement filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. Nuyen will serve two years in prison under the terms of the agreement, if it is approved by the court.

As part of the agreement, Nuyen also will provide all tenants with new notices about actual and potential lead hazards, and he will retain an independent contractor to assess lead paint hazards and develop a lead abatement plan for his properties. Nuyen is subject to a maximum $250,000 criminal fine for each of the six felony counts to which he is pleading. Sentencing is set for November 19, 2001.

Flaking paint from older buildings may expose residents to toxic lead (Photo courtesy of the Medical University of South Carolina)

Nuyen has owned and managed 15 low income rental properties in the District of Columbia and Maryland. According to a statement signed by Nuyen, he was notified by District of Columbia lead inspectors that children living in one of his buildings had lead poisoning, pointing to a real lead paint hazard.

However, Nuyen failed to provide his tenants with notice about actual and potential lead hazards before they signed leases.

"The dangers of lead poisoning have been known for years, but too many children continue to be exposed to lead hazards," said John Cruden, the acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's Environment Division. "We will vigorously enforce the federal lead disclosure requirements to protect the public and our children from these unnecessary health risks."

Nuyen had attended classes on the Lead Hazard Reduction Act in 1997 and 1998, a requirement for being a licensed real estate broker in Maryland and Virginia. The Act, which became effective in 1996, requires landlords to give tenants a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pamphlet about how to minimize the dangers to children, and it directs landlords to document their compliance with the law by keeping tenants' signatures on file, using a standard disclosure form.

In September 1998, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contacted Nuyen as part of a federal initiative to enforce the Lead Hazard Reduction Act. Nuyen had no lead paint disclosure forms at that time, but he arranged a subsequent meeting with HUD officials, in November 1998, in which he presented the agency with false and backdated forms.

Nuyen admitted that he "sought to obstruct" the HUD investigation by backdating his signature, backdating tenant signatures, and directing tenants to backdate forms by entering the date they moved into their apartments, rather than the date they were actually warned about health risks, which was years after their move in dates. In some cases, the tenant signatures were forged by Nuyen's resident property managers.

In addition to the obstruction of justice and false statements charges, Nuyen pleaded guilty to charges that he failed to provide the required lead hazard pamphlet and lead paint disclosure form. He also pleading guilty to a charge that he made false statements in connection with an investigation of alleged mortgage fraud.

Lead poisoning is a major health risk for young children. Although ingesting lead is hazardous to all humans, children under six years of age are at the greatest risk of lead poisoning because their bodies are still developing and because ordinary play may bring them into frequent contact with lead in paint chips, dust and soil.

Lead affects almost every system of the body, and it can impair a child's central nervous system, kidneys, and bone marrow. At high levels, lead exposure can cause coma, convulsions and death. Lead poisoni