------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Pakistan builds missile sites
Moscow demands new arms treaty with US
U.S., Russians to Start Nuclear Arms Cuts Talks
Hazardous Waste Treaty Gets a Makeover
US NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH
How Politics Helped Redefine Threat
Another Rumsfeld Bomb
HATCH NUCLEAR OPERATIONS APPROVED FOR 20 MORE YEARS
HOW SHOULD CONGRESS RESPOND WHEN THE PRESIDENT ACTS ALONE?

MILITARY
War Wrap: Latest news at a glance
Civilians flee US bombing raids on terrorist hideout
Warlords seizing food aid
Kabul Takes Steps Toward Disarming Afghan Population
U.S. Urges Israel to Defer Arms to India
Medical experts study ways to counteract bioterror
Gov't. Considers Bioterror Defense
Expert Calls Smallpox 'Real Threat'
Colombian Rebels Quitting Safe Havens as Peace Talks Fail
Afghan heroin traffic resumes
EU force lacks firepower
Haiti: How nation-building has gone awry
India Welcomes Pakistani Steps, but Stays Alert
Indian Defense Minister Takes Harsher Tone on Pakistan Plan
Arabs in Iraq Rally for Palestinians
Israeli Army Faces Storm for Attack on Arab Houses
NATO lecture
Pakistani Cleric Warns of Islamic Revolution
How convenient
Syria Repackages Its Repression of Muslim Militants as Antiterror Lesson
Military Looks to Cut Patrols in US
U.S. Planes Bomb Suspected Hide-Outs

POLICE / PRISONERS
Afghan judge blasts prisoner move to Cuba
Televising a terrorist's trial
Items Found From Trail of Terrorism
U.S. seeks al Qaeda link to Iraq

ENERGY AND OTHER
World's Largest Offshore Wind Farm Approved for Irish Sea
TUNGSTEN HEXAFLUORIDE
Doctors ignoring infection guidelines

ACTIVISTS
Military School Protesters Freed
Redford announces documentary fund
Fur for the homeless
Military School Protesters Freed
Chinese Activist Gets Four Years
Greenpeacers Nabbed Protesting Turkish Shipbreaking



-------- NUCLEAR

-------- india / pakistan

Pakistan builds missile sites

January 14, 2002
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020114-17394992.htm

Pakistan is constructing missile-launch sites near its border with India and recently moved a number of missiles toward the area, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Ninety percent of India's military forces are now deployed outside of peace-time garrisons in preparation for conflict, officials told The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity.

The military activities are one reason U.S. intelligence officials believe tensions between the two nuclear-armed South Asian nations have reached dangerous levels.

As a sign of the concern, President Bush yesterday asked leaders of India and Pakistan to try to ease tensions.

"Both leaders agreed to continue to work to reduce tensions," Sean McCormack, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said of Mr. Bush's telephone calls to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

Mr. Bush thanked Mr. Musharraf for his speech Saturday, in which he pledged to ensure his country would not be used as a base for terrorism and to crack down on Muslim extremists.

In his conversation with Mr. Vajpayee, Mr. Bush discussed Mr. Musharraf's speech, but Mr. McCormack declined to give any further information.

Speaking a few hours before details of the telephone calls were made public, Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh said Pakistan had to clamp down on Islamic militants before New Delhi would end its massive military buildup.

"Let there be no further infiltration or cross-border terrorism," Mr. Singh told a news conference. "We have to go not by the stated intent, but by the action on the ground."

The current crisis began after the Dec. 13 terrorist attack on India's Parliament that killed 14 persons, including the suicide attackers. India's government said it had intelligence information indicating that Pakistan-based terrorists were behind the attack.

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said the current standoff is worrisome. "President Musharraf's speech improved the situation, but it's still an incredibly dangerous situation," Mr. McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"Now he is going to have to back it up by cracking down on these terrorist organizations," he said.

Close to 1 million men are massed on either side of the border, and tensions remain high over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.

The missile construction in Pakistan is believed to be for short-range M-11s, known in the military as Hatf missiles, which U.S. intelligence agencies believe are in the process of being taken out of storage and deployed.

The launch-site construction was described as concrete areas where mobile missile launchers will be stationed, the officials said.

U.S. intelligence agencies have learned that five new missile-launch sites are being built in eastern Pakistan and have identified the exact location of three of the new sites.

Additionally, a convoy of some 95 trucks was spotted at a missile-storage facility at Sargodha, Pakistan, about 100 miles south of the capital of Islamabad. The trucks are believed to be for transporting missiles to areas in the northern part of the country, U.S. officials said.

Other intelligence reports indicate that Pakistan is preparing to move additional M-11 missiles from southern Pakistan to areas in the country's northeastern area.

A U.S. intelligence report made public last week said that India has nuclear-tipped missiles that are intended to deter Pakistan's use of nuclear missiles.

India currently has deployed Prithvi short-range ballistic missiles with ranges of about 93 miles. U.S. intelligence detected preparations by Indian forces for the use of the missiles in late December, U.S. officials said.

Pakistan's missile force is made up of several types of systems that are "capable of striking a large number of targets throughout most of India," the intelligence report said.

In addition to M-11s, Pakistan also has a medium-range missile known as the Ghauri that the intelligence report identified as having been "acquired from North Korea."

Pakistan also has Shaheen I short-range missiles and is developing a Shaheen II with a longer range, the report said.

Secretary of State Colin Powell leaves tomorrow for visits to both India and Pakistan in an effort to defuse the tensions.

The tensions peaked during the first two days of this month based on intelligence reports that Indian forces were set to launch an attack on Pakistan by either Jan. 4 or Jan. 5. Since that time, the danger of a war breaking out, while still serious, has stabilized somewhat, according to administration sources.

The administration believes a war is not imminent because of Mr. Powell's visit to the region and this week's visit to the United States by Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes.

Pakistan's president, Gen. Musharraf, said Saturday that the Islamabad government is cracking down on five Muslim extremist groups. The measure was aimed at lowering tensions with India.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters last week the U.S. government is trying to calm the tensions.

"We believe that India and Pakistan must resolve their differences through political and diplomatic means," Mr. Boucher said. "War or military action is not the way to resolve this crisis."

He said the standoff does not appear to be growing worse.

"We have made clear all along it's a very dangerous situation," he said. "So I don't believe there's been any change in our view that the situation is dangerous, that we have military forces in close proximity in potential confrontation."

India's military chief, Gen. Sunderajan Padmanabhan, said on Friday that the country's forces are "fully ready" for conflict.

"Should any nuclear weapons be used against Indian forces the perpetrator of that particular outrage shall be punished, and so severely that their continuation thereafter in any form of fray will be doubtful," Gen. Padmanabhan said, adding that India would not be the first to use nuclear arms.

• This article is based in part on wire-service reports.

-------- russia

Moscow demands new arms treaty with US

FROM MICHAEL BINYON IN MOSCOW,
MONDAY JANUARY 14 2002
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C3-2002021505%2C00.html

RUSSIA is demanding that Washington sign a new arms control framework, and warns America that its hard line on Russia is undermining support for President Putin's pro-Western policies.

Angered by the timing and manner of President Bush's announcement last month of the US withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Moscow is calling for a Russian-American "treaty on mutual security" to replace it.

The Russian delegation arrived in a sour mood in Washington yesterday to begin talks at the State Department today on signing a formal accord with America on deep cuts in missiles and warheads agreed by the Presidents at talks on Mr Bush's Texas ranch.

It wants a legally binding document in place by the time Mr Bush visits Russia, and will also insist that recent White House proposals to store rather than destroy US missiles are unacceptable to Moscow. General Yuri Baluyevsky, heading the delegation, is likely to take a firm line with Douglas Feith, the US Under-Secretary of Defence.

Russia wants the new "treaty on mutual security" to specify the political and military partnership between the two countries, allowing Moscow some of the status of an equal superpower inherent in the ABM treaty. The Americans are likely to show little interest in this proposal, although Washington has talked vaguely about codifying arms cuts with a statement or even a treaty, if there are no tortuous Cold War-style negotiations.

Russia believes that, with the war in Afghanistan all but over, the US is less concerned about keeping Moscow on board. A series of critical remarks about Russian policy have wounded the Kremlin and raised fears that the Administration is reverting to the unilateralism evident before September 11.

In particular, Russia has bristled at the State Department's denunciation last week of "overwhelming force" and human rights violations during recent Russian engagements in Chechnya. It also considered Washington's call for the continued independence of TV6, the last Russian television station not under government control, an attempt to meddle in the legal case surrounding the bankruptcy of the station.

Moscow is also angry that Washington has kept Russia on a blacklist of states with a poor record on the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The list, published by Mr Bush last week, keeps Russia in the third of four categories, imposing tough restrictions on the sale of high technology.

"We would like to hope that, in the light of the new strategic relationship announced by the President of the United States and the President of the Russian Federation, the American Administration would reconsider this discriminatory decision," the Foreign Ministry said in a sharply worded statement.

Russia fears that little has been gained from helping the US in the wake of September 11. It has done much that America wanted, but the ABM treaty has been discarded and the forces of several Nato countries are now on the soil of former Soviet republics.

-------- terrorism

U.S., Russians to Start Nuclear Arms Cuts Talks

January 14, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-arms-russia-usa.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior U.S. and Russian defense officials meet Tuesday to begin planning joint deep cuts in nuclear arms and discuss Moscow's objections to U.S. plans to store unused warheads instead of destroying them.

Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith will hold two days of talks at the Pentagon with a team headed by Russia's first deputy chief of staff, Colonel-General Yuri Baluyevsky.

Both countries have pledged to reduce by about two-thirds their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals of more than 6,000 warheads each over the coming decade. But the Pentagon said last week that some U.S. arms would be shelved for possible emergency redeployment.

The Russian Foreign Ministry quickly urged Washington to fulfill pledges to proceed with real cuts, saying, ``That means strategic nuclear weapons must be cut not only 'on paper.'''

But a senior U.S. diplomat expressed confidence to reporters that a deal would be reached with Russia that could quell fears about the U.S. plans.

``The Russians have fired their opening salvo on the issue but I think we'll be able to wrestle it to the ground,'' the diplomat told reporters Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

BUSH EXPECTED TO VISIT MOSCOW

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov agreed in Brussels last month to begin planning in January on when and how to begin cuts promised by their presidents, including ``predictability and accountability'' on the cuts.

President Bush is expected to visit Russia at mid-year for talks with President Vladimir Putin on the growing strategic, political and financial ties between the two former Cold War enemies.

Bush has vowed to cut the deployed U.S. arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads, while Putin has said he plans cuts to between 1,500 and 2,200.

``The forthcoming Russian-U.S. consultations will focus on drafting of a strategic offensive arms agreement,'' Baluyevsky said Sunday in Russia, Itar-Tass news agency reported.

Baluyevsky said the agreement would be drafted by summer and that parameters of future strategic offensive arms reductions and verification mechanisms would be the main components.

MORE TALKS PLANNED THIS MONTH

Itar-Tass quoted military and diplomatic sources in Moscow as saying Russia and the United States would hold another round of strategic offensive arms consultations in Washington in late January. The Russian delegation would be led by Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov.

In Washington, the senior U.S. official said Friday that the two sides would look at additional inspections for storage sites and data exchange to keep accurate track of weapons held in storage.

``The Russians may well propose some numerical cap, either through an absolute or a percentage, and that is something we will have to consider,'' he said.

``We're thinking very much in terms of threats from other quarters than Russia ... and while advances in conventional weaponry are giving us alternatives to nuclear deterrence, in some scenarios we still think nuclear deterrence has a role to play.''

The U.S. plan for a missile defense costing billions of dollars has dominated negotiations on arms reductions that began after the Soviet Union broke up.

Baluyevsky said missile defense and Bush's announcement that the United States would withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty this year would also be on the agenda for this week's walks.

Bush says new threats have emerged from ``rogue states'' including Iran, Iraq and North Korea and the Sept. 11 attacks on America have further fueled arguments for a strong defense.

-------- treaties

[Does this apply to the U.S.? Could it be used to stop the transportation of nuclear waste to Nevada and Utah? See last paragraph. et]

Hazardous Waste Treaty Gets a Makeover

January 14, 2002
ENS

GENEVA, Switzerland, - Experts opened talks today in Geneva to develop policies and technical guidelines for a major treaty on transporting and discarding toxic pollutants, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Today and Tuesday, the Convention's Technical Working Group will hammer out the technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management of waste lead-acid batteries, metal and metal compounds, plastic wastes, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and the dismantling of ships.

These issues are all covered by the Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.

The Legal Working Group will meet on January 18 and 19 to address the issue of monitoring the implementation and compliance, emergency fund and financial mechanism, and review the legal implications of the dismantling of ships.

The two Groups will meet jointly for the first time Wednesday and Thursday to evaluate progress on the decisions adopted in 1999 by ministers and senior officials at the Convention's last Conference of the Parties.

The experts will consider adjusting the lists of wastes considered hazardous or non-hazardous under the treaty, and will debate proposals on asphalt wastes and edible oil wastes, like frying oils.

The results of this week's talks will help set the stage for the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, tentatively scheduled for December 9 through 13, 2002 in Geneva.

The Basel Convention was adopted in March 1989 after a series of notorious toxic cargos from industrialized countries drew public attention to the dumping of hazardous wastes in developing and East European countries, according to UNEP.

The treaty, which has 149 parties, obliges its members to ensure that such wastes are managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Governments are expected to minimize the quantities that are transported, to treat and dispose of wastes as close as possible to where they were generated, and to minimize the generation of hazardous waste.

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

US NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH

By David Krieger,
president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
(www.wagingpeace.org) - dkrieger@napf.org
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:45:03 -0800

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush gathered together his top security advisors to consider the implications of terrorism for US nuclear policy. A few facts were clear. There were well-organized and suicidal terrorists who were committed to inflicting large-scale damage on the US. These terrorists had attempted to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. They probably had not succeeded yet in obtaining nuclear weapons, but would certainly keep trying to do so. It was highly unlikely that terrorists would be able to deliver nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction by means of missiles, but they could potentially smuggle one or more nuclear weapons into the United States and use them to attack US cities. The death and destruction would be enormous, dwarfing the damage caused on September 11th.

These facts alarmed the Bush security advisors. They went to work immediately developing plans to protect the American people against the possible nuclear terrorism that threatened American cities. The first prong of their defense against nuclear terrorism was to call for dramatically increased funding to secure the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Encouraged by the success that had been achieved up to this point with the Nunn-Lugar funding, they realized that this was an area in which they could work closely with Russia in assuring that these weapons were kept secure and out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. The Russians were eager to get this help and to join with the Americans in this effort to prevent nuclear terrorism.

The second prong of the US plan was to work with the Russians in achieving significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of each country in order that there would be less nuclear weapons available to potentially fall into the hands of terrorists. Since the end of the Cold War the US and Russia have been reducing their nuclear arsenals, and now it was time to make even greater progress toward the promise of the two countries "to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals." This meant reaching an agreement as a next step to slash the size of their arsenals to a few hundred nuclear warheads and to make these reductions irreversible. The international community applauded the boldness of this step, celebrating this major achievement in nuclear disarmament and this important step toward realizing the promise of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The third prong of the US plan was to give its full support to bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force, giving momentum to assuring an end to nuclear testing for all time. This step was viewed by the Bush security advisors as having indirect consequences for nuclear terrorism by assuring that other countries would forego the capability to improve the sophistication of their nuclear arsenals. It would be seen as a sign of US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons, and this would have a positive effect on preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The fourth prong of the US plan was to reevaluate the administration's commitment to developing and deploying missile defenses. Prior to September 11th, President Bush and his security team had been strong advocates of developing and deploying ballistic missile defenses. President Bush had even been threatening to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to move forward with missile defense deployment. Following September 11th, it was clear that it made little sense to devote another $100 billion or more to missile defenses when terrorists were capable of attacking US cities by far simpler means. There were more urgent needs for these resources to be used in improving US intelligence and keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Therefore, the decision was made to put the development of missile defenses on the back burner and instead devote major resources to safeguarding nuclear materials throughout the world. These actions were extremely helpful in improving our relations with both Russia and China, which were both relieved at not having to respond to our missile defenses by increasing their nuclear arsenals.

The fifth prong of the US plan was to work intensively with countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel to convince them that nuclear weapons were not in their security interests and that they would have a heavy price to pay if they did not join us in moving rapidly toward a nuclear-weapons-free world. The Bush advisors knew that this would be difficult, but they were certain that the US example of curtailing its own nuclear arsenal and foregoing missile defenses, along with support to these countries for economic development, would convince them to follow our lead.

The world's leaders and citizens have not heard about these US actions to combat nuclear terrorism because they never happened. The most remarkable thing about the US response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 is how little these attacks have actually affected US nuclear policy. Although US nuclear forces will certainly not deter terrorists, US nuclear policy remains highly dependent on nuclear weapons and the policy of nuclear deterrence.

To set the record straight, the Bush administration has supported cuts in the Nunn-Lugar funding for securing Russian nuclear weapons and materials. It has called for reductions in deployed strategic nuclear weapons over a ten-year period, although not within the scope of a binding treaty and, in fact, has indicated it plans to put the deactivated warheads on the shelf for potential future use. It has come out against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and boycotted a UN conference to bring the treaty into force more rapidly. President Bush has announced that the US will unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and move forward rapidly to deploy ballistic missile defenses, a move that has drawn critical response from both Russia and China. Finally, the Bush administration, rather than putting pressure on India and Pakistan to disarm, has ended the sanctions imposed on them for testing nuclear weapons in May 1998. The administration has never put pressure on Israel to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, although this is a major factor in motivating Arab countries to develop their own nuclear arsenals.

While there is much the Bush administration might have done to make nuclear terrorism less likely, the path they have chosen increases the risks of nuclear terrorism. It also undermines our relationship with countries we need in the fight against terrorism in general and nuclear terrorism in particular. Finally, the US nuclear policy after September 11th is a slap in the face to the 187 parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and increases the possibilities of nuclear proliferation and a breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and regime.

David Krieger, President Nuclear Age Peace Foundation PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1 Santa Barbara, CA 93108-2794 dkrieger@napf.org Web site: www.wagingpeace.org www.nuclearfiles.org

----

How Politics Helped Redefine Threat

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 14, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40780-2002Jan13.html

Until 1998, it was an article of faith for the U.S. intelligence community that no potentially hostile country -- apart from Russia or China -- would pose a long-range missile threat to the United States before 2010, at the earliest.

Scarcely a year later, CIA analysts were saying something entirely different. They predicted that North Korea, one of the world's last surviving hard-line Communist states, could test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting U.S. territory "at any time." According to a September 1999 intelligence forecast, Iran could test such a missile "in the next few years."

This abrupt shift in thinking was prompted, in part, by a series of troubling events, including missile tests in North Korea and Iran, nuclear tests in India and Pakistan, and reports of Russian scientists selling their services to the highest bidder.

But there is also evidence that the new intelligence forecasts were the result of something else: a concerted campaign by the Republican-dominated Congress, supported by Israel, to focus attention on the leakage of missile technology from Russia to Iran. The government of then-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu feared that Israel could soon become a target of Iranian missiles. Congressional Republicans wanted to build public support for a national missile defense system.

"It was the largest turnaround ever in the history of the [intelligence] agency, and I was part of making it happen," said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a leading critic of what he often called the Clinton administration's "misguided" approach to Russia in the late 1990s. Weldon, a champion of missile defense, was openly scornful of pre-1999 CIA estimates of the missile threat from states such as Iran and North Korea.

Weldon and other conservatives said the intelligence shift was a necessary corrective to what they viewed as politically skewed intelligence forecasts during the Clinton years. They were particularly upset by a 1995 national intelligence estimate that flatly stated that "no country, other than the major declared nuclear powers, will develop or otherwise acquire a ballistic missile in the next 15 years that could threaten the contiguous 48 states and Canada."

By contrast, Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the 1995 intelligence estimate "holds up pretty well in hindsight." He accused Weldon and other Republicans of mounting a "conscious political strategy" to attack the intelligence assessment because "it stood in the way of a passionate belief in missile defense." As a result, he said, the intelligence process has become politicized.

"Intelligence analysts have learned to give the Congress what they want, while preserving the integrity of the analysis," said Cirincione, a former Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill. "What happens is that you get assessments that include all possible worst cases."

CIA officials argue that the post-1998 estimates are the result of "improved tradecraft." They say the agency reviewed its procedures following publication of a 1998 report on the ballistic missile threat by a bipartisan commission headed by a former (and future) defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and began to consult a wide range of independent experts from industry and academia.

Some consumers of intelligence within the government say the shifting forecasts of the ballistic missile threat are a case study of how an ostensibly objective intelligence process can be buffeted by conflicting political pressures, from home and abroad.

"Nobody believes the CIA estimates," said a longtime counter-proliferation expert from another government department. Another analyst said that "nuances" tend to get taken out of the estimates as they proceed up the bureaucratic ladder. "The job of the CIA is to warn, but they never back down from previous warnings," the analyst said.

A Congressman's Battle

The argument over the 1995 intelligence estimate got underway even before its publication. According to Capitol Hill sources, the Clinton administration leaked details of the still-secret document to congressional Democrats, who used it to argue the case against missile defense.

As chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's subcommittee on military research and development, Weldon assumed responsibility for countering the Democratic offensive. He did so by staging a dramatic showdown with a CIA analyst, David Osias, who had been dispatched to Capitol Hill to give him and other committee members a briefing on the intelligence finding in a secure fourth-floor conference room.

Weldon said he "went ballistic" after Osias insisted that there would be no hostile missile threat to the continental United States for at least 15 years. "I said, 'Do you mean to tell me that the unrest in Russia represents no additional threat?' " The congressman said he was also furious that the CIA study excluded Alaska and Hawaii from its threat assessment. (A North Korean missile would have to travel nearly 6,000 miles to hit California, but only 3,700 miles to hit Alaska.)

"This is over, this is [expletive], this is a politicized process," Weldon recalled yelling, before bringing down the gavel on the closed-door session. Intelligence sources confirmed that Osias was subjected to a severe grilling at the secret hearing.

The debate over the 1995 estimate coincided with an aggressive Israeli campaign to alert the Clinton administration to what Netanyahu advisers saw as a growing missile threat from Iran, a radical Islamic state that has often threatened to destroy Israel. Israel had information that Iran was working on a scaled-up Soviet Scud missile, known as the Shahab-3, that would theoretically be able to hit Tel Aviv from launching pads in western Iran.

Israel had intelligence that Russian missile experts were traveling to Tehran and giving advice to the Iranians. Former Israeli officials said they were greeted with skepticism from Clinton administration officials who were reluctant to strain relations with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, then seen in Washington as the symbol of Moscow's fledgling democracy.

"It was as if the Americans did not want to know the facts, or the facts were too embarrassing for them to confront," said Uzi Arad, a former intelligence adviser to Netanyahu.

The Israeli allegations of technology transfers between Moscow and Tehran became the basis of a series of congressional hearings in 1997 and 1998, and Republican calls for economic sanctions against any state that provided missile technology to Iran. The confrontation came to a head in June 1998 when the Republican-dominated Congress passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, which would have imposed mandatory sanctions on any country selling missile technology to Iran. The legislation was promptly vetoed by President Bill Clinton.

Administration officials scrambled to enlist Israeli support to get Congress to back down and accept a diluted version of the legislation, rather than override the president's veto.

"The administration's rationale was that it was up to the Israelis to get the genie back into the bottle since they had let it out in the first place," said a Republican staffer, describing how Israel persuaded House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) to go along with White House wishes.

Against their own judgment, congressional conservatives allowed the presidential veto to stand. But they would soon acquire fresh ammunition in their campaign against the 1995 intelligence estimate.

'Mass Conversion' at CIA

The first serious attempt by congressional Republicans to persuade the CIA to revise its estimate of the long-range missile threat ended in failure. A blue-ribbon panel headed by former CIA director Robert M. Gates reported to Congress in December 1996 that the technical case against "rogue states" acquiring intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, in the foreseeable future was even "stronger" than that presented in 1995.

Unhappy with the conclusions of the Gates committee, Congress appointed a new commission, this one headed by Rumsfeld. The Rumsfeld report -- delivered in July 1998 -- turned out to be much more alarmist than the 1995 estimate. The Rumsfeld report predicted that a rogue state would be able to "inflict major destruction" on the United States "within about five years" of a decision to develop an ICBM. For several of those years, the report added, "the U.S. might not be aware that such a decision had been made."

According to commission members, the five-year estimate was based largely on briefings from missile engineers at major U.S. defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The commission asked the American rocket builders how long it would take them to build an ICBM, from the starting point of a Third World country such as Iran. "The answer was five years or less than five years," recalled Barry Blechman, chairman of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research organization in Washington.

Rumsfeld accused the CIA of committing the sin of "mirror-imaging" in its earlier estimates: the notion that "just because it took us 10, 12 years to do something, it is likely to take others that long or longer." In fact, he insisted, it would probably take other countries less time to develop ICBMs, as much of the relevant information was already available.

By framing the question to U.S. missile experts in a novel way, the Rumsfeld Commission avoided the mistake of assuming that a country such as North Korea would necessarily follow the same path to an ICBM as the United States or Russia. But critics argue that the commission might have fallen into a mirror-imaging trap of its own: the assumption that an isolated Third World country has the same access to missile components and missile technology as a major U.S. defense contractor.

"I don't believe that the Rumsfeld Commission made a serious analysis of the industrial base needed to develop long-range missiles," said Theodore A. Postol, a professor of missile technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Of course, American contractors will tell you that building an ICBM is easy. But these are people who live in an incredibly rich industrial environment. A Third World country faces an entirely different set of problems."

The political impact of the Rumsfeld report was strengthened by the fact that its conclusions were unanimous. The Democrats had been allowed to appoint three members of the nine-member panel, so it was difficult for them to argue that the report was politically tainted. The Democrats' experts included Blechman and Richard L. Garwin, a leading nuclear physicist strongly opposed to missile defense on technical and scientific grounds.

Garwin and Blechman said they were struck by the way in which countries such as North Korea, Iran and Pakistan were pooling their resources and taking advantage of existing know-how. Since the beginning of the Bush administration last year, and Rumsfeld's reappointment as defense secretary, the conclusions of the Rumsfeld Commission have been elevated to quasi-doctrinal status within the government, according to several officials.

"Nobody dares say a word against Rumsfeld, at least in public," said one government nonproliferation expert. Another spoke of a "mass conversion" within the CIA, even among analysts who were predicting something entirely different just a few years before.

Even so, the Rumsfeld Commission's conclusions remain highly controversial, even within the government. The State Department's intelligence unit, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, has long taken a less alarmist view of North Korean and Iranian capabilities than has the CIA or the Pentagon. A new national intelligence estimate on the missile threat, issued this month, publicly enshrined the State Department's dissenting views for the first time, officials said, even though the declassified version referred only to an unnamed "agency."

The new estimate also acknowledged what outside experts have long maintained: Rogue states or terrorist groups are unlikely to use missiles as their method of choice for delivering weapons of mass destruction. The estimate said that "covert delivery methods," such as a ship or a civilian airplane, were cheaper and more reliable than ballistic missiles.

The idea that a country such as Iran or even Libya could be well on its way to deploying an ICBM -- as opposed to a short- or medium-range missile -- without the United States knowing about it strikes many outside experts as absurd.

"Iran is trying to achieve a credible regional capability," said a French Foreign Ministry official. "A more long-range program is a matter of speculation. They say they want a satellite launch capability, but we don't see them putting much effort into it."

Rumsfeld Commission members continue to defend their conclusions. "We never said anything about states deploying ICBMs by a certain date, we just said they would be capable of doing it," said Blechman, who notes that the U.S. intelligence community failed to predict a huge Soviet nuclear arms buildup in the 1960s under Leonid Brezhnev.

'Golf Ball of Destruction'

The Rumsfeld Commission report led U.S. intelligence experts to reconsider the very nature of an intercontinental-range ballistic missile. Before 1998, they had thought of ICBMs as similar to the weapons possessed by the United States and the Soviet Union: sophisticated, powerful and highly accurate missiles that could be hidden in silos and launched at a moment's notice.

The new definition of an ICBM, as conceived by the Rumsfeld Commission and embraced by the CIA, covers virtually any rocket capable of landing a warhead, however small, somewhere on U.S. soil, at least in theory. Under the new definition, North Korea already has ICBM capability against the United States because it possesses a rocket that could, conceivably, land a tiny warhead somewhere in Alaska.

The North Korean Taepodong-1 is a three-stage rocket, tested for the first (and so far only) time on Aug. 31, 1998, soon after the release of the Rumsfeld report. According to U.S. intelligence officials, the first stage was a No Dong, the North Korean version of a scaled-up Scud B. The second stage was the North Korean equivalent of a Scud B. The third stage consisted of a small, solid-fuel rocket probably acquired from Pakistan or China, carrying little more than a radio transmitter.

This unwieldy contraption was the missile equivalent of the "Hail Mary pass," according to David Wright, a senior analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Although the third stage exploded and the missile flew no more than 1,000 miles, the launch demonstrated that North Korea might soon have the capability of putting a satellite into orbit.

The elastic nature of what exactly constitutes an ICBM has caused some skeptics within the government to joke about what they call "the golf ball of destruction."

"There is an idea out there that if you can land anything on American territory, the result will be vast devastation. That is simply not true," said a government expert at odds with the official CIA line.

The skeptics argue that the North Koreans have a long way to go before their missiles pose a real threat to the United States. First, they have to develop a rocket that actually works. Second, they need a warhead that will not burn up when it reenters Earth's atmosphere. Third, they have to develop rockets powerful enough to deliver a militarily significant payload. And fourth, they need to mate the missile to a nuclear or biological warhead.

Many experts believe that a chemical or biological attack on the United States using a crude Taepodong-type rocket can be excluded because such weapons must be delivered with a high degree of precision to be effective. Nuclear warheads can be less accurate, but are much heavier than chemical or biological weapons, meaning that they would require more powerful rockets to reach the United States.

According to CIA estimates, a two-stage Taepodong-2, which is now under development by North Korea, could deliver a payload of several hundred kilograms to Alaska or Hawaii. This would probably be sufficient to deliver a biological warhead, but not enough for an unsophisticated nuclear weapon.

A larger question is whether 1950s Soviet Scud technology, of the kind now widely available in the Third World, can serve as a basic building block for ICBMs. Russian scientists cite their own experience in arguing that a Scud cannot be upgraded to an ICBM. To develop missiles that could reach the United States, the Soviets moved to systems with more powerful propellants and vastly improved guidance systems.

"There are certain things you can do to improve the Scud, such as lightening the airframe, installing new turbopumps and clustering engines, but you quickly run into limitations," said Timur Kadyshev, a missile expert at the Moscow Institute for Physics and Technology. "At some point, you need to switch to better technology."

Until recently, this was also the view of most CIA experts. Before 1998, CIA officials routinely argued that North Korea would have to adopt an entirely new propulsion system to achieve ICBM capability, the development of which could easily be detected by U.S. technical means. The agency's position now is that a similar result can be achieved by clustering engines and adding extra stages.

Russian experts say that, while this may be feasible in theory, the addition of each new engine increases the chances of failure. A two-stage Taepodong-2, for example, is believed to consist of four No Dong engines clustered together as the first stage, and a single No Dong as the second stage. Mathematically, such a missile is at least five times as likely to fail as a single, far-from-reliable, No Dong.

Another significant change in CIA methodology has been the abandonment of the long-held view that a lengthy testing period was required before a new missile system could be considered a real threat. According to Robert Walpole, the national intelligence officer responsible for coordinating estimates of missile threats, the willingness of Third World countries to resort to nuclear blackmail has made the accepted wisdom of a five-year gap between testing and deployment obsolete.

When the United States and the Soviet Union deployed missiles, he explained, "they had to be in hard silos so that the other guy could not take them out. But if what you are more interested in doing is threatening the other side, not having a retaliatory launch capability, you don't have to deploy [missiles] in that sense of the term." Many independent experts say they believe that repeated tests are required before a missile can be deployed.

As military weapons, the Taepodong-1 and Taepodong-2 clearly leave much to be desired. Before the rockets can be launched, they have to be assembled next to tall open-air gantries, in full view of U.S. spy satellites and planes flying off North Korea's coast. The process of fueling and completing final checks takes three or four days, according to Charles P. Vick, a missile expert at the Federation of American Scientists.

As a political and propaganda weapon, however, the Taepodong-1 has already proved very effective. The North Koreans "got everybody's attention" with their August 1998 missile test, said Joseph S. Bermudez, a leading expert on North Korean missile programs. "They made America wake up and pay attention to them, which is one of the things they desperately want. They want to be perceived as a powerful nation."

----

Another Rumsfeld Bomb

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, January 14, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42169-2002Jan14?language=printer

The Pentagon's "Nuclear Posture Review," released last Thursday, is getting good ink in the offline media. The plan to reduce U.S. strategic nuclear forces from the current 6,000 warheads to 3,800 by 2007, and 1,700-2,200 by 2012 makes sense and has been widely praised. Less noticed, however, are other decisions in the review that have the potential to irritate the global nuclear situation and create greater dangers for the United States.

This isn't to damn Bush by comparison with his predecessor. Bill Clinton took no courageous stances on nuclear reductions nor did he take advantage of the end of the Cold War to change the nuclear landscape in any fundamental way.

In fact, there is plenty of continuity between the new Bush review and one done by its predecessor in 1994. Then the Clinton administration stated that "U.S. forces must be prepared to deter, prevent and defend against" states that possess weapons of mass destruction. Now Bush pledges to "dissuade, deter, and defeat" them.

Clinton's review said, "It is necessary for us to maintain a hedge to return to a more robust nuclear posture should that be necessary." These days the hedge is called the "responsive force."

But the changes reflect something deeper than semantics.

Nuclear Drift

The Nuclear Posture Review, known in the trade as the NPR, has been eagerly awaited since George Bush took office. In 2000 candidate Bush promised deep reductions in nuclear warheads. Once in power, his administration started to back away from U.S. treaty obligations relating to missile defenses, nuclear testing, and strategic arms reductions.

The arms control community has been in its usual state of jitters. There is criticism of Bush's abandonment of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty. There is worry about the administration's on-again-off-again support for securing Russia's nuclear warheads and material. Others fret about a drift towards renewed nuclear testing. Some sense the administrative might be receptive to hawkish proposals that the U.S. use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological warfare attack. Others fear the administration is contemplating developing nuclear weapons to attack targets too deeply buried to be reached any other way. But to be fair to the current administration, Clinton's nuclear drift was moving the United States in these directions anyhow.

Moreover, the Bush team deserves credit for some things. Rumsfeld should be applauded for promising to abandon the decades-old policy of "mutual assured destruction" (MAD), and for detangling the set of Cold War requirements that governed nuclear planning long after our foe had vanished. And it is possible that more change is on the way.

In the letter to Congress accompanying the review, Rumsfeld noted that "in the decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union, planning for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces has undergone only modest revision." This suggests that the Single Integrated Operational Plan (or SIOP), the central U.S. nuclear warfighting plan, may be revised, perhaps radically.

Still the details of exactly what is going to happen are sketchy at best ,and it is clear that some things are virtually certain not to change.

The administration is still planning to keep old warheads around in a state of readiness in the event some future President wants to redeploy them. The administration will upgrade the ability to produce new warheads. It will continue development of missile defenses, national and "theater." And it will explicitly incorporate new precision-guided weapons into strategic forces, augmenting U.S. nuclear capabilities with modern conventional, cyber warfare, and directed energy weapons.

"There have been no final decisions ... on what the size of our responsive capability would be, and also there have been no final decisions made on the overall size of the active stockpile and the inactive stockpile," said J.D. Crouch, Rumsfeld's Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs who unveiled the classified study.

In other words, nice review but less than decisive.

The Signal to the World

More flexible planning, Crouch says, will provide the capability to deal with "rogue states that we would have to deal with" and "states with WMD [weapons of mass destruction]." Most people, and most nations, would think that this pronouncement is indistinguishable from current U.S. nuclear policy. And they would be right. Flexibility and ambiguity have been the hallmarks of U.S. nuclear strategy since at least the 1991 Gulf War. So what is different?

Well I suppose one could argue that now those nuclear weapons deployed in southern Turkey will have a greater focus, and perhaps even a new set of contingency plans to back them up should an American president ever be insane enough to order their use against an Iraq or Iran. Since any use of nuclear weapons in response to a rogue state's use of biological or chemical weapons would be in extremely small numbers, and would not require the gigantic computing power or bureaucracy of U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, the introduction of a "new" flexibility is confusing. For more than a decade such flexibility has existed: the United States has had the weapons, the capabilities, and even the contingency plans to do exactly what Crouch suggests.

The vagueness of the NPR with regard to the mission of deterring rogue states will likely encourage the nuclear laboratories to believe that it is a mandate to develop new nuclear weapons. Are new nukes really needed? American conventional precision-guided weapons have now fully matured, and there are newer conventional weapons in development, such as the Northrop-Grumman/Lockheed Martin "Big Blue," a 30,000-lb. earth penetrating guided conventional weapon. Crouch says reassuringly that "there are no recommendations in the report about developing new nuclear weapons." But he also says the U.S. is looking at "a number of initiatives" to attack deeply-buried targets.

Consider these doctrinal subtleties from the perspective of an Iraq or Iran, or North Korea . How will they view a newly announced U.S. initiative that calls for greater incorporation of conventional weaponry but doesn't close the door on using nuclear weapons? Will such states be more deterred by the Pentagon's seeming greater willingness to use nuclear weapons? Doesn't in fact the very announcement of a "new" post-September 11 U.S. flexibility on nuclear forces act as an irritant?

These questions about the NPR will likely outlive the positive media coverage of the warhead reductions. While Rumsfeld and Co. once again use the language of "transformation" to describe their latest handiwork, the reality is that the NPR, at least for now, is little more than hollow marketing of a less than reassuring product.

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

HATCH NUCLEAR OPERATIONS APPROVED FOR 20 MORE YEARS

January 14, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-14-09.html

BAXLEY, Georgia, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved another 20 years of operations at the Edwin I. Hatch nuclear power plant near Baxley.

The agency renewed the operating licenses for the Hatch Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years on Friday. The plant is operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company.

Southern Nuclear Operating Co. submitted an application to the NRC on February 29, 2000, to renew the licenses for Hatch Unit 1, which expires on August 6, 2014, and Unit 2, which expires on June 13, 2018. The NRC conducted environmental and safety reviews of the license renewal application.

The NRC's environmental review concluded that there were no impacts that would preclude renewal of the license for environmental reasons. In its safety review, the agency concluded that there were no safety concerns that would preclude license renewal, because Southern Nuclear had demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging.

On November 16, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards - an independent body of technical experts which advises the NRC - issued its recommendation that the operating license for Hatch Units 1 and 2, be renewed.

The Hatch facility is the fourth plant to win approval for another 20 years of operations. Twenty year extensions have also been granted to both units of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant near Lusby, Maryland; the three units of the Oconee Nuclear Station near Seneca, South Carolina; and for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, near Russellville, Arkansas.

The NRC is now reviewing license renewal applications for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 near Florida City, Florida; Surry Units 1 and 2 near Surry, Virginia; North Anna Units 1 and 2 near Mineral, Virginia; McGuire Units 1 and 2 near Cornelius, North Carolina, Catawba Units 1 and 2 near Clover, South Carolina; St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 near Ft. Pierce, Florida; and Peach Bottom Units 1 and 2 near Delta, Pennsylvania.

-------- us politics

HOW SHOULD CONGRESS RESPOND WHEN THE PRESIDENT ACTS ALONE?

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
From: Walter Clemens <wclemens@bu.edu>
(Sent today to New York Times, with no assurance of publication.)
By Walter C. Clemens, Jr.

How should the Senate and House respond to a president who seeks to shut them out of a decision affecting U.S. vital interests and the country's standing in an incipient world order? The question arises as the Bush White House announces U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty signed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1972.

Thomas Jefferson prepared an answer in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice (1801). The president-elect recalled that the Constitution makes treaties the "supreme law" of the land. Hence, only an "an act of the Legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded...." To illustrate his point, Jefferson noted that the very first treaties abrogated by the United States--its 1778 alliance and commercial treaty with France--were ended by an act of Congress in 1798, which President John Adams then signed. For a treaty to be valid, two-thirds of the Senators voting must consent. Thus, the 1972 ABM treaty was endorsed by the Senate by 88 to 2, with no reservations or special understandings. Both the Constitution and precedent suggest that Congress has the right and duty to take part in the termination as well as the formulation of U.S. treaty commitments. Senators and Representatives from both parties, however, have permitted the Bush team to set policy on arms and arms control with barely a nod to Congress. The Senate and House of Representatives should formally assert their rights to a voice in treaty abrogation.

From Jefferson's time till the present, the United States has abrogated more than fifty treaties. In most cases the Senate or both houses of Congress played a integral part in the process. Given this history, Senator Barry Goldwater and Harry F. Byrd, Jr. tried in 1978-1979 to stop President Jimmy Carter from abrogating, without Congressional approval, the U.S. alliance with the Republic of China (Taiwan). On December 23, 1978, Senator Goldwater explained: "Since the President alone cannot repeal a law, he cannot repeal a treaty. He must first ask Congress, or at least the Senate, which was a partner with him in ratifying the treaty, for approval to cancel it."

On January 18, 1979 Goldwater introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 2, cosponsored by fifteen other Senators and six members of the House of Representatives. It aimed "to uphold the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of Government in the termination of treaties."

The resolution recalled that "treaties are part of the law of the land"; that the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed"; that the Senate possesses a special interest and role in treaty termination; that "the President should not unilaterally terminate a treaty absent a material breach by another party"; that "treaties or obligations thereunder generally have been terminated by the United States only upon notice having been given by the President acting pursuant to or in anticipation of the authorization or direction of the Congress or Senate"; that the Senate and House "have acted jointly in the enactment of legislation terminating over forty treaties"; and that "the United States has never terminated a defense treaty with a friendly government...."

The resolution required the Senate to affirm, with the House of Representatives concurring, that: "in accordance with the separation of powers under the Constitution, the President should not unilaterally abrogate, denounce, or otherwise terminate...any of the security treaties comprising the post-World War II complex of treaties, including mutual defense treaties, without the advice and consent of the Senate, which was involved in their initial ratification, or the approval of both Houses of Congress."

Goldwater and other legislators, most but not all of them Republicans, also sued the president to prevent his acting alone to terminate the treaty with Taiwan. In 1979 the Federal District Court sided with Goldwater but was overruled by the Court of Appeals. Goldwater v. Carter then reached the Supreme Court. A court majority ruled that this was a political issue between the president and Congress that the court could not decide.

But this did not end the matter. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. voted with the majority to dismiss Goldwater's suit but he denied that the issue was a "nonjusticiable political question which can never be considered by this Court." Powell contended that the complaint was not presently "ripe for judicial review." Why? Because courts should not interpret a dispute between Congress and the President until each side has claimed its constitutional authority and reached an impasse. In the case at hand, just a few members of Congress claimed that Carter's action had deprived them of their role in altering the supreme law of the land. Congress as a whole had taken no official position. The Senate had taken no vote on Goldwater's proposed resolution. Though Powell did not rule on the merits of Goldwater's claim, the judge noted many reasons why it might be valid.

Justice Powell left the door open for one or both houses of Congress to assert their right to take part in any decision to terminate a treaty. A proactive Congress would challenge executive actions--on arms control and other treaties--that erode its prerogatives. Today's Congress, however, seems not to care much about its rights.

Before September 11, 2001, some Senate Democrats threatened to withhold funding for weapons tests that would violate the ABM Treaty. After September 11 both parties in both houses seem inclined to go along with whatever the President wants in defense and foreign policy. Democrats were still willing to argue about tax cuts, but not the best ways to foster national and global security.

The 1972 ABM text stipulates that the treaty "shall be of unlimited duration." But if "extraordinary events" related to the treaty jeopardize either side's "supreme interests," either may withdraw from the treaty after giving six months' notice. "Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

Congress should ask the White House what extraordinary events related to the ABM treaty are jeopardizing America's supreme interests. The emergence of box cutters as a weapon for airplane hijacking would hardly qualify. Washington has assured Moscow and Beijing that the proposed national missile defense will be aimed against lesser powers--"countries of concern," such as North Korea. But if Washington is really worried about North Korean missiles, Congress should press the White House to resume the negotiations with Pyongyang that showed promise in the 1990s.

The post-September 11 war on terrorism has led to vast changes on the world scene. The clear and present dangers of terrorism make it imperative for the United States to obtain international cooperation--from sharing intelligence to control of cross-border cash flows. Given that the White House wants Russian cooperation against terrorism, Washington should be even more scrupulous about upholding the letter and spirit of all international commitments.

Goldwater's proposed concurrent resolution in 1979 is not just a relic from another age. At the onset of a new century it offers a text that the Senate and House could adapt to claim their constitutional rights on arms control and other treaties vis-à-vis an assertive executive branch.

{Walter C. Clemens, Jr. is professor of political science, Boston University, and associate, Harvard University Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He wrote America and the World, 1898-2025: Achievements, Failures, Alternative Futures (New York: Palgrave, 2000 and 2001). tel. (781) 863-0199 <wclemens@bu.edu>} 11 Rumford Road Lexington MA 02420-2208


-------- MILITARY

-------- afghanistan

War Wrap: Latest news at a glance

January 14, 2002 UPI
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/14012002-013912-1450r.htm

Here are the latest developments in the situation in Afghanistan:

- U.S. warplanes have targeted a suspected hideout of Osama bin Laden near the border with Pakistan. The bombing, which began in the early morning hours, intensified late Sunday. The hills of Paktia province are believed to have sheltered al Qaida and Taliban members.

- Another 30 Taliban and al Qaida detainees have left Afghanistan for a high-security facility at a U.S. naval base in Cuba. The captives -- blindfolded and in chains -- boarded a U.S. military plane at Kandahar airport late Sunday. They will join 20 detainees transferred last week to Guantanamo Bay naval base on Cuba's southeastern coast.

- The bodies of six of the seven marines killed when their KC-130 plane crashed in Pakistan are on their way to the United States. Officials said Sunday that the remains of a sixth marine had been recovered. The bodies of the five others were found earlier this weekend. Troops continue to search for the remaining victim.

- Six more British citizens suspected of links to the Taliban or al Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan are reportedly being sent to the U.S. military prison in Cuba. The Foreign Office has confirmed that one British man is among the 20 captives already held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay naval base.

- The Australian Broadcasting Corp. late Sunday aired parts of videotapes recorded at an al Qaida training cam in Afghanistan. The tapes showed what the network said were Arab, Pakistani and African fighters rehearsing a mass assassination of world leaders and an attack on a motorcade. ABC network officials said they would send the tapes to the U.S. military for analysis.

- State-run television in Afghanistan reported the interim government has ordered provincial officials to recruit almost 6,000 men to form the core of a professional military force.

- Camp Pendleton Marines in Afghanistan are starting to pull out of the country. KGTV, Channel 10 in San Diego, reported the U.S. Army has begun to take over the mission that originally called for 4,000 Marines. The Marines helped to establish Camp Rhino and the base at Kandahar Airport. There is no word yet on when the Marines are expected to return to the United States.

- Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the Taliban still control parts of Afghanistan and could attack international security forces if the world community doesn't help pay for a permanent police force. The Delaware Democrat told NBC's Meet the Press, "They're not controlling the cities anymore, but they're still in the countryside."

----

Civilians flee US bombing raids on terrorist hideout

By Ellen Knickmeyer, AP Writer
14 January 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=114406

US warplanes kept up heavy bombing raids on Monday on terrorist hideouts in eastern Afghanistan, hoping to smash Osama bin Laden's die­hard supporters.

Aerial attacks on a deep complex of tunnels at Zawar, in the rugged hills of Paktia province near the border with Pakistan, have been under way for nearly two weeks. US ground forces are also operating in the area, the last main battleground in Afghanistan.

The first group of international peacekeepers arrived in Ghazni province, to the west, and US helicopters were seen flying over the highway linking Ghazni to Kabul, the capital, as the country's new authorities extend their control, the Pakistani­based Afghan Islamic Press agency reported.

The tempo of the bombing picked up with daylight raids Sunday and continued Monday. The bombing was so intense that it rattled windows in Khost, a town 20 miles away to the southeast. Civilians living near the bombing zone were fleeing and said that many had been killed and wounded by falling bombs.

Noorz Ali, who was fleeing the area in a rickety truck, told The Associated Press that bombs had fallen Friday on his village, about two miles from the tunnel complex, dug deep into the mountains near the border.

Most of the 35 homes were destroyed, including his, Ali said Sunday. Fifteen people died and others were injured, he said.

"No one is left but the dead," Ali said. "It began at 9pm. There were so many bombs and rockets I couldn't count. In my village, maybe 15 bombs fell."

The US military says it is trying to avoid civilian casualties, but is determined to crush remnants of al­Qaida and the Taliban seeking shelter in underground passages at Zawar, a camp that was the base of one of the Taliban's senior commanders, Jalaluddin Haqqani.

The strikes mark the heaviest attacks since last month's attacks on the Tora Bora cave complex.

Sur Gul, security chief of Khost, said the underground passages continue to shelter Islamic militants - mostly Pakistanis, Chechens and some of bin Laden's Arab warriors.

Intelligence reports said al­Qaida fighters were using the area to regroup and move out of Afghanistan, the Pentagon has said. US special forces have been seen operating the area and have met with local officials.

----

Warlords seizing food aid

By Andrew Bushell
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 14, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020114-68468774.htm

JALALABAD, Afghanistan - Two machine gun-toting guards fidget calmly outside the plain entrance of Mohammed Yousaf's warehouse in downtown Jalalabad, giving little indication of the commotion within.

Inside, 50 barefoot laborers - faces slick with sweat - unload trucks full of blue and white sacks of stolen U.N. grain at a dead run. Others slice open the bags and efficiently repackage them in plain burlap for sale in the city's bazaars.

Overseeing his operation from a drafty office on the second floor, the fat Jalalabad wheat dealer proclaims, "I can't make any money buying wheat. I have to pay the [private relief organizations] to get it for me."

When asked which relief groups - known here as nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs - supplied him with wheat, Mr. Yousaf smiled and said, "All of them. If we can't do business with the directors, then we talk to the drivers."

The truck drivers don't have much choice. The fall of the Taliban has created a power vacuum, leaving Jalalabad's uncertain government wracked by the struggles of three different warlords competing for power and resources.

Food is one of those resources, and life is measured by it. A man can be killed for about 10 pounds of grain.

One driver said, "Sometimes [the warlords] stop us outside of Jalalabad with some gunmen and an empty truck; other times I drop my wheat off in Jalalabad and see the same people take the wheat from where we unload it - the NGOs sign for it."

Other drivers said gunmen have simply commandeered their vehicles.

Haneef Ata, deputy director of the International Rescue Committee in Afghanistan (IRC), said killings over grain are a routine occurrence in Jalalabad.

"We just try to stay out of it, and that is becoming increasingly difficult. If things don't change, I can't see how we can continue."

Things have become so bad that the United Nations suspended the shipments this month and appealed for protection from the region's security forces.

Until now, more than 50 trucks a day, representing some 1,750 metric tons of wheat, have been making the three-hour drive to Jalalabad from Peshawar, Pakistan. Fewer than half arrived with more than 60 percent of their wheat, interviews with dozens of truck drivers revealed.

Because U.N. grain is virtually the only import into Jalalabad, a new class of warlord-sponsored entrepreneurs have sprouted to form their own NGOs and "distribute" the grain themselves on the black market.

When these new NGOs haven't been able to meet their warlord's quotas by tricking U.N. officials, they have had the shipments hijacked. So much grain has been stolen that markets in Jalalabad are flooded, and prices have dropped by 40 percent.

Since the international staff of the larger, foreign NGOs were evacuated for security concerns after September 11, the local staff of many otherwise reputable NGOs have gone into business for themselves. It is often unclear whether they have gone into business with the warlords willingly, or whether they have bowed to pressure.

A frustrated staffer in the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was overheard saying, "We have given these people second-rate aid and third-rate personnel for decades. Of course they're stealing the food. - What else is here?"

As bad as things are in Jalalabad, conditions are worse in Mazar-e-Sharif.

Like Jalalabad, Mazar-e-Sharif is divided among three competing warlords whose rivalry dates from the early 1990s: Gen. Rashid Dostum, who represents the Uzbeks; Commander Mohaqaq, representing the Hazara tribes; and Commander Uftad Ata, who represents the Tajiks and supports the faction led by former President Burhanuddin Rabbani.

According to one IRC official who declined to be named for fear of reprisals, "It is absolutely the same situation as before, except they have not yet launched a full-scale attack for fear of the U.S."

There is constant concern that grain shipments from Mazar-e-Sharif to neighboring villages will be hijacked. One local warlord, Dr. Hekmat of Haza-e-Wahdat, has twice "liberated" major grain shipments for his faction, first in early December and a second time this month. On Jan. 7, Dr. Hekmat, who uses only one name, sent armed men to meet the IRC convoy, removed the drivers at gunpoint and stole 130 tons of wheat.

Reached via satellite phone at an undisclosed location, Dr. Hekmat revealed through an interpreter that "many receive this grain; we do not."

"Dostum, Mohaqaq and Ata all benefit from distributions. Why should we not?" he said.

----

GUNS
Kabul Takes Steps Toward Disarming Afghan Population

January 14, 2002
By MARK LANDLER
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/international/asia/14AFGH.html

KABUL, Afghanistan, Jan. 13 - Starting Monday, people here whose jobs require them to carry guns will also have to carry government identification cards, the authorities said today. It is part of an ambitious plan by Afghanistan's interim rulers to end the ubiquity of weapons in this heavily armed society.

Disarming Afghanistan's 24 million people is critical to restoring order in the country, according to Gen. Bismullah Khan, a Northern Alliance commander who oversees security in Kabul and its surrounding province.

General Khan said that crime had spiked in Kabul in the chaotic aftermath of the Taliban rule, as Northern Alliance soldiers, militia members, irregular troops, security guards and any number of other people with guns roam this city.

Traumatized by two decades of war and repression, the people of Kabul now face the more pedestrian, but equally lethal, dangers of banditry and car-jacking as well as the threat of death by violence.

Once the ID cards are issued, the authorities plan to require civilians to register their weapons with the police. At that time, they will take on the politically sensitive issue of who is allowed to keep guns in their homes.

"We haven't decided to go house to house yet," General Khan said, "But we are studying how to do it." Officials said they hoped to carry out the program across the country.

The Taliban government also believed that guns destabilized society and it, too, devoted considerable resources to collecting weapons. Successive rulers of Afghanistan have discovered, however, that with an estimated 700,000 armed men, reducing the corrosive influence of guns is an extremely difficult task.

It is complicated by the fact that after 23 years of nearly constant war, people here do not feel safe without a gun. Firearms are deeply embedded in the Afghan culture, as the image of a mujahedeen fighter with an AK-47 strapped to his shoulder attests.

"After 23 years of war, you can't expect there to be a sense of security in Afghanistan," General Khan said.

Even telling soldiers from civilians is tricky. Security guards wear military-style uniforms and carry machine guns. Some civilians, like Habib Samadi, wear camouflage fatigues because it helps them navigate checkpoints in the city.

Mr. Samadi just lost his older brother to violence. The brother, Walid Samadi, a cabdriver, had accepted a job as a driver for three Northern Alliance soldiers while they were in Kabul, the capital they had helped wrest from the Taliban.

A week later, Walid Samadi's brothers spotted his taxi, now painted black, cruising the streets of the city. They identified it by a placard on the rear that said "good luck."

Two men were arrested and confessed to having killed Walid Samadi. His body was dumped in a well in a remote part of the Shamali Valley, north of here. The soldiers said they had ordered him out of the car and shot him in the face, chest and back as he pleaded for his life.

It is a tragic but hardly unusual story. From taxi drivers to school workers, everyone here seems to know a recent crime victim.

"Whenever there is a knock at the door or a small noise outside, I jump," said Naima Samadi, as she huddled in her unheated home, cradling a photo of her slain son. "I am afraid that my other sons will be killed."

The lawlessness extends beyond the capital. In southern Afghanistan, where the interim government has little control and the United States continues to bomb suspected hide- outs of Taliban fighters and Al Qaeda terrorists, the lack of security is hampering relief efforts.

The United Nations has not been able to distribute food in Kandahar, the former stronghold of the Taliban, because of fears that armed bandits will attack its convoys and workers.

"Security continues to be a significant obstacle to reaching people," said Jordan Dey, a spokesman for the World Food Program.

Last week, Afghanistan's interim government took its first step to combat the lawlessness. It ordered between 300 and 400 Northern Alliance troops, who had been loitering in Kabul since the Taliban fled their advance on Nov. 9, to leave the city.

Today, the interior minister, Yunus Qanooni, said the bulk of the soldiers had moved to barracks outside Kabul. Those still here are waiting for quarters to be readied.

While Kabul is peaceful enough by day, there has been a surge in nighttime robberies by people wearing uniforms, some of whom claim to be looking for weapons or fugitive Taliban members.

Abdul Karim, director of research for the Kabul Police, said there had been 15 such robberies during one week, from Dec. 30 to Jan. 6.

That compares with 100 reported cases of all serious crimes: robbery, murder, drug smuggling and the like in the last two months.

"This is not a normal situation," Mr. Karim said. "When there are no guns in the hands of people, the number of robberies will decrease. Right now, it's a very difficult situation to control."

The police are also hopelessly outgunned. Mr. Karim said there were only 100 trained police officers in Kabul, constituting 30 percent of the force. The other 70 percent, some of them former soldiers, were hired off the street to help with assignments.

"Our problem is that we lack the basic elements of a police department," Mr. Qanooni said. "It was completely destroyed by the Taliban. We must rebuild it from zero."

While the government creates a new police force, the military is starting to confiscate weapons from troops no longer on active duty. Gen. Qalandar Big, who runs the main ammunition depot here, said he had collected 2,000 guns from units in and around Kabul.

General Big showed off a small collection of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers that he said came from Northern Alliance troops. But he became evasive when asked where the 2,000 weapons were, saying they had not yet been delivered to him.

"We have not faced resistance," General Big said. "Most people in Afghanistan are in favor of turning in their weapons."

Still, he noted that when the Taliban abandoned Kabul, they left very few weapons behind. Many of these people remain at large, in the rugged hills of eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistan border. They constitute another armed and dangerous group.

Confiscating weapons from civilians poses its own difficulties. When the Taliban collected guns from families, for example, people often turned in one, while keeping a spare.

Mr. Qanooni said the government would rather entice than compel people to surrender their weapons. The most basic solution, he said, would be to provide economic opportunities so that people no longer believed they needed a gun to survive.

"We need to give jobs to the mujahedeen," he said. Failing that, Mr. Qanooni said the government could offer to buy guns from their owners. "If we spent $200 million, we could buy all of them," he said. "Unfortunately, we do not have it."

Perhaps the thorniest challenge is to break the cycle of violence in Afghanistan. The murder of Walid Samadi was the second violent death in his family; his eldest brother Farid, an engineering student, was killed by a shell during the Afghan civil war in 1994.

Asked whether he wanted to carry a gun, Walid's younger brother, Habib, shook his head vigorously. "We don't like to carry weapons. We hate weapons." After looking at his grief- stricken mother, he added, "Of course it would be good for the security of our family."

-------- arms sales

U.S. Urges Israel to Defer Arms to India

January 14, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-southasia-usa-israel.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has urged Israel to defer selling weapons technology to India in light of the current crisis with Pakistan, a senior U.S. official said on Monday.

He told Reuters the message was delivered to Israeli officials last week and ``I think Israel is listening.''

``There are some military sales questions that the Israelis have raised that posed problems for us and we've told them about that,'' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

``These are sales they want to make to the Indians where we've basically said this is not the right time to be selling to either side anything, frankly,'' he said. ``We've made it very clear to them. This is not the time to do it.''

After the establishment of full diplomatic ties in 1992, the two countries -- bound in part by concerns about Islamic extremism -- have strengthened defense cooperation, with India buying sophisticated defense equipment from Israel.

The senior U.S. official said one area of American concern involves the Arrow-2 anti-tactical ballistic missile defense system, a joint U.S.-Israeli project for which Washington provided a majority of the development funding.

The Israelis ``have talked (with the Indians) about a number of things. Some they have sold and some they haven't. The Arrow anti-missile system is one,'' the official said.

Among other concerns, he said, the Arrow sale may violate the Missile Technology Control Regime, an informal international agreement aimed at preventing the spread of most missiles to unstable regions.

``Other sales they (Israelis) want to make don't involve that but do involve the question of why anybody would sell anything -- either to the Indians or the Pakistanis -- other than chewing gum,'' the official said.

The United States in 2001 led Israel to believe that it would not oppose Israel's proposed sale of three Phalcon airborne warning and control system (AWACS) planes to India, said an Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

But that sale, estimated at $1 billion, is also on ''temporary hold'' because of the military confrontation brewing between India and Pakistan, he said.

The Phalcon planes are produced by Israel and therefore do not require U.S. approval. However, because America is a close ally, Israel prefers to have U.S. support, the Israeli official said.

Previously Washington pressured Israel to cancel a similar Phalcon deal with China.

``There have been talks between Israel and India on the Phalcon radar system. We understood they (Americans) were not opposed to it but in the current situation, it's on hold because no one wants to inflame tensions in the current situation,'' the Israeli official said.

India and Pakistan -- nuclear rivals on the South Asian subcontinent -- have mounted their biggest military buildup since their independence from Britain in 1947, triggered by an attack on India's parliament last month.

-------- biological weapons

Medical experts study ways to counteract bioterror
The little-known federal stockpile has drugs to treat anthrax, smallpox and radiation, but more are needed.

Monday, January 14, 2002
Lauran Neergaard
Associated Press
http://www.dispatch.com/print_template.php?story=dispatch/news/news02/jan02/1031880.html

WASHINGTON -- In warehouses hidden across the nation are tons of pills for anthrax and radiation and vaccine for smallpox -- but the nation's anti-terrorism stockpile is far from complete.

Next month, in a closed-door meeting in Atlanta, FBI and other intelligence agents will meet with physician experts on germ and chemical warfare and radiation to figure out what therapies should be bought next.

On the table are experimental treatments for hemorrhagic fevers and smallpox, the proper supply of antitoxin for botulism, and a new cyanide antidote that may replace one some experts call antiquated.

While the stockpile has lots of antibiotics that prevent anthrax infection, it doesn't include some drugs that may be key to treating an already sick person.

"Everything is up for grabs,'' said Steven Bice, who runs the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile. "We'll review our entire formulary.''

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started the federal stockpile in 1999, spending $150 million quietly purchasing antidotes, starting with antibiotics that can fend off anthrax. Many also can treat plague and tularemia, other potential bioterror agents.

When anthrax struck, the government swiftly spent more than half a billion dollars pumping up the stockpile, adding 100 million more doses of anthrax-fighting Cipro and enough smallpox vaccine for every American. The latest buy: millions of potassium iodide tablets, used to prevent thyroid cancer after a release of radioactive iodine.

Now the big question is what to buy next.

The stockpile has lots of the Cipro and doxycycline pills that were taken by thousands of people during the anthrax attacks-by-mail. But treatment once someone is sick requires additional drugs. While the stockpile contains stronger intravenous Cipro, the CDC isn't sure which other drugs are best to prescribe with it and need to be stockpiled.

Also on tap for February's meeting:

How to handle hemorrhagic diseases like the Ebola virus or Lassa fever. There are no proven treatments, although the hepatitis drug ribavirin is sometimes tried.

How much botulism antitoxin is needed? The CDC has a contract with Aventis Pasteur to make several hundred doses, not just for bioterrorism but for the nation's rare cases of natural -- usually food-borne -- botulism.

Should the CDC add to the stockpile's small amount of cidofovir, a treatment for a common AIDS complication, which some research suggests might help smallpox?

Experts will also debate how to resupply repositories of anti-radiation and chemical therapies.

Because the cyanide antidotes amyl and sodium nitrite can cause bad side effects, one expert suggests stockpiling hydroxycobalamine, which is used in Europe.

--------

Gov't. Considers Bioterror Defense

January 14, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Drug-Stockpile.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In warehouses hidden across the nation are tons of pills for anthrax and radiation and vaccine for smallpox -- but the nation's anti-terrorism stockpile is far from complete.

Next month, in a closed-door meeting in Atlanta, FBI and other intelligence agents will meet with physician experts on germ and chemical warfare and radiation to figure out what therapies should be bought next.

On the table are experimental treatments for hemorrhagic fevers and smallpox, the proper supply of antitoxin for botulism, and a new cyanide antidote that may replace one some experts call antiquated.

And while the stockpile has lots of antibiotics that prevent anthrax infection, it doesn't include some drugs that may be key to treating an already sick person.

``Everything is up for grabs,'' said Steven Bice, who runs the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile. ``We'll review our entire formulary.''

Most Americans had never heard of the federal stockpile until the fall anthrax attacks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started it in 1999, spending $150 million over the next three years quietly purchasing antidotes -- fortunately, starting with antibiotics that can fend off anthrax. Those drugs were a good buy: Many also can treat plague and tularemia, other potential bioterror agents.

When anthrax struck, the government swiftly spent more than half a billion dollars pumping up the stockpile, adding 100 million more doses of anthrax-fighting Cipro and enough smallpox vaccine for every American. The latest buy: millions of potassium iodide tablets, used to prevent thyroid cancer after release of radioactive iodine.

Now the big question is what to buy next.

CDC won't release an entire list of the stockpile's contents, citing security. Likewise, next month's meeting between intelligence officials and CDC-picked physicians on which pathogens top the threat list is closed to the public.

But some options will generate serious debate.

Take anthrax. The stockpile has lots of the Cipro and doxycycline pills that were taken by thousands of people who were exposed during the attacks-by-mail. But treatment once someone is sick requires additional drugs, to fight anthrax-caused meningitis and the protein synthesis crucial to the germ's lethality. While the stockpile contains stronger intravenous Cipro, CDC isn't sure which other drugs are best to prescribe with it and need to be stockpiled. Candidates include clindamycin, Rifampin and vancomycin.

``I'd like to see a little more definitive research'' before choosing, said CDC anthrax expert Dr. Bradley Perkins.

Also on tap for February's meeting:

--How to handle hemorrhagic diseases like the terrifying Ebola virus or Lassa fever. There are no proven treatments, although the hepatitis drug ribavirin is sometimes tried.

``But you need an intravenous drug, which is not yet licensed in the U.S. and is available only in short supply,'' said Dr. C.J. Peters of the University of Texas, Galveston, a former top CDC official pushing to stockpile IV ribavirin.

--How much botulism antitoxin is needed? The CDC has a contract with Aventis Pasteur to make several hundred doses, not just for bioterrorism but for the nation's rare cases of natural -- usually food-borne -- botulism. The military also has a small antitoxin supply.

France houses the world's biggest antitoxin cache and some experts favor negotiating for overseas shipments, Bice said. But ``we're working not to be dependent upon that.''

--Should CDC add to the stockpile's small amount of cidofovir, a treatment for a common AIDS complication, which some research suggests might help smallpox?

Bioterrorism isn't the stockpile's only target. Experts are at odds over how to resupply local repositories of anti-radiation and chemical therapies.

Take the cyanide antidotes amyl and sodium nitrite. These old drugs can cause bad side effects, says Emory University emergency medicine professor Brent Morgan, who will urge stockpiling instead a B-vitamin substance used in Europe. Hydroxycobalamine isn't yet government-approved here because too few cyanide poisoning cases occur to study its effectiveness, but ``it looks good in animal studies'' and could be more easily used by paramedics, he said.

Still, what's in the stockpile may make no difference if CDC doesn't prepare local authorities to distribute the antidotes before disaster strikes, added Morgan, who plans to stress logistics at the February meeting.

For example, the antidotes likely would be shipped in huge air-freight containers that require counting out and labeling drug doses from bins of pills -- and 100 cities are vying to practice with the government's one training container.

``If we've got tons of antidotes sitting at airports, how long it takes ... to get to patients who are poisoned and need treatment -- that's really going to be the problem,'' Morgan said.

--------

Expert Calls Smallpox 'Real Threat'

January 14, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/health/AP-Bioterror-Fauci.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bioterror attack using smallpox is an ``extremely realistic'' possibility, but vaccinating all Americans in advance isn't a good idea, one of the nation's top infectious disease experts said Monday.

How likely is a smallpox attack? ``It's a real threat, but you can't put a number on it,'' said Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health.

That's why, unquestionably, the public will debate whether the smallpox vaccination that ended in the 1970s should resume, he said. So far the government opposes that, a position Fauci endorses, because the smallpox vaccine can cause such serious side effects that for every 1 million people vaccinated, one or two could die.

Still, ``since this is a very difficult issue ... there should be an open discussion, be that at a hearing or an open town meeting, so that information can be given to the American public so they can understand'' that position, Fauci told reporters Monday.

Fauci said the anthrax-by-mail attacks taught the importance of being up front with the public. Government officials made mistakes early in the anthrax outbreak by trying to reassure Americans rather than simply stating what they knew -- and didn't know -- about the risks, he said.

``The need to avoid panic is important. But denial of risk when a risk is present can undermine confidence,'' he said.

``The New Year's resolution of people in public health, myself included, is the promise not to be afraid to say that although the risk of a bioterrorist attack that will affect you or you or you is relatively small compared to other risks that you take, it is not zero.''

Fauci, head of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, helped handle the anthrax crisis and is considered among the top candidates to become the NIH's new director.

While the nation is better prepared now, no one can guarantee that some Americans won't die from another bioterror attack, he said.

If law enforcement doesn't prevent terrorism, ``this is tough but it's the truth: You have to rely on patterns that unfortunately will require people getting sick and perhaps dying before you know you're actually in the middle'' of a bioterror-caused disease outbreak, he said.

-------- colombia

Colombian Rebels Quitting Safe Havens as Peace Talks Fail

New York Times
January 14, 2002
By JUAN FORERO
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/international/americas/14COLO.html

SAN VICENTE DEL CAGUÁN, Jan. 13 - Colombian rebels announced today that they would peacefully withdraw from five towns the government handed over as a safe haven for peace talks, a move likely to put an end to negotiations that began with high hopes but collapsed without ever reaching any meaningful accords.

After efforts to restart the peace effort failed on Saturday, President Andrés Pastrana gave the rebels until Monday night to withdraw from the huge demilitarized zone, which for three years has been under rebel control.

Unless there is a breakthrough in talks, military units on the northern and southern borders of the rebel- held zone were expected to retake this town and four other communities as early as 9:30 p.m. Monday.

Tonight, James LeMoyne, a United Nations envoy to Colombia, announced that he was meeting with rebel commanders and was in close contact with the presidential palace in Bogotá. He held out hope for peace, saying: "It is very hard. Time goes by, and there are differences. I want to say I found a willingness for peace on both sides."

The rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, on Saturday offered Mr. Pastrana a blueprint for talks to overcome the stalemate. But the president, who for three years had overlooked numerous guerrilla abuses of the demilitarized zone to keep the dialogue going, saw the rebel proposal as a stalling tactic.

Hours after reviewing the 14-point proposal, he said in a nationally televised address that it was "not satisfactory."

While military occupation of the towns is expected to be peaceful - a rebel statement even proposes that a ceremony be held - many people here and across this country believe that the end of the peace effort will lead to an escalation in violence.

Indeed, while the rebels said they would turn over the "urban core of the five towns," they did not mention the swath of jungles and cattle fields where guerrilla units camp. And many experts believe that the rebels, unlikely to directly confront thousands of army troops who are positioned to enter this region, may instead stage attacks elsewhere in the country.

"We will attack the economy of the country," said one low-level rebel, explaining that bridges and other infrastructure may become new targets in the rebel campaign to topple Colombia's government.

Adam Isacson, who follows Colombia's war closely for the Center for International Policy in Washington, said that "if you're the FARC right now, you're not thinking of fighting the military in the Caguán," the region the rebels have controlled.

"You would want to direct your attention to other areas," he said. "Maybe they're thinking about taking out the economy, the electrical grids and all the infrastructure."

The new developments will be watched closely in Washington, where an increasing number of Bush administration officials and members of Congress have come to support a tougher stand against the rebels.

The United States has branded the FARC a terrorist group, since the organization has killed Americans in addition to carrying out widespread kidnappings of Colombians and attacks on civilian centers.

Although the United States policy now prohibits military aid for counterinsurgency operations, an all-out war in this strategically situated country may lead to a renewed debate about the merits of directing aid to battle the insurgents.

The withdrawal of the rebels also creates other problems. For those in this town and other communities in the demilitarized zone, the absence of rebels means a probable infusion of their archenemies, right-wing paramilitary units looking to kill rebel sympathizers.

"Now, the dirty war begins," said a former town official. "Assassinations. Informants. There will be killings here and there."

Although Mr. Pastrana has promised to safeguard civilians, many here doubt the government has the ability or desire to provide protection. Many residents here say the military works hand-in-hand with the paramilitaries, which are outlawed militiamen financed by landowners who despise the rebels.

"We are, of course, terrified," said a 36-year-old woman in the town of San Vicente, who asked that her name not be used. "We think that if we stay, we will be killed. Once the military comes in here, the paramilitaries will come in and begin their work."

Mr. LeMoyne has taken note of the looming danger, telling reporters this morning that he planned to stay in the zone to "demonstrate to the civilian population that we are with them" and to ask the other "armed actors to respect the civilian population."

Residents said they hoped that media attention and the presence of the United Nations would help avert violence. Some families have fled the zone, or melded into more rural areas. Most, though, plan to stay.

Those who believe they are at high risk include grocers and merchants who sold to the rebels, public officials and members of the small, unarmed public security force, which was created at the urging of the rebels.

"We believe we are the biggest targets, because we are in constant contact with the FARC," said Víctor Ayala, 54, one of the coordinators of the force here.

The rebels, in their last proposal to the government, had hoped to overcome government objections to earlier demands that the military drop air force flights over the rebel zone and increased patrols and other restrictions just outside it.

In their proposal, the FARC seemed to drop those conditions, and suggested that a special commission examine "threats" on the zone's border.

Mr. Pastrana, who for three months been trying to get the rebels to talk about a possible cease-fire, said the offer was not enough. He told the nation that the rebel group had until 9:30 p.m. Monday to vacate the zone he had created for them.

"Only a public manifestation in this sense can stop the clock," said Mr. Pastrana, who was under pressure from the army and the public to take a harder line.

Today, the rebels seemed to have the last word, saying the president's deadline "unilaterally changed everything accorded in these three years and subsequently closes the possibilities to the actual process."

Simón Trinidad, a rebel commander, blamed the "constant warmongers" who have put up obstacles "for the possibilities of peace, with social justice."

-------- drug war

Afghan heroin traffic resumes

By Patrick McDowell
ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 14, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020114-28133839.htm

TURBAT, Pakistan - The smugglers moved their caravan at sunset through the desolate moonscape of western Pakistan, the backs of a dozen camels piled high with nearly a ton of heroin and morphine originating in Afghanistan.

Lying in ambush, soldiers from Pakistan's Anti-Narcotics Force shouted orders to halt. The smugglers responded with gunfire.

When the shootout a week ago was over, two smugglers lay wounded, one mortally. Six were captured, and a few escaped.

The haul - 1,430 pounds of heroin and 550 pounds of morphine with an estimated value of $550 million if it had reached the streets of Europe or America - is believed by U.N. drug officials to be one of the biggest ever.

The U.S.-led war against the Taliban had disrupted the world's biggest heroin trafficking route, from Afghanistan through Pakistan and onward to Europe. The flow of Afghan heroin - already pinched by an edict from Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar banning opium poppy cultivation - dried to a trickle.

But now, with the Taliban defeated and the international community pressuring Afghanistan's new government to mount a comprehensive crackdown on drugs, traffickers have been moving huge amounts of heroin out of Afghanistan in the past two weeks, officials say.

"After several months of calm on the drug front, traffickers have decided to move their stocks out of Afghanistan," Bernard Frahi, the senior U.N. anti-narcotics official in Pakistan and Afghanistan, told reporters on Saturday.

"They know that their stockpiles are going to be destroyed along with terrorist hiding places," Mr. Frahi said.

Although Mullah Omar ordered a halt to cultivation 18 months ago, the United Nations said it believed opium stocks remained from previous harvests, and some likely were grown illegally. Also, U.S. officials said in March that it appeared the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance had done nothing to stop cultivation or trafficking in the areas it controlled at the time.

Western dignitaries visiting Afghanistan during the past week, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and nine U.S. senators, told Prime Minister Hamid Karzai's interim administration that one outcome of the U.S.-led war must be an end to Afghanistan's role in the heroin trade.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said from Kabul yesterday on NBC's "Meet The Press" that Mr. Karzai had promised to do all he could to halt the heroin traffic.

But, Mr. Biden said, Mr. Karzai "smiled at me, he said, 'But, Senator, I don't have a nickel to pay one cop.' So he's got a problem, and he's got a point. And if he doesn't have a military, and if he doesn't have a police corps, he's going to have no ability to be able to deal with that very problem of poppies."

Afghans have increasingly relied on opium poppy cultivation since the war against Soviet occupation in the 1980s. For many farmers, growing opium is the only way of making a living in a shattered society where no other crops can be brought to market.

In 1985, Afghanistan produced 31 percent of the world's opium, according to the U.N. Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. By 1999, that had grown to 73 percent.

Warlords and tribal leaders paid their followers with opium money, and Pakistani and Russian traffickers grew rich getting the drug to market. About 90 percent of Afghanistan's heroin ended up in Europe.

In July 2000, Mullah Omar issued one of the most internationally friendly edicts of his rule, banning the cultivation of opium as being against Islam. Opium production fell 94 percent last year to 185 tons, the United Nations estimates.

But Mullah Omar never cracked down on trafficking. The Taliban earned revenue from levies on shipments. Opium and heroin still moved from Afghanistan southward into Pakistan, then took sea routes or went overland through Iran and Turkey into Europe. Other Afghan opium moved north into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Since the Taliban collapsed, Mullah Omar's edict has been ignored by tribal leaders eager to get back into the business. Poppy fields already have been planted in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, the Taliban's southern heartland.

-------- europe

EU force lacks firepower

BY MICHAEL EVANS, DEFENCE EDITOR
MONDAY JANUARY 14 2002
The Times (UK)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002021579,00.html

MORE than a third of the military capabilities needed before the proposed European Union rapid reaction force is ready to take over peacekeeping operations from Nato have still not been provided, according to the latest figures produced by the Government.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has admitted that the EU has 40 "remaining significant shortfalls", including insufficient attack helicopters, transport units, military intelligence specialists and remotely controlled unmanned surveillance aircraft. Based on the figures, it is now estimated that some of the key capabilities will not be supplied for another decade, seven years later than had been planned.

The 60,000-man rapid reaction force, which lies at the heart of the EU defence and security policy, is supposed to be fully operational by the end of next year, capable of mounting peace-support and humanitarian missions as an alternative to Nato when the 19-nation alliance, dominated by the United States, decides not to get involved.

But military experts now believe it will be capable of taking on only basic humanitarian assistance missions, such as flood relief, and that for any significant operation Nato will still have to be the key player.

-------- haiti

Haiti: How nation-building has gone awry
More than seven years after a U.S. invasion, Haiti struggles with extreme poverty and is close to political ruin.

By DAVID ADAMS,
Times Latin America Correspondent
St. Petersburg Times
January 14, 2002
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/14/Worldandnation/Haiti__How_nation_bui.shtml

PORT-AU-PRINCE -- At the former U.S. military camp on the outskirts of Haiti's capital, a large sign is a reminder of the 21,000 troops who invaded the country in September 1994.

Operation Restore Democracy was wrapped up in early 1996. The American troops are long gone. So too is a small force of United Nations peacekeepers.

But as the international community undertakes its new mission in faroff Afghanistan, the legacy of foreign intervention in Haiti is unraveling and the country is sliding toward political collapse.

Fearing that Afghanistan might rapidly return to being a haven for terrorists, the United States and its allies have pledged not to abandon the country after the military mission is over.

Critics of the international community's role in Haiti ask why the same commitment was not made here.

"The situation called for a long-term program of nation-building to create or restore all of the institutions of government in tandem," said Haiti expert James Morrell, research director at the Center for International Policy, a Washington-based think tank.

In 1994 things went well at first. Haiti's democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was restored to power amid tumultuous popular acclaim. The Haitian military was quickly disbanded and its most corrupt officers banished into exile.

But longer-term goals of political stability and reduction of poverty have proved short-lived.

Instead, Haiti is worse off than ever. According to a recent World Bank report Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, with 70 percent of its 7.8-million population living in dire poverty. Half of adults are illiterate, and less than one-quarter of rural children attend primary school.

Expectations that Aristide would use his popular following to reunite the country quickly evaporated after 1994.

The return of political infighting has paralyzed the government. Since 1997, foreign donors have held back $500-million in promised loans and aid after a series of political crises. Parliament has not approved a budget in six years.

Some U.S. and Haitian analysts blame the international community for unfairly imposing a foreign blueprint on the country after 1994, failing to take into account Haitian realities. "They came with their own plan to solve their own interests," said Camille Chalmers, director of the Haitian Platform to Advocate Alternative Development, known as PAPDA.

For example, the demand that Haiti open up its protectionist economy and reduce tariffs resulted in a flood of cheap imported foodstuffs. Unable to compete, local agricultural production has collapsed, fueling greater unemployment in an impoverished countryside. Corn production in the south of Haiti has fallen by 60 percent, PAPDA says.

The World Bank admits mistakes were made. A December 2001 report pointed out that international aid failed to pay sufficient attention to nation-building projects including strengthening weak public institutions.

Even so, many Haitians and foreign analysts say Aristide bears much of the blame.

Back in power after five years, Aristide's second presidency is under fire for corruption, including allegations of ties to drug money. The former priest once regarded as a savior by Haiti's poor is fast losing popularity. For the first time, graffiti has appeared on the streets of the capital: "Down with Aristide."

Former allies have abandoned his political party, Lavalas Family, accusing it of betraying its democratic roots and changing into a mafia-style family business. Scandals abound as rival factions of the Lavalas Family jockey for positions of influence. While the country descends deeper into poverty, government officials drive around in shiny new deluxe sport utility vehicles. Last year the government spent an estimated $7-million on four mansions for top officials, including one for Prime Minister Jean-Marie Cherestal, a boyhood friend of the president.

The prime minister's $1.3-million home is perched atop a hill with a magnificent view of the slums below.

"We voted for these people because we thought there would be change," said Alfonso Desi, a 38-year-old unemployed mason standing in the street outside. "From the minute they go into government they become bourgeois."

Aristide's aloof political style and back-room machinations have earned him unsavory comparisons to Haiti's infamous former dictator Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier.

Repression has returned in the guise of militant pro-Aristide street thugs -- known as the "chimere." After a hapless Dec. 17 coup attempt by unidentified gunmen, the chimere went on a rampage burning down the homes and political offices of opposition leaders. At least 10 people were killed.

Despite pledges to maintain law and order, the government failed to intervene. Worse, Lavalas Family party officials participated in some of the attacks. Government vehicles were used.

"Aristide is worse than Duvalier," said Evans Paul, a former Aristide ally and former mayor of Port-au-Prince. "Duvalier had a certain vision. He was selective in his repression. With Aristide it's anarchy."

In recent weeks a series of attacks by government supporters and officials have occurred across the country. On Nov. 30, Lavalas Family officials in the port town of St. Marc opened fire on a group of 100 antigovernment demonstrators. Two people were killed and 10 wounded. Local police came under fire when they intervened. None of the town officials has been arrested.

On Dec. 3 a radio director was stoned and hacked to death by government supporters in the town of Petit-Goave after he broadcast an interview with local opposition leaders. Although authorities identified the alleged assassins, police have refused to execute arrest warrants. Rioting broke out when police tried to stop 4,000 mourners marching to the local cemetery.

In the most recent incident, a Family Lavalas member of parliament, Jocelyn Saint-Louis, was accused last week of killing the mayor of northern town, shooting him 17 times. Saint-Louis has denied direct involvement, saying the bullets were fired by a member of his security detail after the mayor attacked them. A parliamentary commission is investigating.

"This is a government that allows itself to do anything it wants, to kill, to burn and to put itself beyond the law," said Jean-Claude Bajeux, a veteran human rights advocate and former minister of culture in Aristide's first administration.

Aristide has condemned the violence but seems unable or unwilling to stop it. International observers are increasingly perturbed by his inaction.

U.S. and Latin American diplomats are to meet at the Organization of American States in Washington this week to discuss Haiti. The OAS is considering invoking a provision in its charter to force the government to allow international mediators to intervene.

Critics of the international response to the deepening crisis in Haiti say much more than that is required.

"Haiti needs a long-term program of nation-building," Morrell said. "You can't just parachute the president back in like we did in 1994. Once you intervene you have to stay and finish the job."

-------- india

THE LEADERS
India Welcomes Pakistani Steps, but Stays Alert

New York Times
January 14, 2002
By CELIA W. DUGGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/international/asia/14INDI.html

NEW DELHI, Jan. 13 - The Indian government today welcomed the commitment by Pakistan's military ruler not to allow his territory to be used as a base for terrorist attacks. But at the same time, officials here said India would not scale back its military buildup unless Pakistan followed those words with deeds.

That reaction gives the Americans, the British and the European Union more time to calm the threat of war. "So far, so good," said a senior Western diplomat here.

Indian officials said today that after intensive discussions they decided to give the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the benefit of the doubt, crediting him with charting a substantial change in policy, one that could reverse the downturn in relations and lead both countries back to the negotiating table.

But the officials warned that this hopeful moment would evaporate if Pakistan did not close down Pakistan-based Islamic groups that have been waging what they call a holy war against India in Kashmir.

"The lessening of military tensions on the border is entirely dependent on steps taken inside Pakistan to operationalize what has been stated by His Excellency, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, sahib," India's foreign minister, Jaswant Singh, said at a news conference today, using a traditional term of respect.

Inside Pakistan, General Musharraf's speech pledging to sever links to terrorism in Kashmir and to purge Pakistan of Islamic militancy appears to have won broad public support. But many Pakistanis say the struggle to make Kashmir independent of India is a legitimate one, not terrorism, a view which is likely to bedevil the search for diplomatic solutions. [Page A6.]

India's double-hinged message - praise for the general's commitments coupled with the insistence that they be followed by action - is also being delivered privately by the Americans and the British.

"It's basically the same sheet of music," said a senior Indian official.

The Americans and the British have also been trying to persuade the Indians to react positively to the overtures made by General Musharraf in a speech to his nation on Saturday evening. President Bush telephoned the leaders of Pakistan and India this morning to urge them to continue seeking a peaceful resolution of their sharpest tensions in three decades, and both agreed to try, the White House said. Later this week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will be visiting both countries.

The efforts by the United States and Britain are focused on heading off a war that, while disastrous in its own right, would also jeopardize efforts to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda or the Taliban who may have fled to Pakistan.

India is specifically demanding that the Pakistani Army stop providing the cover fire and logistical support that has helped thousands of militants cross from Pakistan-held Kashmir into the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Mr. Singh said India would give Pakistan "all due time" to carry out the general's new policies, but he also said India would know almost immediately if Pakistan had stopped supporting the infiltration of militants, since it happens on a daily basis.

Western diplomats agreed with Mr. Singh's assessment, saying that while Pakistan might have trouble quickly halting violent acts committed by militants already in the Kashmir valley, it could clamp down on the supply of new ones tomorrow.

"The actual infiltration could be stopped in 24 hours," one diplomat said.

India has long referred to Pakistan's sponsorship of these extreme Islamic groups as cross-border terrorism. Since Sept. 11, India has tried to hitch its fight against Islamic warriors in Kashmir to the global campaign against terrorism.

The current crisis began a month ago when a heavily armed five-man suicide squad tried to blast its way into India's Parliament, killing nine people. The gunmen were killed during the attack. India accused two Pakistan-based militant groups - the Army of the Pure and the Army of Muhammad - of carrying out the attack. General Musharraf banned both last night.

Intelligence officials in both countries estimate that the two groups together have been responsible for about 70 percent of the violent attacks in Kashmir.

One of the gravest fears among security analysts, diplomats and local officials is that extremist groups in Pakistan - concerned about their very survival - will commit a spectacular terrorist attack in India to provoke a war.

Mr. Singh said India is well aware of such a possibility. "We are mindful of the attempt that might be made to destabilize the situation," he said. "We are alert also in that regard."

Mr. Singh avoided harsh statements about Pakistan today but did lace his comments with skepticism. In an interview last week, Mr. Singh had described Pakistan as "a land where deception, double deception, double double deception is the history."

He could not help but make a small dig at the president of Pakistan, pointedly noting that he is a military ruler, not an elected one. He corrected a reporter, saying, "It is not Mr. Musharraf; it is General Musharraf."

In the official statement that Mr. Singh read aloud, he said India noted the banning of the two groups accused in the attack on Parliament, and added that India expected that those militants would not regroup by simply renaming their outfits. He also said India expected Pakistan to act against other groups.

But rather than severing its slimmed-down diplomatic ties with Pakistan - as some had feared that India would do if displeased - Indian officials said today that they would approach Pakistan diplomatically to find out how it intends to carry out Mr. Musharraf's promises.

--------

INTERNATIONAL
Indian Defense Minister Takes Harsher Tone on Pakistan Plan

New York Times
January 14, 2002
By CELIA W. DUGGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/international/14CND-INDI.html

NEW DELHI, Jan. 14 - A day after India welcomed Pakistan's plan to crack down on home-grown terrorists and militants, India's defense minister, George Fernandes, reminded Pakistan's military ruler today that India is ready for war if Pakistan does not act quickly against Islamic "holy warriors" battling India in Kashmir.

"Any efforts at de-escalation can come only - I repeat only - if and when cross-border terrorism is effectively stopped," Mr. Fernandes declared at a news conference today. He added that Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, "has to do it fast particularly because troops from both sides are on the front lines."

The tone of Mr. Fernandes' remarks was harsher than those made Sunday by Jaswant Singh, India's minister of external affairs, and they set the bar very high for what Pakistan must do before India will pull back any of its hundreds of thousands of troops dug in along India's 1,800-mile border with Pakistan.

A Western diplomat here said it appeared that Mr. Fernandes, an aging socialist who was once one of the India's leading advocates for peace and who has become hawkish in his years as defense minister, is playing bad cop to Mr. Singh's good cop.

Mr. Fernandes' remarks are likely to further disappoint Pakistan, whose foreign office spokesman said today that officials there wished Mr. Singh's statement had been warmer. India is clearly trying to keep the pressure on Pakistan to act, and on the Bush Administration, which is engaged in intensive, behind-the-scenes diplomacy, to get Pakistan to act.

Mr. Fernandes is going to the United States this week to meet with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is coming here to meet Mr. Singh.

India will also be pressing its diplomatic offensive in discussions with the Chinese prime minister, Zhu Rongji, who began a long-planned state visit to India today. India's prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, said in a speech at a banquet tonight that India and China had agreed to cooperate against terrorism.

Historically, China has been a close ally of Pakistan and is believed to have supplied Pakistan with nuclear technology. But China is contending with a violent separatist movement among the Uighurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic group, which may give the world's two largest developing countries some common ground. China has encouraged Pakistan to exercise restraint in its current conflict with India and to maintain stability in South Asia.

In an attempt to defuse the crisis with India, General Musharraf gave an ambitious address Saturday night. He lamented the rise of a "Kalashnikov culture" of violence among militant religious fanatics in Pakistan and declared that no group would be allowed to commit terrorist acts in the name of the Kashmiri cause.

For years, Pakistan's military intelligence agency has provided financial and logistical support to militant Islamic groups based in Pakistan that have been trying to prize the majority-Muslim Kashmir valley from Indian control by attacking Indian security forces there. The groups have also been implicated in attacks on civilians, particularly Hindus, in remote villages.

Indian officials use the phrase "cross-border terrorism" to describe the Pakistan-backed, anti-India militancy in Kashmir, a land the two countries have fought over since they gained independence from Britain 54 years ago.

India considers Kashmir an integral part of a secular, predominantly-Hindu nation. Pakistan, an Islamic nation, has long sought a plebiscite in Kashmir on whether the Kashmiris want to join Pakistan or remain part of India. Pakistan has not favored giving the Kashmiris a choice of independence from both India and Pakistan - the preference of many indigenous Kashmiri rebels.

Mr. Fernandes demanded today that the violence in Kashmir and India stop before India pulls back any of its troops. The crisis between India and Pakistan began a month ago when heavily armed men tried to storm India's Parliament. India accused two Pakistan based groups active in Kashmir, which General Musharraf banned on Saturday.

But with thousands of militants already positioned inside the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, it may prove difficult for General Musharraf to halt the violence there quickly. He can, however, slow the infiltration of new militants from the Kashmiri territory that Pakistan controls who rely on cover fire from Pakistani soldiers to cross safely, military analysts and Indian officials say.

Intermittent shelling continued at various points along the line that divides Indian-held and Pakistani-held Kashmir, particularly in the Jammu region, Indian officials said.

"The apprehension is that the shelling is done to give cover to infiltration," a military officials said tonight. "There's not much change on the ground. But let's see. It takes time. It was only Saturday night that General Musharraf gave the speech."

Mr. Fernandes said today that there is still no strong evidence on the ground that General Musharraf is serious about fulfilling his commitments. Asked about the arrest of hundreds of militants in Pakistan over the past two days, Mr. Fernandes said India had been provided with no official information about who had been arrested or what groups they represented.

"We have yet to get any concrete reports on that," he said. "At the moment we only know what's been in the press."

In his comments this afternoon, Mr. Fernandes used the same kind of language that the prime minister, Mr. Vajpayee, and other senior officials have used since the attack on Parliament. With unanimity, they have depicted the current showdown as India's final battle against terrorism.

"There is no way that India can accept such acts of terrorism anymore," Mr. Fernandes said. "Let me tell you that the thought of having to receive around 20 bodies of soldiers every week - brave men slain in terrorist attacks - has steeled our resolve to end this. India would like to make it clear that India has had enough and shall have no more of it."

-------- iraq

Arabs in Iraq Rally for Palestinians

The Associated Press
Sunday, January 13, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40094-2002Jan13?language=printer

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- About 2,500 protesters gathered in the Iraqi capital on Sunday to show their support for the Palestinian uprising, burning U.S. and Israeli flags and threatening Israel.

Demonstrators included Egyptian, Palestinian and Sudanese students and workers living in Iraq. Some held banners that read "All Arab people are with President Saddam's call to liberate Palestine."

Since September 2000, more than 850 people have been killed in the uprising on the Palestinian side and more than 240 have been killed on the Israeli side.

"We are protesting Sharon's crimes against our people in Palestine and we tell him that the uprising will never end," said Mohammed Akram, 32, a Palestinian worker in Baghdad.

After about an hour, protesters dispersed peacefully after giving U.N. officials a letter calling on the U.N. secretary-general to exert efforts to halt Israeli attacks on Palestinians.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq launched 39 Scud missiles at Israeli cities. Under U.S. pressure, Israel did not retaliate, though Israel's defense minister said recently that if Saddam attacked again, Israel would hit back.

-------- israel / palestine

Israeli Army Faces Storm for Attack on Arab Houses

New York Times
January 14, 2002
By JAMES BENNET
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/international/middleeast/14MIDE.html

TERMIT OUTPOST, Gaza Strip, Jan. 13 - Israeli officials wanted to focus this weekend on scorning Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, as a weapons smuggler without scruples. Instead, they found themselves mired in an anguished internal debate over Israeli military tactics.

Members of the coalition government and Israeli journalists today criticized the Israeli Army, often harshly, for sending two armored bulldozers overnight Thursday to destroy a neighborhood of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, across from this scarred military outpost on the Egyptian border.

The army says that it destroyed 21 homes and that all of them were empty. But the International Committee of the Red Cross said today that 93 families, or about 600 people, had been left homeless. The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said 60 houses were flattened - home to 112 families with 614 members.

As evening approached, a few dozen people were still wandering the extinguished neighborhood, a desolation of splintered furniture and crushed cinderblocks the size of a football field. Some gathered by two fires that sent black smoke skyward.

Zeev Schiff, the respected military affairs analyst for the daily Haaretz, called the demolition a "shameful chapter" and "an act of undisguised ruthlessness, a military act devoid of humanitarian and diplomatic logic."

But the army said it acted to stop gunmen from using empty houses as cover for attacks on this post and to search for tunnels used to smuggle weapons from Egypt.

Waving his hand at the scene of destruction beyond the bulletproof glass here, Colonel Shlomo Dagan, the commander of forces in the southern Gaza Strip, said, "You could see from here whether these houses were populated or not." There were no lights there at night, he said, and no clothes hanging out to dry.

"I can understand this criticism," he said, when asked about comments like Mr. Schiff's. "But what is the alternative? The alternative is more tunnels. The alternative is more killed soldiers. This was the last solution, after there were no more solutions." The army brought a small group of journalists here to argue its case that the operation was justified.

The Israeli cabinet debated the demolitions today. One minister, Saleh Tarif of the Labor Party, demanded to know who had given the order and asked that trailers be provided for the dispossessed. Some other Labor officials also voiced criticism. But the newly elected leader of the Labor Party, Binyamin Ben- Eliezer, is the minister of defense, and he supported the operation, saying the homes were vacant.

The home demolition was widely seen as a reprisal for an attack on Wednesday morning on an Israeli position just east of the Gaza Strip. Four soldiers were killed in that attack. The two Palestinian gunmen, both of whom were shot dead, came from Rafah. But military officers here insisted that the two events were not connected.

The demolition reverberated through the news media all day. Israeli Radio took the unusual step of putting a Palestinian from Rafah on the air to describe, in vivid Hebrew, the loss of his home.

Yasir Abed Rabbo, the Palestinian Authority minister of information, called the demolition a war crime and demanded that those involved be tried.

Tonight, in comments to reporters in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon defended the home demolition as necessary to stop smuggling. He suggested that Israel might have to create a broader belt between Egypt and Gaza. The strip is now about 50 yards wide. It is a no-man's land of mud churned by the treads of armored vehicles, and it is lined on the Gaza side with bullet-pocked homes.

Mr. Sharon said his chief goal as prime minister has been to achieve peace. "There was one thing I wanted to accomplish: to reach a political settlement which will lead to peace with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world," he said. "That, I thought, would be the last thing I would do in a political life. Then I would have been glad to go back to the farm, ride the horses."

The goal is as elusive as ever. Mr. Sharon recently called Mr. Arafat "a bitter enemy of Israel," after Israeli commandos on Jan. 3 captured a ship smuggling 50 tons of weapons north through the Red Sea. Israeli and American officials say the weapons were headed for the Gaza Strip. Mr. Sharon has accused Mr. Arafat of involvement in the operation but he has denied knowing anything about it.

Colonel Dagan insisted that any residents of the neighborhood, a ramshackle maze of cinder block walls and roofs of corrugated metal, left three months ago. "Only if we are sure, by a definition of 100 percent, that these houses are empty, are we going to touch them," he said.

But in interviews in recent days many Palestinians in Rafah said they lived in that area. They described waking in the night to the approaching roar of heavy machinery and fleeing with their families into the darkness. The wreckage of household goods, like a bicycle or a child's bed, suggested that the homes were not empty shells.

It took the two bulldozers two hours to level the neighborhood, one soldier here said.

Ibrahim Ghneim, 50 years old, said he lived in the neighborhood, which is called Block O. He said he lost all but a bathroom and his kitchen in the raid. But Mr. Ghneim said several of his neighbors stayed in their homes only by day, moving to a safer place to sleep at night. B'Tselem said that of the 112 families it counted as living in the neighborhood, 84 were at home when the raid occurred.

At night, and sometimes by day, this is a war zone. Termit, itself once a Palestinian home, is the lone structure in this no man's land, a pale- yellow, four-story building hung with camouflage, reinforced with cinder blocks and steel plating, and bristling with machine guns.

Palestinians pelt the post with hand grenades - many of them homemade - and pepper it with gunfire in an effort, the Israelis believe, to pin down the soldiers while weapons, drugs and other contraband are smuggled through the tunnels, more than 30 feet underground. The soldiers fire back from the post and from the armored vehicles that patrol the border outside.

Israeli soldiers discovered the mouth of one smuggling tunnel in a Palestinian home in Rafah on Friday night, the army said.

Many of the Palestinians who lived in the demolished homes have moved in with friends or family. The governor of Rafah, Safian al-Agha, said he hoped to move the families temporarily into two schools, since students are on a two-week vacation.

So far, the most generous assistance appears to have come not from Mr. Arafat's Palestinian Authority or any aid agency, but from another source: some Palestinians whose homes were demolished said they had received $5,000 checks from Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader.

-------- nato

NATO lecture

January 14, 2002
Daybook
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020114-188996.htm

At noon the Woodrow Wilson Center presents a lecture titled "NATO after September 11: New Purpose or Accelerated Atrophy?" The speaker is Ilya Prizel, University of Pittsburgh. Location: Woodrow Wilson Center, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Contact: 202/691-4188.

-------- pakistan

Pakistani Cleric Warns of Islamic Revolution

January 14, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-southasia-pakistan-madrassas.html

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A prominent Pakistani Muslim cleric said Monday President Pervez Musharraf's sweeping crackdown on religious extremism was sowing the seeds of Islamic revolution.

Maulana Abdul Aziz, imam of Islamabad's main Red Mosque, said while there had been no immediate backlash to Musharraf's crackdown, announced on a Saturday, a reaction was brewing.

``This government is paving the way for Islamic revolution by creating hurdles for the Islamic parties,'' Aziz told Reuters in an interview at his home next to the Red Mosque.

``There may not be instant reaction but they will respond once dust is settled,'' the fiery preacher said of Musharraf's decision to ban five militant Muslim groups, including two fighting Indian forces in its part of disputed Kashmir.

``We are just watching the situation but the silence will not last for long,'' Aziz said, adding he believed Musharraf launched his crackdown because of U.S. pressure.

``The timing of this announcement by the president has raised suspicion in the minds of religious people. It is being done under U.S. pressure,'' he said.

Musharraf also imposed restrictions on Islamic schools, or madrassas, which have long been seen as a breeding ground for militancy. New madrassas can not be built without permission and all of them have to register and be brought into the mainstream education system.

He imposed restrictions on mosques and denounced religious scholars who he said preached sectarian hatred and violence.

Aziz, who opposed Musharraf's decision to abandon support for Afghanistan's former Taliban rulers and support the U.S.-led war on terrorism, dismissed the government's justification.

``If they were terrorists groups, then why were they allowed to operate for such a long time?'' he asked, adding the move would weaken the separatist movement in Indian-ruled Kashmir.

``We have lost Afghanistan and it seems we are now losing Kashmir,'' he said of the banning of the two Kashmiri militant groups blamed for the December 13 attack on the Indian parliament. ``This will affect the freedom movement in Kashmir.''

Musharraf's crackdown followed a big buildup of Indian forces on Pakistan's border in the wake of the parliament attack, which India blamed on the two Kashmiri groups banned on the weekend.

The United States had called on Pakistan to get tough with militants to help defuse the standoff with nuclear rival India.

``GOOD DECISION''

A teacher at a madrassa in Islamabad said he had no problems with the new restrictions.

``It is a good decision by the government that madrassas will not be opened without permission. We fully support it,'' teacher Kaleem Mortaza told Reuters at his school.

Mortaza said he would register his madrassa with the government. As he spoke his students in a nearby classroom were reciting verses of the Muslim holy book, the Koran.

One new student, the eight-year-old son of a shoe-shiner said he did hot know why his parents took him out of a state school and sent him to the madrassa last week.

But Mortaza had an answer. ``The parents send their children here to serve Islam and the holy Koran. They join our mission to propagate the teachings of Koran throughout the world,'' he says.

``I have memorized the Koran in two years. Now I am teaching these children to memorize Koran and after graduation from here they will open more madrassas to do the same,'' he said.

The number of madrassas mushroomed during the 11-year military rule of President Zia-ul-Haq when front-line state Pakistan became embroiled in the U.S.-backed war against the Soviet 1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan.

Madrassas, mainly in Northwest Frontier Province and western Baluchistan provinces, produced numerous recruits for Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban movement which erupted on to the scene in 1994 and took power two years later.

-------- propaganda wars

How convenient

January 14, 2002,
Inside Politics, Greg Pierce
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020114-89210984.htm

"Homelessness - one of the media's favorite tools to portray the alleged downside of Ronald Reagan's '80s prosperity - was a more serious national problem during Bill Clinton's 1990s," the Media Research Center's Elizabeth J. Swasey writes.

"Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless admitted as much on [Wednesday] night's 'Hannity and Colmes' on the Fox News Channel: 'Definitely, we saw more homelessness in the 1990s than we did in the 1980s.'

"But we saw far less homelessness on TV sets during the Clinton years. The MRC did the math: During the first Bush administration, morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN ran an average of 53 stories on homelessness annually, compared to less than 17 per year during the Clinton administration," the writer said.

"The soon-to-be No. 1 New York Times bestseller, Bernard Goldberg's 'Bias,' devotes an entire chapter to the media's indulgence in advocacy journalism on this topic. In it, Goldberg cited a 1999 column by the Providence Journal's Philip Terzian, formerly of the Carter administration, that showed the New York Times ran 50 stories on homelessness in 1988, including five on page one, but in 1998 ran only 10 - not one on page one.

"The expanding homeless population was out of sight during the Clinton years but just three short weeks after George W. Bush assumed office, ABC won the race to be the first network to rediscover the homeless: On Sunday, Feb. 11, 2001, 'World News Tonight' Sunday anchor Carole Simpson intoned: 'Homelessness, which is estimated to affect from 21/2 to 31/2 million people, is again on the rise.'

"How convenient."

-------- syria

DAMASCUS
Syria Repackages Its Repression of Muslim Militants as Antiterror Lesson

New York Times
January 14, 2002
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/international/middleeast/14SYRI.html

DAMASCUS, Syria, Jan. 13 - After spending the last 20 years in prison for being a ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khalid al-Shami suddenly found himself released on a cool night last month, lost in a capital he no longer recognized.

"I couldn't find my house because everything had changed," said Mr. Shami, reliving his first confused, exhilarating night. "I didn't know where I was." He checked into a hotel after convincing the manager that the dark-haired, 40-year-old man on his expired driver's license and passport was indeed him.

Mr. Shami counts himself among the lucky. In February 1982, just weeks after his arrest, Syria suppressed a Brotherhood insurgency, first with guns and then with bulldozers, leveling entire neighborhoods in the city of Hama, massacring about 10,000 residents. Thousands more members of the Muslim Brotherhood were arrested and never seen again.

For years the events in Hama were only whispered about. But since Sept. 11, things have changed, and Syria is seeking to repackage its experience in asphyxiating Muslim extremism as a textbook antiterrorism campaign.

The government exudes a certain sense of vindication that what was once condemned as a human rights horror might now help improve long- troubled ties with Washington. Syrian intelligence agencies are even sharing their knowledge about tracking militant cells with the West, earning praise from American officials.

Yet in one of those odd twists of diplomacy, Syria remains firmly lodged on the State Department's list of nations that support terrorism. It has even been mentioned peripherally as a possible target because of its support for groups that Washington labels terrorists.

Syria, for its part, remains a staunch critic of the United States and is already using its new seat on the United Nations Security Council to focus attention on ending Israel's occupation of Arab lands, while dismissing the American role in Middle East peace talks as too biased.

"Relations exist on two levels," said Imad Fawzi Shueibi, a political analyst and a professor at Damascus University. "Publicly there is conflict, but on the second level the U.S. knows that it needs the Syrians."

American officials in Washington have previously said that a top official from the C.I.A. held secret talks with his Syrian counterparts about helping the United States investigate and uproot Osama bin Laden's network, Al Qaeda.

The United States Embassy here refused to comment on the talks. But other diplomats noted that ever since the events in Hama, Syria's half dozen or so overlapping intelligence agencies have all tracked extremist groups operating in the Middle East and among Arab exile communities in Europe.

The Syrians, caught off guard by the virulence of the Muslim uprising, wanted to wipe out all Brotherhood cells and to ensure that no other organization ever emerged suddenly to threaten Hafez al-Assad, the president at the time.

They were known to investigate virtually every terrorist group, even those like Al Qaeda that had no links to Syria.

"They keep their eyes on anybody who is doing any organized activity because they want to make sure that they are not a threat," said one diplomat. "They want to know who is in contact with whom, who is calling whom, where they are meeting."

Syrian agents were active in the large Arab exile communities in France, the Netherlands and Germany, tracking people who committed terrorist acts or might be planning ones. No diplomats or Syrian officials would confirm whether Syria provided specific information that led directly to any Al Qaeda cells. But any intelligence sharing with the United States constitutes a notable shift in relations.

One figure who emerged from the attack investigation is a Syrian-born executive in Germany who the authorities suspect may be a link between the hijackers and Islamic militants there. The executive, Mamoun Darkazanli, was listed with 27 people and organizations whose assets were frozen by the United States on the grounds that they provided money to Al Qaeda. Mr. Darkazanli has declined to comment.

American officials have praised the Syrians for contributing to the antiterrorism effort, while affirming that they are likely to be asked to do more.

"They have said and done some things, and have cooperated with us recently, that suggest that they're looking for a better relationship with the United States," said Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in a television interview last fall.

So many Congressional delegations are tramping through Damascus these days, with six scheduled for January alone, that Foreign Ministry officials started jokingly calling it "the American month."

President Bashar Assad, until recently reluctant to meet any American delegations, has been seeing them all. After one meeting last week, the government news agency quoted him as urging the United States to "take advantage of Syria's successful experiences."

Other senior officials are less oblique. "The kind of terrorism we faced was the same kind and probably the same persons now fighting the United States," said Adnan Omran, the minister of information. "We were ahead in fighting terrorism."

Syrian officials hope that Washington can straddle what amounts to the fault line in their relationship - how to define terrorism. They, too, regard Muslim fundamentalists as a strategic enemy, but they will not yet abandon the Palestinian and Lebanese Islamist groups with whom they share views on Israel.

"Those fighting to regain occupied territories are not terrorists," said Mr. Omran, noting that American delegations, in their focus on what happened in the United States, often neglect the distinction he makes.

Syria is on the State Department's terrorism list because it supports Hezbollah, the Lebanese guerrilla group that is making the transition to a political party and that the United States accuses of being a terrorist organization. In addition, Damascus hosts political leaders from the militant Palestinian Islamic groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad along with older secular groups battling Israel.

The Syrians dismiss the list as an American favor to Israel. But at the same time Hezbollah has not carried out any attacks on Israeli targets since October, a fact analysts attribute to Syria's desire to avoid American attention to its friends.

Two decades after the Syrian government faced down its own Muslim insurgency, it still keeps an estimated 500 members of the Muslim Brotherhood in jail. Men like Mr. Shami believe that they are being released because of health problems. Now 60, he had a heart attack in jail a few years ago and no longer poses much threat.

Given Washington's twin goals of figuring out how to defang terrorist groups and negotiating an end to the Arab-Israeli dispute, the Syrians anticipate better ties.

"Syria is a good alternative to bin Laden, especially when he says he is speaking for Islam, speaking for the Palestinians and against the Israelis," noted one top Syrian official. "If Syria was signing agreements with Israel, then perhaps bin Laden would be the only symbol of the struggle."

-------- us

Military Looks to Cut Patrols in US

By Pauline Jelinek
Associated Press Writer
Monday, January 14, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44031-2002Jan14?language=printer

WASHINGTON -- The military has flown more than 13,000 fighter-jet patrols over American cities since Sept. 11 at a cost exceeding $324 million. Now it wants to cut back.

The round-the-clock patrols designed to deter terrorists may be straining planes and personnel, the Pentagon said Monday.

Four months after the airliner attacks, any decision on ending or changing the patrols may come down to a calculation of how safe Americans would feel with the change, some officials say.

Part of the homeland defense efforts called Operation Noble Eagle, the flights began after terrorist hijackers crashed jetliners into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. U.S. fighters have been flying over New York and Washington since then.

Other patrols fly from time to time over other major metropolitan areas and key sites, and jets are on alert at 30 bases to scramble if called. The combat air patrols are the first of their kind over the United States since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Officials have been looking to cut back on the program for some time, knowing from the outset that the high-tempo use of manpower and equipment couldn't be kept up with the existing people and budget, one defense official said, commenting only on condition of anonymity. Now that four months have passed and aviation security has been improved somewhat, some wonder if it might be time to start rethinking the patrols, the official said.

Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke declined to confirm that Monday, telling a Pentagon press conference that talking about details of the program could give "an advantage to those who might want to do us harm."

The operation uses 11,000 people and 250 aircraft, another official said. Those figures include maintenance crews, pilots for 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, crews for tankers needed for midair refueling and crews for AWACS - Airborne Warning and Control System - planes to provide radar information.

Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem said that AWACS pilots and crews may be operating so intensely that they are not getting usual training for other missions.

"Maybe we're not getting the training that we need done now for our rotations overseas, so that's being looked at," he said at the press conference with Clarke. Stufflebeem is deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The fighter pilots, mostly from Air National Guard units, do patrols of two to six hours. The jets are refueled about every two hours, meaning some go through two midair refuelings.

From Sept. 11 to Dec. 10, the operation flew 13,000 sorties. The cost was $324 million, Defense Department spokeswoman Susan Hansen said.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command, which runs the operation, said periodic review of missions is standard military procedure.

"We continuously analyze our ongoing operations ... as a matter of prudent military planning," said Maj. Barry Venable, spokesman for NORAD in Colorado Springs, Colo.

NORAD says that through Dec. 10, its jets responded 207 times to problems such as unidentified aircraft, planes violating restricted air space and in-flight emergencies.

Not included in the figure is the case in which two jets escorted a Paris-to-Miami flight to Boston later last month after a passenger tried to ignite what authorities said was an explosive hidden in his shoes.

In 92 of the cases, jets on alert on the ground were scrambled to respond.

In the other 115 cases, NORAD diverted jets that already were in the air on patrol.

Pentagon officials said privately that the longer the program continues at its current rate the higher the stress that could eventually harm readiness for other missions.

While they believe patrols deter would-be attackers and give Americans a greater sense of security, they also argue that scrambling planes against attacks is a measure of last resort. Security should be tightened on the ground before problems become airborne in the first place, they maintain.

One alternative to constant patrols would be to keep planes on ground alert.

In addition, airliner and airport security has been tightened in the past few months. Thousands of National Guard troops are on duty at the nation's airports. Screening of passengers and carryon baggage has been increased.

Under a new aviation security law, airlines are required starting next weekend to inspect all checked baggage for explosives.

----

U.S. Planes Bomb Suspected Hide-Outs

January 14, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghanistan.html

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- U.S. warplanes kept up heavy bombing raids Monday on terrorist hide-outs in eastern Afghanistan, hoping to smash Osama bin Laden's die-hard supporters, while a second batch of prisoners was flown under cover of darkness to Cuba.

Aerial attacks against a deep complex of tunnels at Zawar, in the rugged hills of Paktia province near the border with Pakistan, have been under way for nearly two weeks. U.S. ground forces are also operating in the area, the last main battleground in Afghanistan.

The first group of international peacekeepers arrived Monday in Ghazni province, to the west of Paktia, and U.S. helicopters were seen flying over the highway linking Ghazni to Kabul, the capital, as the country's new authorities extend their control, the Pakistani-based Afghan Islamic Press agency reported.

The tempo of the bombing picked up with daylight raids Sunday and continued Monday. The bombing rattled windows in Khost, a town 20 miles southeast of Zawar. Civilians living near the bombing zone were fleeing and said that many had been killed and wounded by falling bombs.

Noorz Ali, who was fleeing the area in a rickety truck, told The Associated Press that bombs had fallen Friday on his village, about two miles from the tunnel complex, dug deep into the mountains near the border.

Most of the 35 homes were destroyed, including his, Ali said. Fifteen people died and others were injured, he said.

``No one is left but the dead,'' Ali said. ``It began at 9 p.m. There were so many bombs and rockets I couldn't count. In my village, maybe 15 bombs fell.''

The U.S. military says it is trying to avoid civilian casualties, but is determined to crush remnants of al-Qaida and the Taliban seeking shelter in underground passages at Zawar, a camp that was the base of a senior Taliban commander, Jalaluddin Haqqani.

U.S. pilots flying F/A-18 and F-14 fighter jets from the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea resumed sorties over Afghanistan after a two-day break for rest and maintenance, but it was not immediately clear if they were flying missions against Zawar.

Such breaks are necessary, said ship spokesman Lt. John Oliveira. ``But it remains equally important to maintain a heavy air presence over Afghanistan,'' he added. ``Our planes are considered the 911 call for our ground troops in case they are caught in a threatening situation where they need close air support.''

The Zawar strikes mark the heaviest attacks since last month's attacks on the Tora Bora cave complex, which failed to yield bin Laden, who is wanted by the United States for his alleged role in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Khost security chief Sur Gul said the underground passages continue to shelter Islamic militants -- mostly Pakistanis, Chechens and some of bin Laden's Arab warriors.

Intelligence reports said al-Qaida fighters were using the area to regroup and move out of Afghanistan, the Pentagon has said. U.S. special forces have been seen operating the area and have met with local officials.

In Kandahar, a second group of suspected bin Laden supporters was flown by a C-17 transport plane from a temporary detention center Sunday to Guantanamo, Cuba, where the U.S. military has built a prison camp to hold al-Qaida and Taliban suspects.

Guarded by attack dogs and U.S. troops, the 30 prisoners, shackled and with their faces covered, shuffled in the darkness into the plane.

The take-off took place without incident, unlike the first flight of 20 prisoners Thursday, when gunmen outside the base opened fire, prompting a heavy response by Marines.

The transfer left 361 al-Qaida and Taliban suspects interned in Kandahar, where coalition forces have established a base currently manned by 3,100 troops.

A U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said one prisoner had identified Richard Reid, a Briton accused of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives hidden in his sneakers, as someone he had trained with at camp run by al-Qaida.

The British government said Monday it would seek access to Britiah citizens taken from Afghanistan to Guantanamo. At least one Briton is confirmed to be at the base, and the prime minister's office said others could be on the way.

In Kabul, Pakistan reopened its embassy to Afghanistan on Monday. Pakistan had been the top supporter of the Taliban regime and an opponent of the northern alliance now participating in the interim government. But Islamabad broke ties with the Taliban soon after the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States and backed the U.S. campaign that toppled the militia.

British and French soldiers were working to clear Kabul's airport of unexploded ordnance, including one bomb inside a crater in the middle of the only runway. They hope it will be operational in a few days.

Afghanistan's official airline, Ariana, has been operating domestic flights out of the airport, but without any air traffic control and using a shortened runway. Several Ariana planes were destroyed in the early days of the bombing campaign.

State-run Afghan television reported Sunday that the interim government had ordered provincial officials to recruit 6,000 men to become the backbone of a professional military free of the ethnic and territorial divisions that have led to years of conflict.

Meanwhile, Fazal Hadi Shinwari, Afghanistan's newly appointed chief justice, promised a death sentence if bin Laden and fallen Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who allowed al-Qaida to use Afghanistan as a base, were brought before him.

Military investigators continued to search the crash site of a U.S. KC-130 aircraft that went down Wednesday in southwestern Pakistan, killing seven Marines. The remains of those recovered so far arrived Monday at Dover Air Force Base in Maryland.


-------- POLICE / PRISONERS

Afghan judge blasts prisoner move to Cuba

January 14, 2002
UPI
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/14012002-112400-5768r.htm

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 14 -- Afghanistan's newly appointed top judge called the shifting of Taliban and al Qaida prisoners to Cuba illegal and against the principles of Islamic law. Chief Justice Maulana Fazle Hadi Shniwari made his comments near Peshawar.

----

Televising a terrorist's trial

Suzanne Fields
January 14, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020114-40506253.htm

Let the cameras roll. The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui may not be as melodramatic as O.J. Simpson's with all the sex and California dreaming, but Americans deserve to watch justice at work for a man charged as an enemy of the people. The major reason for televising it is to see justice done.

Television can offer a significant perspective on how the judicial system handles the enormous implications of a charge of conspiracy to commit international terrorism.

Cameras - all cameras, including the cameras of newspaper photographers - are barred from federal courtrooms and the idea of letting them in for this trial suggests, to some, images of the Roman circus (or at least a Southern California circus). Lawyers, judges and witnesses have been known to act as though they're pursuing an Academy Award rather than the pursuit of justice.

But this trial will be in Virginia, not California, and it's not about a football hero and movie star. A firm judge can control proceedings. The O.J. Simpson trial, for all of its shenanigans, looked different to the jurors than to most Americans, who typically sent out for carry-out rather than leave the screen for lunch. Many of us who thought that the verdict was crazy understood how good and bad lawyers and a weak judge can make a difference, and skew results. No small insight. I've opposed cameras in the courtroom in the past.

Television can be abusive, dumbing down important issues, but it can be a neutral medium - think C-SPAN - and we owe it to ourselves to see this trial for many reasons. The Bush administration bungled the way it called for military tribunals for certain terrorists, raising suspicions here and throughout the world that we might not be capable of organizing a fair trial for a terrorist. The president believes that military tribunals are sometimes appropriate, but he emphatically said that Zacarias Moussaoui is no candidate for such justice. Letting the world watch our judicial system at work will do much to quiet those critics who claim that Moussaoui can't get a fair trial in the United States. Even his mother can watch.

A very restrictive exception to the ban on cameras in the federal courtroom was made in the Oklahoma City bombing trial, with closed-circuit television permitted to allow the victims' families to watch in a guarded room. The Senate has unanimously approved legislation to authorize a similar arrangement for the Moussaoui trial; the House has yet to consider it. The reasoning in Oklahoma City rested heavily on psychological issues of "closure." But more importantly, the victims' families wanted to see that justice was done. In the trial of Mr. Moussaoui, who is accused of being the "20th hijacker," many Americans will want to act as surrogate family of those innocents killed at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in a field near Pittsburgh. The attack threatened all of us.

The Moussaoui trial is about a specific crime against the United States. But terrorism threatens everyone everywhere. In 1960, Israelis heard Adolf Eichmann's feeble defense against the charge that he conspired to slaughter Jews in the Nazi death camps. Though he conceded guilt from "a human point of view," he testified, employing cold Satanic double-talk, "I do not admit to being an accomplice in the murder of Jews from a legal point of view." Judge, jury and the world could see for themselves the transparency of his argument.

The objections to cameras in the federal courtroom here are nevertheless strong. In addition to the fear that cameras would turn the trial into cheap theater, personal and public security could be compromised. But, with care, such security can be protected. The Classified Information Procedures Act, which governs behavior, is very specific and the rules could be enforced to the letter. Effective electronic disguises for faces and voices are readily available. Jurors need not be shown on camera. Sensitive information should be withheld from the public, but that's up to the judge whether cameras are there or not.

The case for televising this trial is not about the "information" it will transmit, but about justice, for the whole world to see. It doesn't diminish the argument to note that we will also be watching history at work, experiencing the law as it pertains to larger concepts of universal moral and legal significance and responsibility. Newspaper, magazine and television commentary of any trial influences interpretations, opinions and insights of the public, but the focus of the lens can, at its best, offer a different kind of illumination forcing each of us to think for ourselves.

TV cameras are much smaller than they once were, but the bright light cameras can shower on truth and justice, good and evil, is large, indeed.

Suzanne Fields is a columnist for The Washington Times.

-------- terrorism

Items Found From Trail of Terrorism

The Associated Press
Sunday, January 13, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39356-2002Jan13?language=printer

Among items found by U.S.-led forces and law enforcement officers in their hunt for terrorists:

Found in a complex of caves outside Kandahar: Graded Arabic-language exams for al-Qaida terrorists-in-training with multiple choice, short essay and fill-in-the-blank questions about how to shoot down an aircraft, make bombs, use anti-aircraft weapons and shoot to kill a person. Sample question: If an aircraft was traveling at an altitude of 3,000 feet, which part of the plane shouild you target in order to inflict the most damage? Answer: "Target area two."

-Found in a makeshift laboratory in an al-Qaida building in Kabul: A booklet offering advice on how to survive a nuclear explosion. A yellowed page from an old issue of Plane and Pilot magazine - a story titled "A Flight to Remember."

-Found at an al-Qaida camp near Kandahar: Copies of Aviation Week and an issue of Chemical Weekly addressed to the Kansas City, Mo., public library. Copies of treaties signed by the United States and Saudia Arabia. Plastic explosives. State Department bulletins.

-Found in a mud-brick compound in Farmada, a farm village about 15 miles from Jalalabad where one of Osama bin Laden's wives lived with their children: Manuals for military communications equipment. A brochure for U.S.-made chemical and biological weapons detection and alarm devices. A Red Cross directory. Empty film canisters. Electronic components.

-Seized from 11 suspects who allegedly used their homes in Madrid and Granada as recruiting centers for Osama bin Laden: Hunting rifles, swords and videos, including one that Spain's national police chief said had footage of preparations for a land mine attack by Muslim rebels against a Russian army truck in Chechnya.

-Found at an Agriculture Ministry laboratory outside Kabul: A container allegedly containing concentrated anthrax spores.

-Items allegedly owned by Zacarias Moussaoui, a Frenchman of Moroccan descent named in the first indictment directly related to the suicide hijackings: Two knives. Binoculars. Flight manuals for the Boeing 747 Model 400. A flight simulator computer program. Fighting gloves and shin guards. A notebook listing German telephone No. 1, German telephone No. 2, and the name Ahad Sabet. A computer disk containing information related to the aerial application of pesticides. A hand-held aviation radio.

-Found in Mohamed Atta's luggage, which never made it on to the plane he is suspected of hijacking and crashing into one of the World Trade Center towers: Hand-held electronic flight computer. A simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft. Two videotapes relating to air tours of the Boeing 757 and 747 aircraft. A slide-rule flight calculator. A copy of the Quran.

----

U.S. seeks al Qaeda link to Iraq

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 14, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020114-78659763.htm

The Pentagon is collecting evidence of "linkage" between Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization and other international terror groups to bolster its case for attacking Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, Bush administration officials say.

The Pentagon set up a secret unit shortly after September 11 to scan years of highly classified intelligence reports to find links between groups supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

The project officers are also examining whether Iraqi business fronts for the country's intelligence service have ties to bin Laden. Sources say the CIA has electronically transferred intelligence data on various groups to the Pentagon.

Opponents of striking Iraq say there is no evidence linking Saddam to the September 11 attacks on America. Thus, the United States would be hard-pressed to justify an assault to oust Saddam in the same way it removed the Taliban in Afghanistan, say critics, including some European allies.

But if the Pentagon project can find operational links between terror groups, proponents of attacking Iraq could cite the need to remove a regime such as Saddam's as part of the president's goal to destroy al Qaeda. The bin Laden-led group is blamed for the September 11 hijacked-airliner attacks that killed more than 3,000 people.

Officials said the Pentagon investigation of "linkage" already is turning up ties between radical groups in the Middle East who are supported by Saddam and al Qaeda operatives.

But the study itself is stirring debate inside the administration because it goes against the intelligence community's long-held contention that most terror groups work independently of each other.

Said one administration official, "There is a looming battle between the Pentagon and State and CIA over the issue of how elaborate the linkages are among terrorist organization and between terror organizations and states."

The purpose of the Pentagon project is not just to compile a report, one administration official said, but also to "improve the intelligence we have and the analysis we have on these networks."

Defense sources say CIA Director George J. Tenet and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell are opposed to immediate military action against Saddam. Mr. Tenet is said to want a year or more to foment a coup in Baghdad or in some other way destabilize the hard-line regime.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is widely reported to be the administration's leading hawk when it comes to ousting Saddam and ushering in a more moderate government. He and other Pentagon officials are said to argue that the United States cannot totally win the war on terrorism if it leaves Saddam in power.

Saddam is known to possess chemical and biological weapons, and has moved his nuclear-weapons development facilities deeper underground to escape U.S. bombings. The Pentagon officials believe that these weapons eventually will be used against the United States, possibly through terrorist surrogates.

Iraq is one of seven countries designated by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. But its annual report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism - 2000," does not list al Qaeda as one of the groups Baghdad supports.

The report says Iraq "continued to provide safe haven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups" - an apparent reference to such terror groups as Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad." The report also notes Saddam plotted to assassinate former President Bush during a 1993 trip to Kuwait.

One administration source said the Pentagon study "is trying to show that Iraq interacts with al Qaeda. The connections may be more run through business fronts than through the government. Iraqi intelligence runs a lot of business fronts."

The official added: "You just have to look at the way al Qaeda has developed over the years, even before the 11th. It is well organized and has had state sponsors through Afghanistan and Pakistan through the ISI."

The ISI is Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency. It helped put the Taliban in power in 1996 and is believed to have aided al Qaeda. In fact, the State Department's report on terrorism suggested that Pakistan could become the eighth country designated as a state sponsor.

Since the report was issued and al Qaeda struck America, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, sharply reversed course under intense U.S. pressure.

A growing number of lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, say the administration must dispose of Saddam before he develops nuclear weapons.

President Bush has hinted that he will go to war with Baghdad if it persists in refusing to allow independent weapons inspectors back inside the country.

"Next up: Baghdad," Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, told sailors on the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, which is launching warplanes in the Afghanistan campaign.

Senior Bush administration officials have suggested recently that they want to clear out al Qaeda cells and allied terror groups in other countries before making a decision on attacking Iraq.


-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

World's Largest Offshore Wind Farm Approved for Irish Sea

January 14, 2002
ENS - with photos
http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-14-01.html

DUBLIN, Ireland, Two hundred wind turbines have been approved for Ireland's east coast in a new development that will be the largest offshore wind power project in the world.

At a Foreshore Lease signing ceremony in Dublin on Friday, Irish Marine & Natural Resources Minister, Frank Fahey, gave the go-ahead for the construction and operation of the 520 megawatt wind farm in an area of the Irish Sea known as the Arklow Bank.

There are currently only 20 offshore developments worldwide, all in northern Europe. When completed, the Arklow Banks project will have three times the combined capacity of all offshore wind farms currently in production in the world.

Irish Marine & Natural Resources Minister, Frank Fahey (Photo courtesy Irish Marine Institute)

Fahey said, "Today heralds the dawning of a new age of clean green energy, harvested from two plentiful renewable resources, the sea and the wind. I am particularly pleased that this project, the most ambitious offshore wind energy development ever undertaken, is being undertaken by a dynamic Irish company who have already established a track record in renewable energy projects."

The wind farm application, which had been subject to full public consultation, had received no objections from members of the public.

Ireland is ideally suited to generating wind power as some of the strongest winds in Northern Europe blow from the north and southwest coast.

Fahey says this project will be the first of many. He hopes it "will help to establish Ireland as a world leader in this young industry and that the Arklow Banks will become a model development attracting visitors from around the world."

During clear bright weather, the development, situated some seven kilometers (4.3 miles) from the nearest onshore point, will be highly visible from Wicklow Head to Courtown Harbour and including such popular beaches as Brittas and Courtown.

On the international side, there is a strong possibility that a development of this size will bring large numbers of trade and public representatives on fact finding visits with a positive effect for tourism, the minister said. There may also be an increase in marine tourism with boat trips bringing people out to the wind farm, which will not be open to the public.

Fahey expects considerable revenue for Ireland from this development - upwards of €1.9 million ($1.7 million) each year within five years of completion.

There is a provision in the Foreshore Lease to increase the maximum output of the wind farm and vary the number of turbines subject to the minister's consent.

One of two 66 meter diameter rotors is lifted into place a kilometer off Blyth, UK where an offshore wind farm now generates power. (Photo courtesy Blyth Offshore Wind Limited)

The Arklow Banks are seven kilometers (4.3 miles) from the nearest landfall. Situated east of Arklow in the Irish Sea and running in a north-south direction for 27 kilometers (17 miles) and are up to a mile and a half wide in places. Water depths from five to 25 meters (16 to 81 feet) make them an ideal location for generating electricity.

The pollution free energy produced will be equal to an annual reduction of some 1.1 million metric tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that would have been emitted from a coal fired generating station producing the same amount of electricity.

The development will contribute the ability of Ireland to meet its greehouse gas reduction target under Kyoto Protocol, an addition to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that was approved politically during negotiations in 2001. Ireland must reduce its emission of carbon dioxide by eight percent during the period 2008 to 2012.

Phase 1 of the project, when operational, will replace some €330 million of imported fossil fuels. The social benefit of avoided pollution is estimated at €25 million ($22.3 million).

The wind farm is to be built by eirtricity, a joint venture between Future Wind Partnership and the National Toll Roads. Future Wind Partnership was set up three years ago with its aim being to develop Ireland's wind energy resources.

"The development of major offshore wind energy parks will be the biggest energy revolution since the internal combustion engine," according to Eddie O'Connor, managing director of eirtricity and vice president of the European Wind Energy Association.

Speaking at the signing of the foreshore lease, Dr. O'Connor said, "The resource is there, the technology is proven, the costs continue to drop - all that is needed is the political will to see it happen."

Two wind turbines generating power offshore the UK (Photo courtesy Blyth Offshore Wind Ltd.)

"The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources are to be congratulated on a foreshore policy that is more advanced than our European neighbors," said Dr. O'Connor, "however, the key next step is for the government to create a business environment that encourages investment in offshore wind energy. Without support in areas such as grid connection costs and capital relief, Ireland risks losing the lead it has now established in offshore wind energy to countries such as the UK, where massive subsidies are targeted at offshore wind energy."

Eirtricity hopes to commence construction in the spring and begin power generation of 60 megawatts in autumn of this year.

The entire 520 megawatt wind development will have the capacity to meet the needs of more than 400 industrial electricity users or 500,000 homes.

The cost of the project will, at current prices, be in excess of €630 million ($563 million).

Construction of phase one will result in 360 full time equivalent jobs and 23 permanent jobs from 2002.

Fahey said an anticipated increase in marine life means, "There is a real possibility of an increase in boat angling in the area, not to mention the potential creation of a valuable new protected spawning ground for the Irish Sea."

The achievement of the targets set down in the European Union's law known as the Renewable Energy Directive will require offshore wind development all over Europe. The onshore resource is simply not there or is too expensive, Dr. O'Connor said.

He predicts that offshore wind energy alone could provide up to two thirds of Europe's electricity needs by 2020.

-------- environment

TUNGSTEN HEXAFLUORIDE

http://www.mathesongas.com/msds/TungstenHexafluoride.htm
From: magnu96196@aol.com via email;
14 Jan 2002

TOXICITY DATA:
1430 mg/m3 inhalation-rat LC50

LOCAL EFFECTS:
Corrosive: inhalation, skin, eye, ingestion Lacrimator: eye

ACUTE TOXICITY LEVEL:
Highly Toxic: inhalation

MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE:
central nervous system disorders, bone, joint or tooth disorders, eye disorders, kidney disorders, respiratory disorders, skin disorders and allergies

ADDITIONAL DATA:
May cross the placenta. May be excreted in breast milk.

-------- health

Doctors ignoring infection guidelines

Around the Nation
January 14, 2002
Combined dispatches and staff reports
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020114-71484895.htm

CHICAGO - Doctors may be inflating the costs of treating urinary-tract infections, according to a new study.

The study, published in today's Archives of Internal Medicine, suggests that doctors are driven by drug-company promotions to use newer, more expensive drugs.

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Stanford University studied 1,478 cases of patients with urinary-tract infections nationwide from 1989 to 1998. They found that only 24 percent of the patients' prescriptions were written for antibiotics recommended by the Infectious Disease Society of America.


-------- activists

Military School Protesters Freed

By AMANDA YORK
Associated Press Writer
JANUARY 14, 15:34 ET
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=NATIONAL&STORYID=APIS7H1K1I00

PEKIN, Ill. (AP) - Seven women, including an 89-year-old nun, were released from federal custody Monday after serving six-month sentences for trespassing at a Georgia school that trains Latin American soldiers.

The women were convicted last summer of trespassing during a protest at what was once known as the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga.

Among the seven were three Roman Catholic nuns: Sisters Dorothy Hennessey, 89, Gwen Hennessey, 68, of Dubuque, Iowa, and Elizabeth Anne McKenzie, 72, of St. Paul, Minn.

At a news conference at the Pekin Federal Prison Camp, McKenzie and others pledged to continue protesting at the school, now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, which they accuse of training soldiers who have been linked to murder, torture and other human rights abuses.

``It's just a matter of, `Here's a job to be done, with a risk,''' McKenzie said.

Rebecca Kanner, 44, of Ann Arbor, Mich., said: ``Our effect has been felt, and we won't stop until the school is closed down.''

Most of the women served their sentences at the Pekin prison camp. Dorothy Hennessey, Gwen Hennessey's sister, was released from a halfway house in Iowa, where she served her sentence because of health concerns.

A total of 26 people were convicted of trespassing during the November 2000 protest in which 3,400 people crossed onto the Army base without permission. Nineteen people remain in various federal prisons; two more women were scheduled to be released Tuesday and another will get out next month.

Military officials have said the school's goal is to teach democratic principles to future Latin American leaders.

On the Net:

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation: http://www-benning.army.mil/WHISC

School of the Americas Watch: http://www.soaw.org

----

Redford announces documentary fund

Around the Nation
January 14, 2002
Combined dispatches and staff reports
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020114-71484895.htm

PARK CITY, Utah - Actor Robert Redford announced a new fund for documentaries yesterday, fueled by $4.6 million from a group backed by investor George Soros, and a new cable-TV network devoted to nonfiction film.

The Soros' Documentary Fund will transfer money to Mr. Redford's Sundance Institute to establish the Sundance International Documentary Fund.

----

Fur for the homeless

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
January 14, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020114-15761448.htm#3

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is thrilled that so many homeless people were able to benefit from our distribution of unwanted furs ("PETA furs to keep homeless warm," Jan. 11).

Unfortunately, it's too late for the animals who suffered and died at the hands of the fur industry; we cannot give back their coats - and lives - but we can help the homeless, many of whom cannot afford to buy any coat.

Each year, millions of animals are trapped painfully in steel-jaw leghold traps. Those who don't freeze or starve usually are beaten to death or suffocated when the trapper arrives hours or days later. Animals on fur farms fare no better. They are crowded in wire mesh cages, where they suffer from disease, parasites, neglect and stress. They are electrocuted anally, poisoned, suffocated and/or skinned alive.

PETA has been inundated with donations of old furs from people who cannot bear to wear symbols of suffering any longer. We use the furs in protests and displays, donate them to wildlife rehabilitators for bedding and distribute them to needy people. If you have an old, unwanted fur in the back of your closet, send it to PETA at 501 Front St., Norfolk, Va., 23510. Not only will you help animals and homeless people, you'll help yourself, too -fur donations are tax deductible. For more information, please see www.furisdead.com or call 888/FUR-AWAY.

HEATHER MOORE Correspondent People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Norfolk

---------

Military School Protesters Freed

January 14, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Jailed-Nuns.html

PEKIN, Ill. (AP) -- Seven women, including an 89-year-old nun, were released from federal custody Monday after serving six-month sentences for trespassing at a Georgia school that trains Latin American soldiers.

The women were convicted last summer of trespassing during a protest at what was once known as the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga.

Among the seven were three Roman Catholic nuns: Sisters Dorothy Hennessey, 89, Gwen Hennessey, 68, of Dubuque, Iowa, and Elizabeth Anne McKenzie, 72, of St. Paul, Minn.

At a news conference at the Pekin Federal Prison Camp, McKenzie and others pledged to continue protesting at the school, now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, which they accuse of training soldiers who have been linked to murder, torture and other human rights abuses.

``It's just a matter of, `Here's a job to be done, with a risk,''' McKenzie said.

Rebecca Kanner, 44, of Ann Arbor, Mich., said: ``Our effect has been felt, and we won't stop until the school is closed down.''

Most of the women served their sentences at the Pekin prison camp. Dorothy Hennessey, Gwen Hennessey's sister, was released from a halfway house in Iowa, where she served her sentence because of health concerns.

A total of 26 people were convicted of trespassing during the November 2000 protest in which 3,400 people crossed onto the Army base without permission. Nineteen people remain in various federal prisons; two more women were scheduled to be released Tuesday and another will get out next month.

Military officials have said the school's goal is to teach democratic principles to future Latin American leaders.

On the Net:

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation: http://www-benning.army.mil/WHISC

School of the Americas Watch: http://www.soaw.org

--------

Chinese Activist Gets Four Years

January 14, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-China-Human-Rights.html

BEIJING (AP) -- A Chinese political activist has been jailed for four years for criticizing President Jiang Zemin on an American Web site, a human rights organization said Monday.

Lu Xinhua was sentenced by a court in the central city of Wuhan, said the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy.

Court officials, police and prosecutors in Wuhan refused to confirm the report.

Lu, 29, was arrested after posting an essay online last February that attacked a speech by Jiang titled ``Governing the Country with Virtue,'' according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center.

It said Lu criticized the speech as a throwback to China's imperial era and ``opposed the malignant swelling of Jiang Zemin's emperor sentiments,'' the center said. It didn't identify the Web site where the comments were posted.

Lu was an organizer for the banned China Democracy Party in Hubei province, where Wuhan is the capital, the Information Center said.

-----

Greenpeacers Nabbed Protesting Turkish Shipbreaking

January 14, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-14-04.html

IZMIR, Turkey, Turkish police arrested 17 Greenpeace activists this morning after they occupied a Swiss ship at a shipbreaking yard in Aliaga, Turkey.

Unfurling a banner that said "Stop Toxic Shipbreaking" from on board the Star of Venice owned by the Swiss company Pan Nautic, the Greenpeacers demanded an end to the practice of scrapping ships that contain toxic materials on Turkish beaches.

Protesters at a shipbreaking yard in Aliaga, Turkey (Photos courtesy Greenpeace)

Before the Turkish police made their arrest and confiscated one of the Greenpeace inflatable boats, the activists painted the words "No Toxic Ship Trade" on a side of another old ship, Best, owned by the Greek company Daglia.

Greenpeace investigation of the shipyards located close to Izmir found that shipbreaking practices in Turkey are comparable to the ones in China, India and Bangladesh. The scrapping process releases toxics, such as dioxins and asbestos, endangering the workers and the environment.

"The situation in the shipbreaking yards on the beaches of Turkey is not better than in India or China," says Marietta Harjono, Greenpeace's shipbreaking expert on board the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior. "We found materials containing asbestos at the yard and at the open dumpsite, where villagers from nearby settlements are searching for valuable materials. The health of the people and the environment are at grave risk."

Asbestos is used as insulation in ships because it is non-flammable and chemically neutral. During the breaking down of ships for scrap, asbestos is released into the air. Exposure to asbestos dust can cause serious lung problems and cancer.

Dioxins are regarded as some of the most toxic substances humans have ever released into the environment, and it is highly carcinogenic. When released into the air, some dioxins may be transported long distances, even around the globe. When released into water, some dioxins are broken down by sunlight, some evaporate to air, but most attach to soil and settle to the bottom sediment.

Dioxin concentrations may build up in the food chain, resulting in measurable levels in animals and humans.

Activists paint slogan on a scrap ship

Greenpeace says at least half the ships being scrapped in Turkey come from Western European operators, so the European Union (EU) should be held accountable.

The EU should demand that the European ship industry remove hazardous substances from ships prior to their export. This demand could be made at the same time when it enforces high environmental and health standards on the EU applicant countries.

Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey are seeking access to the already existing union of 15 European states. Before being admitted to the bloc, they must meet existing EU environmental standars.

Erdem Vardar, toxic waste trade campaigner for Greenpeace Mediterranean, said, "It is unacceptable that the shipping industry gets away with passing hazardous waste to countries like Turkey, leaving the people and the environment exposed to the most dangerous substances known to mankind."

Waste on fire in a shipbreaking yard

"The EU is in a rather schizophrenic position as it aims to enforce high environmental standards on EU applicants but allows, at the same time, the dumping of toxic waste to its own backyard," Vardar said.

The 2nd Global Ship Recycling Summit 2001, held last June and attended by many European environment ministers, concluded, "Ship recycling is an integral part of the life cycle management of ships. Ships have to be recycled at the end of their operational life in a responsible way."

"Ship recycling is an activity which concerns the maritime industries as well as some land based industries. This adds complexity to the problem solving since various stakeholders, also outside the maritime industry, are and have to be involved," declared the public sector decision makers and senior executives of the international shipping industry and ship recycling industry who attended the Summit.

"A long term solution for the ship recycling industry has to based on a binding international legal framework, possibly in the form of a convention. The establishment of such a framework is a time consuming process; it may take up to 10 years. In the meantime a voluntary code of conduct could be used," the Summit concluded.

Up to 100 ships are scrapped every year in Turkey, which has so far failed to implement its ban on imports of hazardous waste, said Vardar. With the 1995 Regulation to Control Hazardous Wastes, Turkey banned the importation of hazardous waste. Under this Regulation the importation of ships for scrap containing hazardous waste is considered as importing hazardous waste and is therefore violation of the ban, the Turkish Ministry of Environment said last year.

Greek oil tanker Kapetan Giorgis is on the Greenpeace watch list.

As part of its campaign against toxic releases by the shipbreaking industry, Greenpeace today launched a new webpage listing 50 ships the environmental organization says are likely to sail to one of Asia's shipbreaking yards in the near future.

Greenpeace has asked the owners of these ships to declare that their ships will be decontaminated before scrapping at Asian countries. The 553 foot long Pacific Princess, made famous by the television series, "The Love Boat, is on the Greenpeace watch list.

Most of these ships belong to Swiss, Greek, Italian, English and Scandinavian companies, but the list includes operators from almost all EU countries as well as Australian and U.S. ones.

Greenpeace is not against scrapping of vessels but wants to ensure that their export is not used as an excuse to dump toxic waste. The environmental organization is demanding that dumping of ships for scrap should be considered as a violation of the international Basel Convention on The Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.

The Basel Convention, today the subject of a meeting in Geneva, bans the export of hazardous wastes from the developed countries that make up the membership of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to non-OECD countries. Turkey became a party to the Basel Convention on December 20, 1994.

The 2nd Global Ship Recycling Summit said the ship recycling market is "a certain growth market." By 2010, some 4,000 ships with an aggregate gross tonnage of 24 million tons will be recycled every year. Niko Wijnolst, Summit chairman said, "These figures warrant a structural approach to the ship recycling issue by the maritime industry as a whole and the International Maritime Organization in particular."

The Greenpeace report "Environmental, Health and Safety Conditions in the Aliaga Shipbreaking Yards" can be downloaded from: http://www.greenpeace.org/~toxics/reports/shipbreaking.pdf


-------

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

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