------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Gazing into the nuclear night
By God they frighten me
Iraqi MDs blame U.S. for deformities
Swedish 960 MW N-reactor F2 to shut due leak
India Sees New Urgency For Abolition Of Nuclear Weapons
North Korea Hits Out at U.S. Nuclear Arms Review
N. Korea May Rescind Nuclear Promise
North Korea Hits Out at U.S. Nuclear Arms Review
Russia Questions US Nuclear Targeting
Russian, U.S. Officials to Cut Nukes
W. House 'Optimistic' on Us - Russia Nuclear Pact
Fallout fierce over Washington's new nuclear policy
New Nuclear Weapons Policy
The Nuclear Posture
Nuclear Planning: A Threat to Peace?
Bush: U.S. Nukes Are Deterrent
A Plan to Renew Reactor Licenses
OHIO: ACID THREAT AT NUCLEAR PLANT
More than 1 million gallons of radioactive water leaked
Dept of Energy Fined for Nuclear Delay
Cheney's Strange Campaign
Questions for Mr. Bush

MILITARY
Pentagon Says U.S. Airstrike Killed Women and Children
U.S. and Afghan Troops Proclaim Victory in Rebel Cave Complex
U.S. and Afghan Troops Overrun Rebel Cave Complex
Angola Orders End to Offensive Movements
Belarus Tightens Arms Exports to Appease US
UPI Hears ... Australian biological weapons
Tex. Lab Worker Handling Anthrax Specimens Is Infected
Sudden popularity of defense contractors
CEOs Plan Network to Link Them
Attack on Chemical Plant Could Kill Thousands
'Dr. Chaos' waives hearing
China Urges Anti - Terror Training
Bush Seeks Legislation on Colombia
Thriving Peru Coca Hampers Drug War
UPI Hears ... Furious at President Bush's decision
UPI Hears ... German army morale low
Those evil words
BLINKERED BUSH HAS GOT IT ALL WRONG
Military exiles are courted for Iraq coup
Egypt Agrees to Press Iraq to Accept U.N. Arms Inspectors
U.S. Said to Reject New Aid for Israel
U.N. Council Backs a Palestinian State
Bush Criticizes Israel for Role in Recent Middle East Violence
Secret services hold terror talks in New Zealand
Officials: CIA badly needs reform
Karimov bolsters his U.S. standing

POLICE / PRISONERS
Angry police in protest march in London
US in secret deal with 'torture' states

ENERGY AND OTHER
U.S. SCORES POORLY ON RENEWABLE INVESTMENTS
US wind power industry gets tax credit boost
Congress Fuels Wind Energy Boom with Tax Credit
EPA chief defends halving toxic waste cleanups
Drug Wastes Pollute Waterways
Two Studies Cast Doubt on Stem Cells
NAFTA's silent suit

ACTIVISTS
FYI: Greenland tour
Anti-anti-war crowd dreams up a disloyal opposition
Ten Brazilian Dam Protesters Hospitalized
NATIONAL VIEQUES SUMMIT FOR PEACE WITH JUSTICE
NEW online news service from PN



-------- NUCLEAR

[More than 1 million gallons of radioactive water leaked at Hanford! See "Dept of Energy Fined for Nuclear Delay" under "--- washington" below. et]

--

Gazing into the nuclear night

Tony Blankley March 13, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020313-90521688.htm

Is it just coincidence that in the last few weeks, the nation's leading news outlets have reported leaked stories relating to nuclear weapons? First was the story of the shadow government, kept in rural bunkers against the contingency that Washington might be wiped out. Then came The Washington Post story of nuclear sensors being placed on I-95, with Delta Force-type teams training to intercept and defuse concealed nuclear devices.

Next came Time magazine's cover story that our government feared (falsely, it turned out) that there was a nuclear bomb placed in New York City. Finally, last weekend, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times reported stories that the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review had been rewritten to include Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya as potential nuclear targets (as well as Pakistan in case of a coup).

That leaked story included the finding that low-yield nuclear devices which produce less fall out were needed to destroy underground complexes. Each of these stories were promptly confirmed by our government, at varying levels of detail.

Add this other fact. A journalist I know told me that he has been researching for the last six months a story for a major national magazine that focuses on how our government would go about searching for a dirty nuclear bomb in an urban area. For five months, the relevant government officials and technicians virtually stonewalled him. Then, in late January they were suddenly remarkably forthcoming with details, including some operational details which give the story more credibility and bite.

While one can't know for sure, these developments are suggestive of a government-organized series of leaks intended to prepare the public for dramatic military activity. The timing of these probably authorized leaks also coincided with a lull in fighting in Afghanistan and the beginning of some domestic and much foreign criticism of the president's vigorous war plans.

The latest leak of changed nuclear strategy, while it has drawn worried comments from Europe and Russia, also would appear to be a clever reapplication of the Cold War nuclear deterrent strategy, this time targeted on likely state sponsors of terrorism. Could it even be a possible coup motivator in Iraq?

It is wise for the government to be preparing the country, both psychologically and factually, for the specter of these appalling contingencies. Curiously, it is the Washington political and journalistic class, rather than the general public, which needs the instruction. According to every national poll, about 80 percent or more of the public endorse every aspect of the president's war-fighting, while here in Washington I would estimate that at least half of the journalists and politicians either publicly or privately doubt the necessity of prompt war with Iraq.

But for the measurable possibility of nuclear (or biological or chemical) mass slaughter here on our native soil, the Iraqi venture would border on madness. Such a war runs the serious risk of destabilizing most of the Arab and Muslim world. It could cause Middle East oil to be removed from the world market for an indefinite period (resulting in a severe recession lasting a year or two).

It essentially plays into Osama bin Laden's and al Qaeda's grand strategy of inducing America to over-react to September 11 and thereby radicalize and energize world-wide Islam. Even when successful, such an Iraqi war may possibly bring on the dreaded war of civilizations, with repercussions that cannot even be calculated.

Almost inevitably, we will start that war with no certainty that we have a viable alternative government to replace Saddams'. We may be stuck with a hostile occupation and half-a-continent of furious Muslims.

And yet, if there is even a 5 percent or 10 percent chance that Saddam will develop and transfer to terrorists a weapon of mass destruction that can be used to incinerate an American multitude, such a war would be morally mandatory for the United States.

In fact, the terrorists are the lesser of the threats. Only advanced industrial countries are capable of producing nuclear devices. Terrorists are merely the eager delivery system. Our greatest strategic danger is those hostile countries that can produce and provide the nukes: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. (Add in Syria and Libya for advanced biological and chemical weapons.)

Whether we think these nations have the weapons now or in five years is inconsequential. The point is to act before they and their terrorist partners can. The point is to act while we have the will of a united people - not wait a few years until that unity and will may have dissipated.

We can see on our president's face and hear from his voice that he has gazed into the nuclear night. It is against that horror that he is resolute to protect us - at the risk of substantial, but lesser, harms and dangers. No American president - not even Lincoln - has faced such a shocking and grave decision.

Tony Blankley is a columnist for The Washington Times. His column appears on Wednesdays.

-------- britain

By God they frighten me

Wednesday March 13, 2002
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0%2C3604%2C666315%2C00.html

We live in a frightening and insecure world: no one can deny or escape this fact (Tough talk on Iraq, March 12). But I had always thought the task of our national leaders and governments was to ensure as far as humanly possible that we are able to live our lives in all reasonable security and freedom from fear.

So why is it that Mr Bush and Mr Blair frighten the life out of me? Who is going to tell these people that their policies regarding the "war against terror" are themselves terrifying to their own people? Who is going to help them to make the most basic connections between their own decisions to attack Iraq and the deaths of countless civilians, the certainty of terrible reprisals, and the further irreversible poisoning of the environment? This endangers the lives of us all.

Come on, Mr Bush and Mr Blair, speak to your people honestly, and tell us whether you really wish to collude with this folly any longer! Rev Paul Fisher Langcliffe, N Yorks paul.fisher@ukonline.co.uk

-------- depleted uranium

Iraqi MDs blame U.S. for deformities
Doctors link cancer and abnormalities found in children living in the south to depleted uranium contained in bombs that were used in Persian Gulf war

By TIMOTHY APPLEBY
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
Print Edition, Toronto Globe & Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.html&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=depleted+uranium&option=&start_row=2¤t_row=2&start_row_offset1=&num_rows=1&search_results_start=1

BASRA, IRAQ -- When a baby is born in southern Iraq these days, the mother's first question is not whether the child is male or female. "What she wants to know is whether her baby is normal," says Janan Ghalib, head of the cancer unit at Basra's Maternity and Children Hospital.

The doctor needs only to flip open a photo album filled with horrors to explain why. There are pictures of babies without eyes, and some with too many eyes. There are infants with huge growths, amphibian-like limbs and other deformities so grotesque that the babies barely resemble human beings at all.

And there are before-and-after photographs of normal-looking young children who have apparently been transformed into monsters -- the result, Dr. Ghalib believes, of depleted uranium used by the U.S. military during the Persian Gulf war.

The worries at Basra's main children's hospital are about more than the uranium-laden bombs that rained down on southern Iraq in 1991. If the United States carries through with threats to again strike President Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraqis such as Dr. Ghalib fear the fallout will again hit them.

Although independent studies have not been carried out, Iraqi medical experts in Basra, near the Kuwaiti border, believe a sharp rise in recorded deformities and cancer -- especially leukemia -- is linked to the depleted uranium contained in U.S. bombs dropped during the war. And they fear much more may be coming their way.

Until the early 1990s, doctors say, the rate of what is termed "congenital malformation" in the babies of southern Iraq was no higher than anywhere else.

But beginning in about 1995, they say, the numbers began steadily rising. Last year, the doctors knew of at least 260 instances of deformation in the region, accounting for 3 per cent of all births. That compares with 221 in 2000 and just 11 in 1994.

As for leukemia, the hospital treated 15 children in 1993, 60 in 2000 and 73 last year. Those figures are incomplete, the physicians stress, because some children are taken to Baghdad for treatment, while others in the impoverished south are never brought to their attention.

Health experts warn that the growing numbers, which are not dissimilar to rates found in the West, could be the result of other factors such as better information, worsening health-care conditions or an environmental disaster -- a nuclear leak, for example -- that has not been reported.

Still, the World Health Organization believes they are worth investigating. It has tried to launch a research program, but needs better data and equipment that would have to be cleared by the United Nations sanctions committee, which must approve all Iraqi imports.

In Basra, doctors believe the time lag between the gulf war and the beginning of the trend is because of the depleted uranium's "incubation" period of several years. They cite a similar postwar delay in Japan after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Pentagon has acknowledged using depleted uranium, not only in Iraq and Kuwait but also in Kosovo during the 1999 conflict there. Depleted uranium is favoured in missiles because it enhances their armour-piercing capacity.

However, the U.S. military has stated repeatedly it does not believe the substance can have the effect on humans that the Iraqi government is saying it does.

In nearby Kuwait, there has been no recorded increase in child abnormalities since the war. Another major difficulty with verification is that Iraq's medical records, like much else within the health-care system, are in shambles.

But while the Iraqi government is often accused of producing disinformation, Dr. Ghalib and her colleague, Assad Essa Achim, the hospital's chief doctor in residence, come across as dedicated professionals who have become almost weary of relaying their findings.

"You reporters come in and listen, then you go away and nothing ever happens," said Dr. Ghalib, visibly impatient.

While the Basra doctors await help, their hospital, like almost every other one in Iraq, is in dire straits. Despite the United Nations oil-for-food program that is supposed to allow the import of humanitarian assistance, including medical equipment, Dr. Achim says, the hospital is getting only 20 per cent of what it needs.

Chemotherapy is not available because the necessary equipment is considered to have military uses.

As a result, Dr. Achim says, 80 per cent of the children diagnosed with leukemia die, compared with a 15-per-cent to 20-per-cent rate in the world's rich countries. "Bush and Clinton really don't know what is happening here," he said of U.S. President George W. Bush and former president Bill Clinton. "If they did, they would hang themselves."

-------- europe

Swedish 960 MW N-reactor F2 to shut due leak

REUTERS NORWAY:
March 13, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14987/story.htm

OSLO - A 960-megawatt unit at Swedish nuclear power station Forsmark shut down yesterday afternoon due to a leakage in a valve, operator Vattenfall said this week.

The unit is expected to come back on line during the coming weekend, Vattenfall said in a statement to Nordic power bourse Nord Pool.

-------- india / pakistan

India Sees New Urgency For Abolition Of Nuclear Weapons

SPACEDAILY EXPRESS
March 13, 2002
Agence France-Presse
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-02b.html

New Delhi (AFP) Mar 12, 2002 -- Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh said Tuesday there was a "new urgency" in the need to abolish nuclear weapons because of a growing danger of terrorists getting them.

The Press Trust of India news agency quoted Singh as saying that the abolition of nuclear weapons, through "a multilaterally agreed, legally-binding undertaking", had acquired a pressing imperative.

"It has taken on a new urgency with the current rise of non-state actors as powerful military threats," Singh said.

"Availability of arms and weapons in the hands of terrorists and insurgents who operate impervious to the law and outside its realm is a major challenge to the maintenance of peace in the world."

Singh said the world had seen the "devastating destructive force of nuclear weapons, the use of which it would not like to see again".

"This is the will of the peoples of the world; this is the imperative need. Yet, over 30,000 nuclear weapons, sufficient to annihilate the world many times over, exist."

"There is only one solution -- abolish them entirely once and for all and for ever."

India shocked the world in May 1998 when it conducted a series of nuclear weapons tests.

Despite intense international pressure, Pakistan followed suit, raising the terrifying prospect of a nuclear war between the arch-rivals.

While refusing to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), India has declared a voluntary moratorium on further nuclear testing.

Russia signed the CTBT, aimed at banning all nuclear tests worldwide, in September 1996, along with the four other declared nuclear powers -- Britain, China, France and the United States.

The Russian parliament ratified it in May last year but the United States and China have not yet done so.

Both India and Pakistan claim to have no desire for war and have all but ruled out the possibility of any kind of nuclear exchange.

However, border tensions between the arch-nuclear rivals remain high with frequent exchanges of fire that carry the threat of escalating into full-scale conflict. India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence from British rule in 1947.

-------- korea

North Korea Hits Out at U.S. Nuclear Arms Review

By REUTERS
March 13, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-korea-north-nuclear.html

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said Wednesday it would react strongly to a nuclear arms review that U.S. newspapers say includes contingency plans for using atomic weapons against seven countries including the communist North.

The official KCNA news agency said Washington would be ''grossly mistaken'' if it tried to attack North Korea with nuclear weapons.

``The DPRK will not remain a passive onlooker to the Bush administration's inclusion of the DPRK in the seven countries, targets of U.S. nuclear attack, but take a strong countermeasure against it,'' it said.

DPRK is the acronym for the country's official title -- the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

North Korea, which has a track record of rhetorical brinkmanship, did not spell out what form the countermeasure might take.

``If the U.S. intends to mount a nuclear attack on any part of the DPRK just as it did on Hiroshima, it is grossly mistaken,'' KCNA said, referring to one of two Japanese cities hit by U.S. atomic bombs at the end of World War Two.

``A nuclear war to be imposed by the U.S. nuclear fanatics upon the DPRK would mean their ruin in nuclear disaster.''

The news agency, with trademark ambiguity, did not make clear whether it was implying North Korea had nuclear weapons to strike back or whether an attack on the North would cause untold damage to the South where 37,000 U.S. troops are based.

Pyongyang's suspected nuclear weapons program brought it to the brink of conflict with Washington in 1994, before a diplomatic deal was struck to freeze the program in exchange for oil supplies and Western-built nuclear reactors.

The New York Times and Los Angeles Times reported last weekend the Pentagon had conducted a secret nuclear posture review that raised the possibility of developing new types of nuclear arms and described contingency plans for using them against Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea.

Senior U.S. officials have sought to play down the reports about the policy review, saying it is simple prudent planning by Pentagon strategists.

Russia and China have expressed concern about the reports.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov met President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington Tuesday to discuss nuclear arms and seek more details on the review.

North Korea said the reports indicated the Bush administration was ``working in real earnest to prepare a dangerous nuclear war to bring nuclear disasters to our planet and humankind.''

----

N. Korea May Rescind Nuclear Promise

March 13, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-NKorea-US-Nuclear.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea, angered by a Pentagon study naming the communist state as a potential target for nuclear strikes, threatened Wednesday to abandon a 1994 promise to freeze its nuclear laboratories.

The 7-year-old accord with Washington is a linchpin of U.S. efforts to stop the Stalinist country from developing atomic bombs.

However, ``under the present situation where nuclear lunatics have taken office in the White House, we are compelled to examine all the agreements with the U.S.,'' North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

North Korea also accused Washington of planning to launch a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and warned that it has the ability to retaliate.

``A nuclear war to be imposed by the U.S. nuclear fanatics upon the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea would mean their ruin in nuclear disaster,'' KCNA warned in a separate statement earlier Wednesday.

The remarks were North Korea's first reaction to reports last week that the Pentagon was studying the possible use of nuclear weapons against seven countries that could threaten the United States: North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Russia and Syria.

``In case the U.S. plan ... turns out to be true, the DPRK will have no option but to take a substantial countermeasure against it, not bound to any DPRK-U.S. agreement,'' the Foreign Ministry said.

Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday that no country was being targeted day-to-day. He said reduction of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles will continue.

North Korea has previously threatened to restart its nuclear program.

As part of the 1994 accord with Washington, the North froze Soviet-designed reactors suspected of producing weapons-grade plutonium. In return, a U.S.-led international consortium is building two $4.6 billion light-water reactors in North Korea.

The CIA believes North Korea stockpiled enough plutonium before the 1994 freeze to make one or two atomic bombs. The country refuses U.N. inspectors full access to its facilities, complicating efforts to determine Pyongyang's nuclear capabilities.

U.S. officials say North Korea has chemical and biological weapons programs and is developing a longer-range Taepo Dong-2 missile that could carry a significant payload to Alaska, Hawaii and parts of the U.S. continent.

Also Wednesday, North Korea condemned two joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises scheduled to begin March 21.

The exercises are ``prelude to a very dangerous war of aggression aimed to plunge the Korean nation into a scourge of a nuclear war,'' Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the ruling Workers' Party, said in commentary carried by KCNA.

North Korea has been smarting since President Bush characterized the country as being part of ``an axis of evil,'' along with Iran and Iraq.

During a visit to South Korea in February, Bush renewed an offer to start a dialogue with North Korea, but Pyongyang again rejected it Wednesday, calling it a ``sheer lie.''

Washington keeps 37,000 troops in South Korea as a deterrent against the North. The United States led a U.N. force that fought on South Korea's side during the 1950-53 Korean War.

--------

North Korea Hits Out at U.S. Nuclear Arms Review

March 13, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-korea-north-nuclear.html

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said Wednesday it would react strongly to a nuclear arms review that U.S. newspapers say includes contingency plans for using atomic weapons against seven countries including the communist North.

The official KCNA news agency said Washington would be ''grossly mistaken'' if it tried to attack North Korea with nuclear weapons.

``The DPRK will not remain a passive onlooker to the Bush administration's inclusion of the DPRK in the seven countries, targets of U.S. nuclear attack, but take a strong countermeasure against it,'' it said.

DPRK is the acronym for the country's official title -- the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

North Korea, which has a track record of rhetorical brinkmanship, did not spell out what form the countermeasure might take.

``If the U.S. intends to mount a nuclear attack on any part of the DPRK just as it did on Hiroshima, it is grossly mistaken,'' KCNA said, referring to one of two Japanese cities hit by U.S. atomic bombs at the end of World War Two.

``A nuclear war to be imposed by the U.S. nuclear fanatics upon the DPRK would mean their ruin in nuclear disaster.''

The news agency, with trademark ambiguity, did not make clear whether it was implying North Korea had nuclear weapons to strike back or whether an attack on the North would cause untold damage to the South where 37,000 U.S. troops are based.

Pyongyang's suspected nuclear weapons program brought it to the brink of conflict with Washington in 1994, before a diplomatic deal was struck to freeze the program in exchange for oil supplies and Western-built nuclear reactors.

The New York Times and Los Angeles Times reported last weekend the Pentagon had conducted a secret nuclear posture review that raised the possibility of developing new types of nuclear arms and described contingency plans for using them against Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea.

Senior U.S. officials have sought to play down the reports about the policy review, saying it is simple prudent planning by Pentagon strategists.

Russia and China have expressed concern about the reports.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov met President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington Tuesday to discuss nuclear arms and seek more details on the review.

North Korea said the reports indicated the Bush administration was ``working in real earnest to prepare a dangerous nuclear war to bring nuclear disasters to our planet and humankind.''

-------- russia

Russia Questions US Nuclear Targeting

March 13, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Russia.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Russia's visiting defense minister is seeking an explanation for a Pentagon policy review that names Russia and six other countries as potential targets of U.S. nuclear weapons.

The disclosure of the review last week has alarmed the Kremlin and leaders of other countries. In Washington on a previously scheduled visit, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said, ``it's quite natural'' that he would want to discuss the review with the people who prepared it.

Ivanov is holding a second day of talks Wednesday with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. They are to hold a news conference afterward. Pentagon officials withheld comment on the talks.

On Tuesday, Ivanov called on President Bush at the White House. Among the issues they discussed were U.S. and Russian pledges to reduce nuclear stockpiles and the U.S.-led campaign against terror.

Ivanov described the meeting as ``rather warm and productive'' and said he did not take up the Pentagon study with Bush. ``But we had a very long and very detailed discussion this morning with Secretary Rumsfeld,'' he said.

Ivanov advised reporters to be patient, referring apparently to the second day of talks with Rumsfeld and their news conference.

The National Security spokesman Sean McCormack said Bush had raised the issue of nuclear weapons, but ``only in the context of reiterating his commitment to reduce U.S. offensive nuclear arms to the range the U.S. is committed to.''

He deferred further more specific questions until Ivanov and Rumsfeld meet Wednesday. ``We'll wait to see how they dwell on it. I don't think we're going to do a play by play ... It's an evolutionary process like any discussion is,'' he said.

With Bush to go to Russia in May to see President Vladimir Putin, U.S. nuclear planning takes on added importance.

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security assistant, have assured Russia it is not being targeted.

No country, Powell told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday, is being targeted day-to-day. And he said the reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles would continue.

Powell said the number of U.S. nuclear weapons has dropped to less than 10,000 from the 20,000 that were in the arsenal when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a decade ago.

``The philosophy of President Bush, the philosophy of this administration, is to continue driving down the number of nuclear weapons,'' Powell said.

Powell was questioned by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., about the Pentagon's policy review. ``It seems to me we are turning away from what was our traditional approach to arms control, which was a very deliberate, concerted, consistent effort to limit the use of nuclear weapons and not to expand their use,'' Reed said.

New targeting, Reed said, could frustrate the hopes of supporters of nuclear weapons cutbacks.

But Powell said accounts of the classified document were wildly at odds with the administration's intentions.

The review identified Iran, Iraq, North Korea and other countries as potential targets of U.S. nuclear weapons. The review was submitted to congressional committees in January.

Asked by Reed if the Bush administration had lowered the nuclear threshold, Powell replied, ``We have done no such thing.'' He also said that no country is targeted by the United States on a day-to-day basis.

Bush intends to go ahead with a plan to reduce the total of U.S. nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next 10 years, Powell said.

Putin has pledged a similar cutback, but would like it to be legally binding. Powell said Bush had no objection to the formality, but that it was not necessary now that the United States and Russia are no longer adversaries.

-------- treaties

Russian, U.S. Officials to Cut Nukes

By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
MARCH 13
http://wire.ap.org/?FRONTID=ELECTION&SLUG=US%2dRUSSIA

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the United States and Russia are likely to come up with a legally binding document outlining their mutual pledge to cut long-range nuclear weapons by two-thirds.

President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin ``have agreed that they would like to have something that would go beyond their two presidencies,'' Rumsfeld said at a news conference after two days of meetings with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov.

Referring to Ivanov's call for a legally binding document outlining that pledge, the American defense secretary said: ``Some sort of a document of that type is certainly a likelihood.''

Ivanov said he would like to see good progress toward such a document so that it could be signed at a May summit by Putin and Bush in Russia.

``We believe there should be a legally binding document which would be comprehensive and understandable for the whole world, and which would also reflect the transparency we need to achieve between the two countries,'' Ivanov said.

Rumsfeld also sought to reassure Russian officials and the world that the United States is not eyeing Russia as a potential target of nuclear weapons.

The disclosure last weekend of an internal U.S. nuclear review naming Russia and six other countries as potential threats alarmed the Kremlin and leaders of other countries.

``Without getting into the classified details, I can say that the review says nothing about targeting any country with nuclear weapons,'' Rumsfeld said. ``The United States targets no country on a day-to-day basis.''

Echoing the comments of other Bush administration officials since news reports of the document appeared, Rumsfeld said the Nuclear Posture Review was not a planning document for possible U.S. action, but merely ``sets out prudent requirements for deterrence in the 21st century.''

Russian officials had been briefed on the document in January, Rumsfeld said.

The document does, however, note that Russia has formidable nuclear weapons and ``prudently takes this into account,'' Rumsfeld said.

But the relationship between the United States and Russia has undergone such a fundamental improvement that the two countries no longer view each other as adversaries, Rumsfeld said.

``The United States seeks a cooperative relationship with Russia, which moves away from the mutually assured destruction (policy) of the past,'' Rumsfeld said.

On Tuesday, Ivanov had told reporters ``it's quite natural'' that he would want to discuss the review with the people who prepared it. He told reporters that Rumsfeld's public statements about the report accurately reflect its contents.

``Secretary Rumsfeld briefed you on the true situation, and I don't have anything to add here,'' Ivanov told reporters.

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security assistant, also have assured Russia it is not being targeted.

Ivanov also made clear that a U.S. plan to send military personnel to help train soldiers in the Republic of Georgia to fight terrorists remains a sensitive topic for Russia.

Ivanov said the United States and Russia would need ``the most close cooperation'' to effectively help Georgia's government deal with the problem.

Fighters trained in Afghanistan have escaped to the Pankisi Gorge area, which borders Russia's breakaway Chechnya, Ivanov said, and are ``full of new plans for terrorist operations.'' Russia ``cannot just sit and watch these activities indifferently,'' he said.

The United States also believes fighters linked with the al-Qaida terrorist network are hiding in the crime-infested gorge. Ivanov said the United States is keeping Russia informed of its intentions, both the planned phases of training and the scope of that training.

Rumsfeld said the United States has no plans to put any military personnel into the gorge itself, and is only sending ``relatively modest number of trainers over to assist them (Georgia) in training.''

President Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia also has sought to reassure Russian officials that Washington will not have a long-term military presence in the region.

Georgia, eager to shed Russian influence and reach out to the West, has long refused Russian offers to help crack down in the gorge, and Shevardnadze admitted only recently that the gorge could house terrorists and welcomed U.S. offers of help.

On Tuesday, Ivanov called on Bush at the White House to discuss the U.S. and Russian pledges to reduce nuclear stockpiles and the U.S.-led campaign against terror.

Ivanov described the meeting as ``rather warm and productive'' and said he did not take up the Pentagon study with Bush.

The National Security Council spokesman, Sean McCormack, said Bush had raised the issue of nuclear weapons, but ``only in the context of reiterating his commitment to reduce U.S. offensive nuclear arms to the range the U.S. is committed to.''

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday told members of Congress that the number of U.S. nuclear weapons has dropped to fewer than 10,000 from the 20,000 that were in the arsenal when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a decade ago.

Bush intends to go ahead with a plan to reduce the total of long-range U.S. nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next 10 years, Powell said.

Putin has pledged a similar cut, but would like it to be legally binding. Powell said Bush had no objection to the formality, but that it was not necessary now that the United States and Russia are no longer adversaries.

--------

W. House 'Optimistic' on Us - Russia Nuclear Pact

March 13, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-arms-usa-russia.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush expressed optimism on Wednesday that the United States and Russia would reach formal agreement on joint nuclear arms cuts in time for a May summit meeting.

Bush spoke at a White House news conference after Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said he and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had made key progress on a binding arms agreement in two days of Pentagon talks.

``I share the minister's optimism that we can get something done by May. I would like to sign a document in Russia when I'm there. I think it would be a good thing,'' Bush said of his May 23-26 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

``We have got to work hard to establish a new relationship,'' with Russia, Bush added. ``I also agree with President Putin that there needs to be a document that outlives both of us. What form that comes in we will discuss.''

Bush and Putin have agreed to cut their current nuclear arsenals of between 6,000 and 7,000 nuclear warheads by two-thirds over the next decade, but Russia has objected to announced Pentagon plans to store instead of destroy some of those American warheads.

Bush said the United States was talking with Russia about ''storage versus destruction'' of nuclear warheads.

``I think the most important thing, though, is verification,'' he told reporters.

IVANOV CITES PROGRESS IN TALKS

Ivanov met Bush on Tuesday and said after ending talks with Rumsfeld on Wednesday that key progress had been made.

``I think that some specific results have been achieved,'' he said. ``The issue of transparency was also clarified.''

Questioned about the U.S. plans to store rather than destroy some of its warheads, Ivanov declined to say whether Russia might shelve some of its own.

But he made clear that ``equal security'' was a concern in Moscow.

``So all options are being discussed,'' Ivanov said, adding that if Russia developed plans to store such weapons it would inform Washington.

``It is true that for some period of time those warheads (removed from weapons) could be stored or shelved. But the time will inevitably come when those warheads will have to be destroyed,'' he added. ``The same is true about delivery systems.''

Putin and Bush have pledged to slash their strategic arsenals to somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 warheads.

Rumsfeld and Ivanov, stressing cooperation rather than confrontation in a post-Cold War world, discussed closer ties in a number of areas, including the war on terrorism.

NO COUNTRY TARGETED-RUMSFELD

Rumsfeld also moved to soften the controversy over a recent Pentagon nuclear posture review that reportedly included the possibility of developing new types of nuclear arms and contingency plans for using them against Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

``The review says nothing about targeting any country with nuclear weapons. The United States targets no country on a day-to-day basis,'' Rumsfeld said.

At the White House, Bush said, ``We've got all options on the table because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us, or our allies or friends.''

``The reason one has a nuclear arsenal is to serve as a deterrence,'' Bush said.

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

Fallout fierce over Washington's new nuclear policy

By Jim Lobe
Asia Times Online
Inter Press Service
March 13, 2002 atimes.com
http://atimes.com/front/DC13Aa01.html

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's new contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against a range of countries, including some who do not even have them, came under heavy fire on Monday here and abroad.

China said it was "deeply shocked" by the "Nuclear Posture Review" (NPR), leaked to the media last weekend, and arms-control groups here said the secret study is almost certain to heighten international tensions and fuel concerns about the unilateralist aims of President George W Bush's administration.

"It isn't likely that the US will go around nuking countries at random," said Stephen Young, a nuclear analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "but the study conveys the notion that the US will be the global policeman and arbiter of justice, and that's not a role everyone agrees we should have."

Another group, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said the NPR "will weaken the non-proliferation regime by encouraging other states to acquire nuclear weapons and increasing the likelihood that nuclear weapons will actually be used".

Historically, Washington has taken the position that it would use nuclear weapons only as a last resort and only against nuclear-armed states. But the new review suggests that nuclear weapons could be used in other circumstances and it cited seven nations - China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia, and Syria - as possible targets.

An "Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, or a North Korean attack on South Korea or military confrontation over the status of Taiwan", according to the report, could develop in such a way that the United States may wish to employ nuclear weapons. The NPR also suggested their possible use to destroy suspected stocks of weapons of mass destruction held by so-called rogue states.

As the examples suggest, the study also recommends the development of new kinds of nuclear weapons that could be integrated into US war-fighting strategy, and not just used, as in the past, for deterrence. It calls, for example, for developing smaller nuclear weapons that could be used against specific kinds of targets, such as caves or hardened bunkers buried deep in the earth.

"The NPR blurs [the distinction between war-fighting and deterrence] by calling for development of new nuclear weapons," according to the Center for Arms Control. "Developing 'usable' nuclear weapons with perceived military value will encourage other states to pursue similar capabilities."

Developing new nuclear weapons will also undermine the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which commits nuclear-weapon states to eventual nuclear disarmament, according to critics.

"This policy is a de facto announcement that the US will not abide by the NPT," said Arjun Makhijani, director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment (IEE), recalling that India refused to sign the NPT in the 1960s precisely because it did not include a definite commitment to eventual nuclear disarmament. "That has resulted in the very perilous situation in South Asia today," noted Makhijani, citing the current tense standoff between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. "And US troops are right there today, which shows that Washington is not immune from the consequences."

Asked on Sunday about the study and its implications, top US policy-makers insisted that it was an innocent exercise in normal contingency planning. "There are nations out there developing weapons of mass destruction," said Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Prudent planners have to give some consideration as to the options the president should have available to him to deal with these kinds of threats."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also insisted that the paper was consistent with Washington's traditional policy of using its nuclear arsenal only as a deterrent. "We all want to make the use of weapons of mass destruction less likely," she said. "The way that you do that is to send a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States that they'd be met with a devastating response."

But critics argued that Rice's explanation appeared disingenuous, if only because top administration figures - notably Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and undersecretary of state for international security and arms control John Bolton - have themselves pooh-poohed the effectiveness of deterrence on "rogue states" or terrorist groups, particularly since the September 11 attacks in the United States. "If you say that you believe in deterrence, and then you say it can't deter rogues, then what is the point of threatening them?" asked one former senior State Department official. "There's a contradiction here."

Others noted that, whatever the status of deterrence, the strategic posture outlined in the NPR and the contingencies presented in it will simply add to tensions throughout the Mideast and elsewhere regarding Bush's intentions in the ongoing anti-terrorist campaign.

In late January, he warned that Washington could take pre-emptive military action against the so-called "axis of evil" - which he identified as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, all of which Washington accuses of supporting terrorism and building weapons of mass destruction.

Those remarks provoked much anger and consternation abroad, even among US allies in Europe and Asia who have engaged moderate forces in Tehran and tried to coax Pyongyang into opening wider to the West. Hardliners in both governments - and now in Syria and Libya, as well as in China and Russia - will only be strengthened as a result of the paper, according to critics.

"By seeing threats everywhere, the US is giving support to those who want to create those threats everywhere," said Young, at UCS. "This will mean one more turn of the paranoia wheel in North Korea," said the former State Department official, an East Asia expert who added that, while it "won't turn things around in China", it will add to growing fears in Beijing about US intentions.

------

New Nuclear Weapons Policy

Commentary by Molly Ivins for Intellivu
CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
From: JARPuggy@aol.com Wed, 13 Mar 2002

Thinking about nuclear weapons is sort of like looking directly at the sun: If you do it for more than a split second, you go blind. Or insane.

Our government is now contemplating such a ne plus ultra of idiocy that it's enough to make one yearn for the dear, departed days of MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD was such a sane policy. Dr. Strangelove, report for duty immediately, the Bush administration needs YOU!

We are about to get a new nuclear weapons policy -- cute nukes. Teeny-tiny nukes. I was betting the Pentagon would name them "precision nukes," but I have once again underestimated our military's ability to obfuscate with mind-numbing language. The cute nukes are "offensive strike systems."

Now here's a sane sentence from the Pentagon's new Nuclear Posture Review: "Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation." That means we won't wipe out entire populations and start World War III if we stick to non-nukes. A point to be considered.

But our busy military planners like to plan for all contingencies (except terrorists with box-cutters) and are proposing "a new generation of nuclear weapons" -- just what we need. The cute nukes are to be "employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapons facilities)."

The drawback to cute nukes is that they're more "useable" than the old-fashioned, clunky kind -- it's so much more tempting to use just a tiny little nuke. But cute nukes do have the same charming property as the grown-up kind -- they're made of lethal radioactive materials no one on God's green earth knows how to get rid of.

When the Cold War ended, we really did think we could finally start "building down" the world's supply of these ungodly weapons. So who signed us up to build a whole new generation of them? Did we vote on this? Anybody recall Bush mentioning cute nukes while he was running for office? Since we have to pay for it, don't we get a say?

Naturally, the rest of the world thinks we're nuts, and they're not even using diplomatic language to say so. A Russian legislator inquired if Americans "have somewhat lost touch with the reality in which they live."

We could spend some time relishing the glorious black humor MAD produced, but let's take a few steps back here at look at the Big Picture. Here are the questions: What do we think we are doing? And what kind of country do we want to be?

According to the State Department, the federal budget in 1949 for international aid and diplomacy (that is, efforts to settle conflicts peacefully) was $66.4 billion. In the 2002 budget, it is $23.8 billion (from Harper's Index). We spend less on foreign aid per capita than any other industrialized country. Japan spends $3.5 billion more in total than we do. Some world leader.

We are also neglecting our own people and infrastructure. How pathetic is it that we're going to put another trillion dollars into the military while we cut back on child-care for women moving from welfare to work?

We are, as we probably remind ourselves too often, the most powerful nation on earth. How do we want to use that power? What do we stand for? Democracy, human rights and global prosperity? Do we really think we can make the world a better place by building a new arsenal of nukes? And how much money does that take away from building democracy, human rights and global prosperity?

In the play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," at the end of the relentless tragedy, one says to the other, "There must have been a time, somewhere near the beginning, when we could have said no." As the beloved Robert Frost put it, "Two paths diverged in a wood, and I -- I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." We have been down the more-traveled path of spending insane sums for unspeakable weapons many times before, and we know where it leads. The state of the world today is not much of a recommendation for it. Before we lurch off onto it again, let us at least stop and think, and ask questions and demand answers, and consider alternatives.

Before the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, before we become a shape with lion body and the head of a man, with a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, before we become that rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born ... let's stop. And think. Because this may be our only chance to say no.

----

The Nuclear Posture

Wednesday, March 13, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17206-2002Mar12?language=printer

RECENT REPORTS about the Bush administration's review of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy have tended to obscure the fact that much of what the administration laid out in the congressionally mandated report isn't new. For more than a decade, the United States has sought to deter rogue states from using weapons of mass destruction by publicly suggesting that it might respond with a nuclear strike, and Pentagon planners have backed the threat by laying out theoretical targeting plans for Iraq, Iran and other such states. The policy, which the Clinton administration continued from the first Bush presidency, has been a success: Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons against his own people in the 1980s, did not dare to employ them against U.S. troops or allies during or after the Persian Gulf War. You wouldn't know it from recent scaremongering headlines and overheated rhetoric, but in this aspect the Bush review has merely reaffirmed a sensible strategy.

Other aspects of the strategic review, however, raise questions that merit congressional scrutiny. When the review was completed in January, the administration trumpeted its own headline: a reduction of operational and deployed U.S. nuclear warheads from the current total of 6,000 to a level between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next 10 years. Again, there was less news here than it may have seemed; the Clinton administration arrived at a similar figure in formulating its proposal for nuclear reductions. But while the previous administration described its proposed force as meant to deter a possible Russian threat, the Bush administration insists that Russia does not enter into its calculations. The 2,000-warhead figure, say President Bush's planners, was arrived at by estimating only the force needed to deter rogue states and to dissuade China from contemplating a nuclear buildup that would put it on a par with the United States. While that effort to move strategic thinking beyond the Cold War is admirable, the conclusions don't appear to match the new theory: Two thousand active warheads seems more than necessary to deter Iraq or counter China, while the fact that the figure matches that previously deemed necessary for Russia seems an odd coincidence. If deterrence of Russia were really not needed, then a larger number of weapons could probably be deactivated.

In fact, the Bush plan does call for a hedge against the possibility that a hostile government will regain power in Moscow. But because the 2,000 warheads supposedly don't serve this purpose, the administration argues that it must preserve the warheads it takes off weapons during the planned reduction, thus allowing for a relatively quick buildback to a force of 4,600 warheads. Like some U.S. critics, Russia is loudly objecting to this plan; administration officials reply that previous arms control agreements have not provided for warhead destruction, and that any deal mandating destruction would favor Russia, which unlike the United States has preserved the ability to mass-manufacture new warheads. The administration should be pressed to weigh such arguments against the benefits of guaranteeing the destruction of thousands of Russian nukes -- and the risks of leaving such weapons intact when their vulnerability to accidents or theft is the subject of well-justified alarms.

Administration officials say their new strategy will ultimately decrease U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons, because they will develop "new capabilities," such as high-tech conventional weapons and missile defenses, to counter weapons of mass destruction. That is a promising scenario, but it is undermined by another old idea: the development of new nuclear weapons, including low-yield warheads that could be aimed at smaller targets or deeply buried bunkers. The administration's plan to develop designs for such arms over the next three years is troubling; the presence of such weapons in the U.S. arsenal could dangerously lower the threshold for launching a nuclear attack, while inviting a new arms race among existing and aspiring nuclear powers. The Bush administration is right to focus more of its strategic planning on deterring rogue states; but developing new nuclear weapons for that threat is neither necessary nor sensible.

----

Nuclear Planning: A Threat to Peace?

New York Times
March 13, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/13/opinion/L13NUKE.html

To the Editor:
Re "U.S. Nuclear Plan Sees New Targets and New Weapons" (front page, March 10):

The Pentagon's review of the nation's nuclear posture sets a dangerous precedent. It sends the message that weapons of mass destruction in fact may have legitimate uses in warfare, and it may therefore undermine the nonproliferation effort.

The International Court of Justice ruled on July 8, 1996, that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law." Appearing so ready to flout international law will only confirm the perception of America as a rogue state. DANIEL WEISKOPF St. Louis, March 11, 2002

• To the Editor:
Re "America as Nuclear Rogue" (editorial, March 12):

Our government's contingency planning, from the more bold to the most frightening, must be undertaken. Contemplated pre-emptive strikes, however, constitute part warning, part posturing. The United States is too rational to consider seriously the actual use of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, political deterrence is reinforced and other countries entertain second thoughts.

America will not strike first with nuclear weapons. As the world power with the most conventional might, the United States can defeat its real or imagined potential enemies.

The problem remains: other countries will not remain nonnuclear. The United States must find a way to loosen the grip of the military's fear of body bags and the hold that domestic politics and elections have on international security policy. ELLIOTT A. COHEN Santa Barbara, Calif., March 12, 2002

• To the Editor:
Re "Nuclear Arms: For Deterrence or Fighting?" (news analysis, front page, March 11):

The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review furthers the dangerous notion that nuclear weapons can be used. The recent standoff between the nuclear rivals India and Pakistan and the threat of nuclear weapons use by terrorists have rightly focused our attention on preventing nuclear proliferation.

Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty requires the United States and other nuclear countries to end the arms race and work for nuclear disarmament. How can we expect other countries to refrain from building nuclear weapons or eliminate their existing ones if we continue to develop new ones ourselves? The most important thing we can do to prevent nuclear terrorism is to prevent proliferation. ANDREW S. KANTER Chicago, March 11, 2002

----

Bush: U.S. Nukes Are Deterrent

March 13, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-News-Conference.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday his administration has ``all options on the table'' as the Pentagon reworks its nuclear weapons policy to deter any attack on America -- including from non-nuclear states such as Iraq and Iran.

The U.S. nuclear arsenal is ``a way to say to people who would harm America: 'Don't do it,''' Bush said.

``We've got all options on the table because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends.''

In a 45-minute news conference, Bush spoke bluntly of Iraq's Saddam Hussein: ``He is a problem and we're going to deal with him.''

However, even as U.S. troops scoured caves in Afghanistan for terrorists and Taliban fighters, Bush played down the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.

Russia and other U.S. partners in the war against terrorism were alarmed when news leaks disclosed last weekend that the Pentagon was at work on a new policy that could lower the threshold for use of U.S. nuclear weapons and possibly target low-yield nuclear bombs against states such as China, Libya or Syria.

When it comes to America's enemies, ``We're not out to seek revenge'' -- only justice, Bush said.

The United States' nuclear weapons policy should also convey the nation's seriousness in the anti-terror war, Bush added.

``If the United States were to waver, some in the world would take a nap when it comes to the war on terror and we're just not going to let them do that.''

By turns, Bush flashed anger and humor as he fielded questions on more than a dozen topics.

He said he could ``barely get my coffee down'' when he read of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's belated dispatch of student visa approvals for two of the terrorists who slammed hijacked jets into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

Bush said he learned through news reports that the visa notices were delivered to a Florida flight school on Monday, exactly six months after the attacks. ``I was stunned and not happy. ... I was plenty hot.''

He called the episode a ``wake-up call for people who run the INS,'' an agency he said ``needs to be reformed.''

On the Middle East, where attacks and retaliation have increased, Bush offered his most direct criticism yet of crackdowns on Palestinians by Ariel Sharon's government.

``Frankly, it is not helpful what the Israelis have recently done,'' Bush said. ``I understand somebody trying to defend themselves ... but the recent actions are not helpful.''

He urged both Israelis and Palestinians to ``work hard to create conditions for a potential settlement'' when U.S. mediator Anthony Zinni returns to the region on Thursday.

With Vice President Dick Cheney in the region this week trying to rally Arab support for a tougher stance against Iraq, Bush said, ``One of the things I've said to our friends is that we will consult. ... In regard to Iraq, we're doing just that.''

On bin Laden, whose whereabouts are a nagging frustration to the White House, Bush said:

``Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run -- if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me that people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terrorism is bigger than one person and he's a person who's now been marginalized.''

The president added, ``I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on it. ... I can assure you I am not going to blink.''

Bush, who travels to Moscow in May for another round of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, said he would go along with Russian demands for a written agreement to codify expected arms reductions. Bush said he now agrees with Putin ``that there needs to be a document that outlives both of us.''

In an opening statement, Bush scored the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, which is poised for a Thursday vote rejecting his nominee for the federal appeals court, conservative District Court Judge Charles Pickering. Partisan delays on his judicial nominees have created a ``vacancy crisis'' in the judicial branch, Bush said.

``Too often judicial confirmations are being turned into ideological battles that delay justice and hurt our democracy,'' he said.

The president defended his administration's refusal to give congressional investigators records of Cheney's energy task force consultations with energy company executives who contributed to the Bush campaign -- including embattled Enron officials.

``I'm not going to let Congress erode the power of the executive branch. We're not going to give them to 'em. These are privileged conversations,'' Bush said.

On a day when he spent several hours with Irish and Irish-American leaders celebrating an early St. Patrick's holiday, Bush was asked about the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic church.

``I know many in the hierarchy in the Catholic Church. I know them to be men of decency. ... I'm confident the church will clean up its business,'' said Bush, who has assiduously courted Catholic support since becoming president.

After decades of allegations in Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law recently gave prosecutors the names of at least 80 priests accused of sexually abusing children.

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

-------- connecticut

A Plan to Renew Reactor Licenses

March 13, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/13/nyregion/13POWE.html

WATERFORD, Conn., March 12 - The company that owns Millstone Power Station will seek a 20-year renewal for licenses to operate the station's two nuclear reactors, company officials said today.

The company, Dominion, based in Richmond, Va., plans to file the renewal application with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2004.

The company is seeking to extend the licenses of the Millstone 2 reactor to 2035 and the Millstone 3 reactor to 2045. A third reactor is being decommissioned.

-------- ohio

OHIO: ACID THREAT AT NUCLEAR PLANT

National Briefing: Midwest
New York Times
March 13, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/13/national/13BRFS5.html

An acid leak inside a nuclear power plant ate a hole six inches deep into a steel cap that covers the plant's reactor vessel, federal inspectors said. The hole, discovered last week at the Davis- Besse nuclear plant about 25 miles east of Toledo, was stopped by a layer impervious to the acid. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman, Jan Strasma, said that if the acid had penetrated the cap and allowed steam to escape, safety systems would have immediately cooled the reactor. While the steam would been radioactive, it would have been confined by the reactor containment building, Mr. Strasma said. The plant has been shut since mid-February. (AP)

-------- washington

More than 1 million gallons of radioactive water leaked
Dept of Energy Fined for Nuclear Delay

The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 13, 2002; 3:11 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21703-2002Mar13?language=printer

RICHLAND, Wash. -- State officials fined the U.S. Department of Energy for missing the start date of a project to turn liquid radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation into solid glass that can be more easily stored.

However, a spokeswoman for the Washington Department of Ecology said Tuesday the state will forgive the $305,000 fine if the Energy Department begins work later this year and continues as expected in 2003.

In an plan state officials agreed to Monday, the state fined the Energy Department $5,000 for missing the startup deadline July 31, and added $10,000 a week until the agency approved a new plan and guaranteed money for it earlier this month.

The Pollution Control Hearings Board must still approve the fine.

The Energy Department missed the deadline primarily because design work was delayed after the firing of one contractor, and cost estimates more than doubled to $15.2 billion in 2000. A new contractor is set to begin work in December.

The glassification, or vitrification, project will treat about 10 percent of the highly radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks at the 560-square-mile reservation, where plutonium was made for more than 40 years for the nation's nuclear arsenal.

The tanks have leaked more than 1 million gallons into the soil and groundwater, threatening the nearby Columbia River.

--------

Dept of Energy Fined for Nuclear Delay

March 13, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Hanford-Fines.html

RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) -- State officials fined the U.S. Department of Energy for missing the start date of a project to turn liquid radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation into solid glass that can be more easily stored.

However, a spokeswoman for the Washington Department of Ecology said Tuesday the state will forgive the $305,000 fine if the Energy Department begins work later this year and continues as expected in 2003.

In an plan state officials agreed to Monday, the state fined the Energy Department $5,000 for missing the startup deadline July 31, and added $10,000 a week until the agency approved a new plan and guaranteed money for it earlier this month.

The Pollution Control Hearings Board must still approve the fine.

The Energy Department missed the deadline primarily because design work was delayed after the firing of one contractor, and cost estimates more than doubled to $15.2 billion in 2000. A new contractor is set to begin work in December.

The glassification, or vitrification, project will treat about 10 percent of the highly radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks at the 560-square-mile reservation, where plutonium was made for more than 40 years for the nation's nuclear arsenal.

The tanks have leaked more than 1 million gallons into the soil and groundwater, threatening the nearby Columbia River.

-------- us politics

Cheney's Strange Campaign

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 13, 2002; 8:50 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19201-2002Mar13?language=printer

There's something a bit odd about this Dick Cheney trip.

On the surface, the vice president is simply making the rounds of Mideast capitals, a classic diplomatic swing.

But it's all very wink-wink nod-nod.

The media version is that he's telling these heads of state, one by one, that America is getting ready to attack Saddam.

There may or may not be a plan to go after Iraq. Indeed, we still seem to have our hands full in Afghanistan.

But this is still playing like the Whack Saddam Tour.

What is the point of touting all this semi-publicly?

Could it be to pressure the Iraqi leader to back down and allow weapons inspectors into his country? Could it be for domestic political consumption?

Could the press, crazy as it sounds, be hyping it? The traveling reporters need something to write every day. It's not as if Arab leaders are going to bless our marching on Baghdad, publicly or privately. Do we just want to be able to say we had "consultations"?

Cheney says that's not the purpose of his out-of-the-cave trip. But then, if it were, he would hardly announce it publicly.

The mounting Israeli-Palestinian violence seems the greater crisis at the moment, although the U.S. ability to rein in the parties seems awfully limited right now.

The Los Angeles Times files from Jordan: "Underlying his very public journey through the Middle East is very private diplomacy. In the end, his efforts could help determine whether President Bush gains the widespread international support he seeks to carry his war against the Al Qaeda network beyond Afghanistan and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the Islamic world.

"Traveling far from the 'secure, undisclosed location' to which he was dispatched in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, he is the highest-level - and most visible - U.S. official to venture to the Middle East since the attacks. He began the job Tuesday night at Baraka Palace with Jordan's King Abdullah II, the young monarch who is the beneficiary of U.S. support but is nevertheless skeptical about Cheney's mission. . . .

"Such compliments aside, Abdullah 'expressed hope for a solution to all outstanding problems with Iraq through dialogue and peaceful means,' the king's office said in a palace statement - sending a clear, public signal of reluctance to sign on to the Bush administration's efforts against Baghdad.

"The statement also said Abdullah voiced Jordan's concern about 'the repercussions of any possible strike on Iraq and the dangers of that on the stability and security of the region.'"

USA Today has this wire report: "Cheney was in the region to meet with Middle Eastern leaders on the next phase in the war on terror, but at his first two stops - Jordan on Tuesday and Egypt on Wednesday - the increasing Israeli-Palestinian violence was the topic that dominated his talks with Arab leaders pressing for more U.S. involvement to end Israeli-Palestinian violence and a lower U.S. profile in challenging Iraq."

President Hosni Mubarak's view, "conveyed during the Egyptian leader's trip this month to Washington, is that U.S. stock in the Arab world - already damaged by the Bush administration's strong support for Israel - would sink further if Iraqis are killed in a U.S. attack. . . .

"As Cheney travels through the region at a time of extreme turmoil, U.S. officials are playing down the Iraq angle publicly. But privately, they suggest the condemnation from Arab leaders of U.S. hints that it may act to topple Saddam Hussein are largely for domestic consumption. They hope that Arab leaders, while not expected to join in any military action against Iraq, would at least quietly acquiesce."

-------

WAR ON TERRORISM:
Questions for Mr. Bush

03/13/2002
St. Louis Post/Dispatch
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Editorial/6420C1EDC1D0F14186256B7B00465441?OpenDocument&Headline=Questions for Mr. Bush

CITIZENS, congressional leaders and America's allies have the right and the responsibility to ask tough questions about President George W. Bush's plans for the war against terrorism, lest the nation assume a perilous and unexamined new role.

Three areas require special attention. The first is Mr. Bush's decision -- made without consulting Congress -- to send military advisers and troops to the Philippines, Yemen, Georgia and any other country fighting terrorism. The second is the plan to topple Saddam Hussein. The third is the Pentagon's dangerous new nuclear strategy contemplating the use of nuclear weapons against countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria, among others.

Mr. Bush was widely praised for Monday's speech on the White House lawn calling for a far-flung war against terrorism. The speech was an improvement over the State of the Union address. He thanked the allies by name this time. He didn't mention the "axis of evil." And he concluded with "God bless our coalition." All of these changes in style were well-received in Europe.

But serious questions need to be asked: How will the United States differentiate terrorists from local bandits or freedom fighters? How much will it cost in treasure and world opinion to project U.S. forces into troubled countries all across the globe? Will a war against Iraq harden the Arab world's view that the United States is fighting Islam? Is the United States crossing a dangerous threshold in considering the broader use of nuclear weapons?

When Mr. Bush declared the war on terrorism, he defined the enemy as terrorists with global reach. It's not clear that the terrorists in Georgia, Yemen and the Philippines fit that description. Mr. Bush says terrorists in those countries have ties to al-Qaida. But most of them seem more interested in their local causes than Islamic revolution. For example, the Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic group in the Philippines that is holding two Americans hostage, is more a band of jungle bandits than international terrorists.

There is also the unappealing prospect of new or expanded U.S. military involvement in a number of other dangerous venues, including Colombia, Indonesia and Algeria. The Pentagon is interested in fighting Islamic rebels in Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic country. Algeria, where 65,000 people have been killed in a decade-old civil war, says it may ask for U.S. assistance.

Meanwhile, there is a power struggle between the Pentagon and the State Department over how to topple Saddam. As Seymour Hersh described the dispute in last week's New Yorker magazine, unseasoned civilian hawks in the Pentagon want to install the Iraqi National Congress in southern Iraq, seize airfields and oil wells, and declare a "no-drive" zone. When Saddam's military attacks, according to this scenario, U.S. air power will wipe them out, prompting civilians to revolt. Mr. Hersh questions whether civilians, who have been hurt by U.S. bombing and the trade and aid embargo, will actually rush to topple Saddam. Secretary of State Colin Powell also questions the Pentagon's scenario. He favors massing a large military force and a reliable coalition of front-line Arab allies.

Vice President Dick Cheney suffered a setback on the coalition front on Tuesday when King Abdullah II of Jordan urged him to avoid war with Iraq. Other Arab nations are also leery of poking their ill-tempered, deadly neighbor with a sharp stick.

Making the case for an attack on Iraq is harder than it was for Afghanistan. Saddam has not struck at the United States, nor has he been linked to any terrorist act against the United States in a decade. Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify a preemptive attack.

On the other hand, Saddam has murdered his own people and his neighbors. He has thrown out weapons inspectors so he can work undisturbed on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Are we to wait for Saddam to obtain a weapon of mass destruction and to give it to a terrorist for delivery?

But now that the world knows that the Pentagon wants a nuke with Iraq's name on it, it's harder to argue that Iraq should not be developing its own nuclear weapons. The new Pentagon policy represents a dangerous move away from the Cold War strategy of mutually assured destruction to one that contemplates the use of smaller nuclear weapons under extraordinary conditions.

All of these decisions, decisions of war and peace, should be taken only after consultation with the Congress and a national discussion.

Even if each element of Mr. Bush's war against terrorism made sense, it may not be the most effective way to address the danger that America and the rest of the civilized world face. Already, much of the world thinks that the United States is arrogantly imposing its will on others. Escalating U.S. military involvement all across the globe and ramping up the nuclear threat might deepen that resentment and convince millions more that the United States should be the target of their anger.


-------- MILITARY

-------- afghanistan

THE BOMBING
Pentagon Says U.S. Airstrike Killed Women and Children

New York Times
March 13, 2002
By ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/13/international/asia/13TARG.html

WASHINGTON, March 12 - Women and children were among 14 people killed six days ago when American fighter aircraft attacked a vehicle traveling from a suspected Qaeda sanctuary in eastern Afghanistan, the military said tonight.

Most of those killed in the air strike were "adult males, but some were women and children," the United States Central Command said in a statement tonight. A spokesman for the command, Maj. Brad Lowell, said he had no more details on the dead. A child wounded in the attack was taken to a military hospital for treatment and was listed in stable condition, the statement said.

The attack took place at about 11 a.m. on March 6 near Shikin, a tiny village in the highlands of eastern Afghanistan just south of the crux of the 11-day-old offensive against Al Qaeda fighters in the Shah-i-Kot Valley.

American warplanes have dropped more than 2,500 bombs during the operation, and Major Lowell said the vehicle struck six days ago was made a target because military planners believed it was carrying Al Qaeda fighters. He said he did not have any details on the sanctuary where the vehicle had come from.

"Clearly, this is an area where the bad guys are," Major Lowell said. "We have no indication to suggest these were not Al Qaeda. We think this was a good target."

Major Lowell said he did not know whether military planners were aware that women and children were traveling in the vehicle that was attacked.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week seemed to prepare the American public for casualties among noncombatants, specifically the families of Al Qaeda or Taliban fighters, who had taken their families with them to the battle zone.

Two days after Operation Anaconda began, Mr. Rumsfeld said that the women and children were in the battle zone "of their own free will, knowing who they're with and who they're supporting and who they're encouraging and who they're assisting."

Civilian casualties caused by American attacks have gained greater attention recently, especially since Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged last month that 16 Afghan fighters killed by American troops north of Kandahar in January were not members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

In rare cases in which a bomb has malfunctioned and caused casualties, the Pentagon has quickly owned up to its mistakes, such as in early October when an errant bomb struck the Kabul office, financed by the United Nations, of an operation to remove land mines. Four people were killed.

Human error was blamed when a Navy F/A-18 attack aircraft missed a Taliban military target at Kabul airport and the 2,000-pound satellite- guided bomb blasted civilian houses near Kabul. As many as four people were killed and eight others injured. The target coordinates were apparently entered incorrectly, military officials said.

Also in October, B-52's and FA-18's mistakenly attacked warehouses used by the Red Cross for relief supplies when military officials forgot to take the buildings in Kabul off a target list.

But the Pentagon has also been accused of relying on faulty intelligence, sometimes provided by rival warlords, to attack targets, a charge military officials deny.

Senior military officials have defended a missile attack by a Central Intelligence Agency drone over eastern Afghanistan last month, calling the strike "appropriate" and sharply questioning assertions by Afghans that the missile killed as many as three peasants who were merely scrounging for scrap metal.

Last Dec. 20, American warplanes attacked a convoy in Paktia Province, killing as many as 50 to 60 people on the road and in surrounding villages. The Pentagon said that Taliban leaders were in the vehicles and that the enemy fired first, using anti-aircraft missiles. Survivors claimed the convoy was bringing tribal elders to Kabul for the inauguration of the interim president.

Most often, Mr. Rumsfeld and military spokesmen have dismissed accusations of mistakes as enemy propaganda. They express confidence in their targets and regret for any "collateral damage." They maintain that extraordinary efforts have been taken to minimize civilian losses.

Researchers from Human Rights Watch are in Afghanistan this month to examine the attacks and to estimate the number of civilians killed.

----

[Only 100 of over 1,000 people still alive. And the U.S. refused to allow them to surrender (see March 12, 2002, "Pentagon Rejects Possibility of Al Qaeda Negotiation"). And President Bush talks about the Iraq government having no respect for life. I shudder to think of the spiritual debt accruing. et]

U.S. and Afghan Troops Proclaim Victory in Rebel Cave Complex

By REUTERS
March 13, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-attack-afghan.html

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan (Reuters) - U.S. and Afghan troops said Wednesday they had overrun a cave complex in eastern Afghanistan where Taliban and al Qaeda rebels had held out for nearly two weeks and were now hunting just 100 survivors of the rebel force.

``We have finished our operation,'' said Major General Karamuddin, chief of office in Afghanistan's Defense Ministry. ''We have cleaned up Shahi Kot and killed most of them, and the rest fled.''

Karamuddin said many Afghan troops had returned to the eastern town of Gardez, about 95 miles south of Kabul, after completing their job in the mountain battlezone near Shahi Kot, 20 miles away.

``It's a great success,'' U.S. military spokesman Major Bryan Hilferty told reporters earlier at Bagram, control point for ''Operation Anaconda,'' on the outskirts of Kabul. ``Probably the next objective is to make sure that everything is secure.''

``There are less than 100 (Taliban-al Qaeda) left.''

However, there was no news on the whereabouts of Saif Rahman Mansour, leader of the 1,000 rebels who held U.S. and Afghan forces at bay for 12 bitter days in the biggest ground battle of the five-month-old Afghan War.

``He is either killed or has fled to Pakistan,'' said Gulbuddin, an aide to Afghan Defense Minister Mohammad Fahim.

Gulbuddin said Mansour, in his 40s, had been leader of the Taliban in the Gardez area. His father was killed in fighting between Afghan warlords before the Taliban ended the civil war and took power in 1996.

The U.S. military said eight U.S. troops and three other coalition troops were killed and nearly 100 wounded in the 12-day operation.

For the first time, U.S. and Afghan forces were entering caves still protected by land mines and booby traps searching for documents and weapons left by the rebels.

Hilferty said the key to victory was the capture of the region's highest mountain and key ridgeline known as ``The Whale.''

Mountains in the area soar up to 12,000 feet and are dotted with deep, hidden caves.

``They had been building this place and this defense for years,'' said another military spokesman. ``We definitely put a spike through their heart.''

Tuesday, Afghan General Abdul Joyenda told Reuters the allied troops had overrun the Shahi Kot rebel positions, sending the fighters fleeing toward the border with Pakistan and effectively ending the biggest battle of the Afghan war.

POCKETS OF AL QAEDA AND TALIBAN ELSEWHERE

Major Hilferty said there was still work to be done in the Shahi Kot area and the war in Afghanistan was not over with other rebel pockets elsewhere in the country to be rooted out.

``I hope this is the last one, but I'm not making any plans (to go home),'' he said.

Karamuddin also said there were Taliban and al Qaeda fighters scattered in other parts of the country.

Hilferty said more than 1,500 U.S. and Afghan troops were involved in the search for the remaining rebels and were seeking to block off their escape routes.

But an Afghan intelligence officer in Gardez told Reuters there were ``gaping holes'' through which the rebels could flee in the direction of Urgun, a district less than 50 kmfrom the border with Pakistan.

``There is no control over that frontier,'' said the official, who declined to be named. ``It is a very inaccessible route with rugged mountains and deep valleys.''

``Our mission is to kill or capture al Qaeda, they are welcome to surrender, but so far they have decided to die,'' Hilferty said.

He said there were non-Afghans among about 800 rebels killed during the battle.

Afghan commanders have said the dead included Chechens, Pakistanis and Arabs, who are believed to form the core of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network blamed for the September 11 attacks on the United States.

``There are fewer than 20 detainees. They're being interrogated and we assume they are all al Qaeda,'' Hilferty said.

In Washington, Air Force Brigadier General John Rosa said with the Taliban on the run U.S. soldiers were starting to search caves they had abandoned.

He said most of the more than 40 caves in the area had not been searched.

``With the booby traps, with the land mines, with the unexpended ordnance, we have got to go very slow, very calculating, very carefully.''

-------

U.S. and Afghan Troops Overrun Rebel Cave Complex

New York Times
March 13, 2002
By BARRY BEARAK
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/13/international/asia/13CND-AFGHAN.html

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 13 - A United States military official said today that Afghan and American troops had overrun the cave complex in the Shah-i-Kot Valley and were now chasing the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.

"It's a great success," a spokesman, Maj. Bryan Hilferty, told reporters at Bagram, on the outskirts of Kabul. "Probably the next objective is to make sure that everything is secure."

"It is a 60-square-mile area," he said. "We have seized the majority and have control of the majority of the valley."

He added that there were fewer than 100 Taliban and Qaeda forces left.

For the first time, the major said, American and Afghan forces were entering caves still protected by land mines and booby traps searching for documents and weapons left by the rebels.

Major Hilferty said the key to victory in the area, about 95 miles south of Kabul, and 20 miles from the town of Gardez, had been the capture of the region's highest mountain and a key ridgeline known as "The Whale."

Mountains in the area soar to 12,000 feet and are dotted with deep, hidden caves.

Major Hilferty said there was still work to be done in the area and that the war in Afghanistan was not over, with other rebel pockets elsewhere in the country to be rooted out.

But the major's statements of success confirm the words of exultant Afghan commanders on Tuesday, who said Afghan and American troops had entered the Shah-i-Kot Valley from three directions shortly after dawn and quickly won control of the high-altitude stronghold. They said they had encountered only tepid resistance from cave-dwelling holdouts of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

This was to be the climactic fight in the 11-day battle. Instead, it was largely a one-way fusillade of heavy artillery and machine gun fire that lasted about 90 minutes, according to Gen. Abdul Wahab Joyenda, a deputy commander of the operation.

"It's all over; Shah-i-Kot is clear!" the general declared as he led a few dozen of his soldiers home to their base.

It was impossible to know, however, whether Tuesday's restrained combat involved a shrewd victory or a clever getaway. Though the Afghans have been willing to be cooperative with the news media, the American military has barred reporters from free access to the action.

Operation Anaconda, the work of a United States-led coalition, was symbolically named by the Americans after the snake that surrounds its prey in its coils.

But three Afghan commanders interviewed about Tuesday's attack said that many rebels had probably slipped the noose. The oft-repeated ultimatum, surrender or die, may have been less apt a slogan for the situation than skedaddle and live.

"There are always ways to escape," General Joyenda said. "It is a mountainous place, full of snow. There are many footpaths. You cannot seal everywhere."

The rebel force has been said to be made up of both the Taliban, Afghanistan's former rulers, and Al Qaeda, the global terrorists. But Muhammad Yunis, a commander in the part of the Afghan contingent trained for this battle by American Special Forces, said he feels little animosity toward the Taliban, many of whom were farmers who had turned into mercenaries.

"If Taliban are willing to lay down their guns and return to their villages, we have no problem with them," Commander Yunis said. "They are Afghans. We forgive them. Our enemy is the foreigners, the Al Qaeda, because they have used our territory for terrorism."

In Washington, Brig. Gen. John W. Rosa Jr., deputy director of current operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday: "The last 72 hours has been more sporadic, focused on smaller pockets of Taliban and Al Qaeda. But in an area this big and this diverse with as many caves, I would say that there is still work to be done."

General Rosa gave the most detailed accounting of American casualties suffered in the battle. Eight servicemen have been killed. Of the 49 others wounded, 34 are back on duty, he said.

General Rosa said today that "several hundred" enemy fighters had been killed, but he and other officers have avoided giving specific numbers because they do not have precise numbers, and, by policy, do not conduct detailed body counts.

General Rosa declined to speculate on an exact number of Taliban or Qaeda fighters that might remain in Afghanistan, saying only that "pockets" of resistance dotted the countryside. "The pockets are still out there," he said. "You have to go and treat each one of these pockets individually."

Late Tuesday afternoon, a few American helicopters seemed to take victory laps in the sky, circling above photographers who were as close to the battle as they could get, here in Sheikh Noor, three and a half miles away.

According to plan, United States forces attacked from west of the valley, said General Joyenda. His force, about 500 men sent by Afghanistan's Defense Ministry, rolled in from the east, using tanks and artillery fire to blast the warren of caves. A third group of 325, loyal to local warlords and trained by the Americans, advanced over the mountains from the north.

"Resistance was very weak," said another commander, Ghulam Rasul. "American planes bombed very hard the night before. The terrorists didn't have the power to fight us."

After the 90-minute firefight, the coalition forces carefully proceeded through the valley, checking caves and other hideouts. Prisoners were given to American soldiers.

"The Americans said we should not question them, even to ask who you are and where you are from," General Joyenda said. "They said they would ask all the questions. They took the prisoners away in their helicopters."

General Rosa said that American and Afghan forces had taken fewer than 20 people prisoner, some of whom may turn out to be "simple farmers." Pentagon officials said the Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks and other fighters had shown no inclination toward surrender.

"We haven't seen any evidence of their desire or willingness to surrender," said Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman. "Most of them have made it very clear, their willingness and desire to fight it to the end."

As the victors moved through the area, having won what has routinely been called the biggest battle of the war in Afghanistan, they found a trove of supplies.

More than a dozen vehicles, each too big to use in a surreptitious departure, had been left behind, said the commanders. The caves were well-supplied with food and the tools of war.

"I entered 15 caves," said Commander Yunis. "We found ammunition, weapons, bodies."

None of the commanders could say how many of the enemy had been killed, though. Commander Rasul guessed that he had seen 25 or 30 dead men. He surmised that many more lay beneath tons of collapsed rock.

General Joyenda, a forthright man who wears a tie into combat, refused even to guess about enemy casualties. "You cannot always see a body," he said. "Sometimes, you find only parts, a hand, a head, a leg."

-------- africa

Angola Orders End to Offensive Movements

By REUTERS
March 13, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-angola-war.html

LUANDA (Reuters) - Angola's government said on Wednesday it had ordered its armed forces to halt all offensive movements from midnight (6 p.m. EST), raising hopes for an end to its long civil war with UNITA rebels.

A statement read out on state radio said: ``A unique moment in history, a convergence of will could lead to an end to the armed conflict in Angola.

``To promote confidence among all Angolans, in relation to this opportunity for peace, the government has instructed the Commander-in-Chief of the Angolan armed forces to cease all offensive movements as from midnight (tonight),'' it said, without specifying the conflict with UNITA.

Prospects for peace emerged late last month when UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi was killed in a clash with government troops.

The country has known little but ruinous civil war since independence from Portugal in 1975. A 1994 peace accord broke down in 1998, leading to renewed fighting.

-------- arms sales

Belarus Tightens Arms Exports to Appease US

By REUTERS
March 13, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-belarus.html

MINSK, Belarus (Reuters) - Belarus, under threat of U.S. sanctions over alleged illegal arms trading, has tightened state controls over arms exports to developing countries, the KGB security service said Wednesday.

The State Department hinted last month at possible sanctions against Belarus over allegations the former Soviet republic was involved in arms smuggling to countries or groups supporting terrorism, in breach of United Nations sanctions.

Stepan Sukhorenko, first deputy head of the KGB, reiterated that Belarus had complied with all international requirements on arms trade, adding that the country would allow the United States to monitor its arms sales.

``Today we have even stopped supplies of some goods which can be used for civil as well as military purposes,'' Sukhorenko told reporters during a rare news conference.

He did not comment on which countries were banned from receiving the goods, but said the country sold the majority of its arms to Sudan, Algeria and Angola on condition they did not re-export them.

He said after the KGB had received evidence that Belarussian trucks sold to Pakistan were re-equipped for military use, the country had stopped such sales.

The KGB also planned to launch an Internet Web site to make arms sales more transparent, he said.

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Steven Pifer, who was in Belarus in February and met senior government officials, has said the United States has evidence of arms smuggling and that Belarus had trained Iraqi military personnel.

Belarus has denied the charges.

Belarus does not produce its own arms but it manufactures weapons guidance systems and related optical products. The country has also inherited weapons from the former Soviet Union.

-------- australia

UPI Hears ... Australian biological weapons

March 13, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/13032002-105403-2823r.htm

Warning of damage to Australia's international relations, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has tried and failed to stop the declassifying of secret government files from 1947 that show the country's revered scientist and 1960 Nobel Prize winner for medicine Macfarlane Burnet proposing biological warfare. Burnet, who died in 1985, recommended that Australia should develop biological and chemical weapons to target neighboring countries' food stocks and spread infectious diseases as "the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries." Burnet, seen as the father of modern biotechnology, stressed the economic advantage of biological warfare: "Its use has the tremendous advantage of not destroying the enemy's industrial potential which can then be taken over intact."

-------- biological weapons

Tex. Lab Worker Handling Anthrax Specimens Is Infected

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 13, 2002; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17240-2002Mar12?language=printer

A Texas laboratory worker processing specimens from last fall's anthrax attacks under a federal contract has become ill with the skin form of anthrax, the first domestic case of the disease since November and a reminder that the ongoing bioterrorism investigation continues to carry risks.

The worker, whom federal officials declined to identify, is being treated with antibiotics and is recovering from the infection, which appears to have been acquired in the laboratory.

But a preliminary investigation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta suggests there were irregularities in the way the potentially infectious specimens were handled by the worker after he became ill. That has raised concerns among some experts that some of the specimens under study from last fall's attacks may not be subject to adequate accounting.

The patient was working in a private laboratory, one of several with which the CDC has contracted in recent months to work through a backlog of specimens collected during the peak of last fall's attacks. The specimens include tens of thousands of environmental swabs that investigators hope will give them a measure of how far and wide anthrax spores spread at contaminated sites. Each swab is being tested for the presence of the bacterium that causes anthrax.

The lab worker went to his doctor March 4 because of an unusual skin lesion on his neck, said CDC spokesman Tom Skinner. The doctor swabbed the lesion. But rather than sending the swab to a county or state health lab for analysis, as is standard practice when anthrax is suspected, the doctor gave the swab to the worker, who brought it to the lab where he worked. There he or his co-workers analyzed the specimen, obtaining preliminary evidence of cutaneous anthrax.

The lab staff contacted the CDC, which late last week sent a team of investigators to look into the apparent laboratory exposure. Yesterday, tests conducted by the CDC on the doctor's office specimen confirmed it was positive for the anthrax bacterium.

"We still don't know the circumstances in the lab that led to him getting infected," Skinner said.

Several experts said that the worker's efforts to keep the specimens under his personal control appeared to be unusual. And although anthrax bacteria are not generally capable of causing deadly inhalational anthrax unless they are processed in special ways, some said, the apparent lack of tight control over specimens at the lab was worrisome.

"It's a legitimate concern," said University of Minnesota bioterror expert Michael Osterholm. "You have to wonder how all this stuff being sent off to labs is being handled."

Skinner emphasized that this lab is not a member of the CDC's Laboratory Response Network, a web of about 110 facilities around the country under contract with CDC to help out in public health emergencies. Rather, he said, it was one of several additional labs helping with the huge number of specimens that need to be tested.

-------- business

Sudden popularity of defense contractors
Anteon Gains 11% in Debut On Wall St.; Va. Firm's Shares Were Up as Much as 17%

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 13, 2002; Page E05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16798-2002Mar12?language=printer

The latest company in a series of defense-related initial public offerings, Fairfax-based Anteon International Corp., debuted on Wall Street yesterday and traded as much as 17 percent over its opening price but lost steam throughout the day.

The information technology firm, previously one of the region's largest privately held government contractors, closed up $2.05, about 11 percent, at $20.05 after its first day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange. That's a significant premium from its asking price of $18 a share, which was bumped up from the $15-to-$17 range late Monday. The stock opened at $21 a share.

"This was a very momentous occasion for 'team' Anteon, and we are very excited and energized by the first day of trading," said spokesman Tom Howell. Company executives, who rang the opening bell on the exchange, declined further comment.

Overall, the offering is expected to raise $270 million, but the company will get net proceeds of only $76.2 million; much of the rest of the money goes to insiders. Of the shares being offered, 4.7 million are being sold by the company and 10.3 million are being sold by insiders, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Chairman Frederick Iseman, who controlled about 88 percent of the company before the offering, will own 46 percent afterward, according to the filing. Overall, directors and executive officers will go from controlling 96 percent of Anteon's shares to 54 percent. President and chief executive Joseph M. Kampf will sell 150,000 shares, which cuts his interest in the company to 4 percent.

Money-losing Anteon said it would use most of the net proceeds to repay debt and for working capital. The company had revenue of $715 million last year and a loss of $412,000, not including a one-time gain. The company reported a loss of $5.4 million in 2000.

But unlike the unprofitable Internet IPOs that flooded the market during the late 1990s, Anteon has a stable customer base and a longer track record, analysts said. "A lot of those companies that failed so dramatically, their prospective client base got hit in the downturn," said Kyle Huske, a market analyst at IPO.com, a financial news Web site. "But when do we ever dry up spending in the government?"

The company's debut reflects the sudden popularity of defense contractors in the post-Sept. 11 environment. There were no defense-related IPOs in 2000 and only one in 2001, according to IPO tracking firm Dealogic CommScan. There have been three so far this year, including Anteon and information technology services firm ManTech International Corp., which went public Feb. 7. ManTech opened at $16 per share and now trades for about $19 per share.

Two other area government contractors, Veridian Corp. and SRA International Inc., have also said they intend to sell shares of their companies to the public, taking advantage of the recent and expected increase in defense spending.

All hope to imitate the rise of Arlington-based United Defense Industries Inc., which makes guns, missiles and combat vehicles and is backed by investment bank Carlyle Group Inc. In December, United Defense closed on its first day at $19.72 and is now trading more than 35 percent higher. "That's the golden ring," Huske said.

----

CEOs Plan Network to Link Them
In Attack Nationwide System To Speed Response

By Bill Miller
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 13, 2002; Page E01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16827-2002Mar12?language=printer

Leaders of the nation's largest corporations are designing a new communications network that would alert them immediately to a terrorist attack and enable them to instantly talk with one another and government officials about how to respond.

The system would enable competitors in one field, such as telecommunications, to work with one another as well as with their counterparts in other industries. It would help private companies respond more quickly to disaster scenes and improve their chances of keeping the economy running after catastrophes, officials said.

The initiative comes from a task force set up last fall by the Business Roundtable, an organization of about 150 chief executives from companies that generate more than $3.5 trillion in annual revenue.

Had such a system been in place on Sept. 11, officials said, companies could have gotten equipment and supplies to the sites of the attacks in a quicker, more coordinated way. At the same time, they said, businesses that depend on the swift delivery of goods to keep factories running, such as automakers, would have been able to find quicker supply alternatives as airports closed and security was tightened at border crossings.

The planned system, called CEO Link, also could have helped executives amid last fall's anthrax mailings, when corporations and governments struggled to protect their mail systems while continuing with everyday business, said C. Michael Armstrong, chief executive of AT&T and the task force's chairman.

More than 40 top executives volunteered to work on the task force, representing a diverse group of industry giants such as Bethlehem Steel Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., CSX Corp., General Motors Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp., McGraw-Hill Cos. and United Parcel Service of America Inc. All signed up within three days of its creation.

"This is unprecedented. It reflects the deep sense of commitment and patriotism and concern and obligation that everyone feels to make a difference," Armstrong said.

Other CEOs leading the task force's working groups include Frederick W. Smith of Federal Express Corp., Herbert L. Henkel of Ingersoll-Rand Co., Maurice R. Greenberg of American International Group Inc. and Sanford I. Weill of Citigroup Inc.

"These CEOs are really looking to make a difference for the country," said John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable. "They aren't coming to the table with business agendas. They're looking at how to make the country more secure."

AT&T is designing CEO Link at its own expense, Armstrong said. It will include a wireless telephone network as well as a secure Web site. Still to be determined is how to tailor the system to include state and local governments across the United States, and leaders of smaller companies.

The communications network, which initially will be limited to the 150 chief executives in the Business Roundtable and the federal government, should be in place within six weeks, Castellani said. The users would be pre-certified and require an identification verification to participate in any of the conference calls, he said.

"The system would be up all the time and available all the time, because there's no way to predict an event. It would have to be maintained," Castellani said.

Castellani said the system would enable to executives to talk with one another not only about threats but also about ways to respond to potential or actual attacks. The system also could be activated after natural disasters, he said.

Armstrong has presented the model for CEO Link to Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and other federal officials. Ridge's spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said Ridge believes the communications system "can be helpful with homeland security" and is an example of the creativity Ridge hopes to harness within the private sector.

"This fits in with [Ridge's] mission to create a national homeland security strategy that isn't just the federal, state and local government, but also the private sector," Johndroe said, adding that Ridge has also met with other groups of business leaders.

Armstrong said other ideas are still being worked out, including creating a place for corporations to share "best practices" for dealing with terrorist threats. Corporations also could share plans about how to remain in business while recovering from disasters, he said.

To encourage these new ideas, Armstrong said, the federal government could offer tax credits for anti-terrorism research and development. That idea has been discussed among some policy analysts within Ridge's office but Ridge hasn't yet embraced the idea. The Business Roundtable also hasn't taken a position.

James L. "J.J." Johnson Jr., an AT&T vice president on loan to the Business Roundtable, said the task force also is considering measures to thwart cyber-attacks and avoid widespread industry disruptions. He pointed out that most of the nation's critical infrastructure -- such as telecommunications systems, energy facilities and financial services networks -- is owned by private businesses, not the government, and said that underscored the need for the Business Roundtable to encourage new ways of thinking.

-------- chemical weapons

Attack on Chemical Plant Could Kill Thousands

By Cat Lazaroff
March 13, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2002/2002L-03-13-07.html

WASHINGTON, DC, A chemical release triggered by a terrorist attack at any one of 125 chemical facilities nationwide could put at least one million people at risk, warns a new report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The report, based on government documents, argues that the federal government has failed to take steps needed to protect the public from the possibility of chemical accidents or attacks on chemical plants.

While the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have triggered a reexamination of security efforts at many potential targets, including nuclear power plants, airlines and drinking water supplies, critics say that policymakers and industry have largely overlooked storage site for highly hazardous chemicals.

Dow Chemical plant in Ludington, Michigan (Photo courtesy Michigan Department of Natural Resources)

"We know that chemical plants can reduce hazards and it's time for them to do that," said Jeremiah Baumann, environmental health advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and author of the report, "Protecting Our Hometowns."

The PIRG report says that a release of hazardous substances such as ammonia and chlorine, used by a range of industries including chemical manufacturers, water treatment facilities and refineries, could threaten the health or even the lives of thousands of people living near chemical facilities.

Citing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents, the PIRG report warns that some 3,000 chemical facilities each pose a risk to the safety of 10,000 people. About 700 facilities put at least 100,000 people at risk, and 125 facilities each put at least one million people at risk.

According to industry estimates, if the chlorine from even one tank car were released or blown up, the toxic gas could travel two miles in ten minutes and remain lethal as far away as 20 miles.

The release of the PIRG report was just one of several events this week that drew attention to the risks posed by chemical facilities.

On Tuesday, the "Washington Post" reported that an unreleased study by the U.S. Army surgeon general concludes that up to 2.4 million people could be killed or hurt if terrorists targeted a major chemical facility within a populated area. The Army's analysis was completed last October, but has yet to be acted upon, the "Post" reported.

The FMC Corporation hydrogen peroxide purification plant in Pasadena, Texas (Photo courtesy National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

On Monday, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit against the U.S. Justice Department, charging that the agency has missed a deadline to submit a report to Congress on U.S. chemical plants' vulnerability to terrorist attacks. The Justice Department was required to issue this interim report under the Clean Air Act by August 2000. "Attorney General Ashcroft says he's concerned about homeland security, but his department is a year and a half late on providing essential information to Congress about chemical plant vulnerability," said Rena Steinzor, an academic fellow and attorney at NRDC. "We need that information to protect citizens from releases of acutely toxic chemicals that could wreak havoc in the event of a terrorist attack."

The American Chemical Council, Steinzor added, has repeatedly cited the Justice Department's failure to issue the report as a key reason why Congress should not yet enact legislation requiring greater security at U.S. chemical plants.

Such legislation has been introduced before Congress, however.

"There is widespread agreement that chemical plants are potentially attractive to terrorists. So we need to take steps to reduce hazards and improve security at plants," said Senator Jon Corzine, a New Jersey Democrat, author of the Chemical Security Act. The Act is cosponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton, a New York Democrat, and James Jeffords, a Vermont Independent.

The Chemical Security Act would require companies that manufacture, use or store hazardous chemicals to make processes safer by reducing chemical quantities, switching to safer chemicals, or storing chemicals under safer conditions, starting with the facilities that pose the greatest risk.

The Safe Hometowns Initiative, a coalition of citizen groups, is calling for immediate community efforts and federal policy changes to reduce chemical hazards. This week, the coalition helped release the report by PIRG, "Protecting Our Hometowns," and the "Safe Hometowns Guide," a citizens' guide to reducing chemical hazards in communities.

"More guards and higher fences alone cannot protect our communities," said Sanford Lewis, consultant and author of the Safe Hometowns Guide. "These may be useless against terrorists known to use passenger planes and truck bombs. The good news is that we can reduce the chemicals at these sites and make it harder for terrorists to hurt people."

The Safe Hometowns Guide explains how citizens can make their communities less vulnerable to a chemical attack and safer in the event of a chemical release. Among other examples, the guide cites changes in hundreds of New Jersey drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities and a Washington, DC wastewater treatment plant that have recently switched from toxic chlorine gas to a less hazardous alternative, sodium hypochlorite.

An aerial view of the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant outside Washington DC (Photo courtesy District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority)

The Washington facility, the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, made the move within weeks of September 11th, eliminating the possibility of a toxic chlorine cloud spreading across the nation's capital.

"For years we've been focused on responding to chemical releases, rather than preventing them," said Dr. Tee Guidotti, Chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at George Washington University Medical Center. "The events of September 11th gave us an imperative to change that. There may not be time to respond in a meaningful way to an armed attack. We have to make our communities less attractive to terrorists by eliminating vulnerability to chemical hazards."

The "Safe Hometowns Guide" is available at: http://www.environet.org/safetowns

The PIRG report, "Protecting Our Hometowns," is available at: http://www.pirg.org/reports

----

'Dr. Chaos' waives hearing

By Marcella S. Kreiter
3/13/2002
UPI
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=13032002-013004-7423r

CHICAGO, March 13 -- A federal magistrate Wednesday said he is convinced a Wisconsin man who goes by the online moniker, "Dr. Chaos," planned to "cause as much damage to the community as possible" and denied him bond on federal chemical weapons possession charges.

Joseph Konopka, 25, originally from De Pere, Wis., was arrested last weekend. Police said he had more than one pound of cyanide and other chemicals stashed in a storage closet in the bowels of the subway system below Chicago's Loop.

In a brief appearance, Konopka waived his right to a detention hearing. U.S. Magistrate Edward Bobrick said even if the hearing had occurred he would have ordered Konopka to be held without bond.

He said Konopka was a flight risk because of his failure to make a number of court appearances in Wisconsin for attacks on utilities and media outlets.

Konopka said nothing in court and his lawyer refused comment to reporters.

The case will likely go to a grand jury.

Bobrick said he is convinced there was no peaceful explanation for the materials Konopka had hidden in an unused Chicago Transit Authority storage room.

"This court would find that in the small anti-social world he created, he's an extreme danger to the community," Bobrick said. "Somehow this defendant intended to employ the cyanide in a manner that was dangerous to the public."

Konopka had been living in the subway tunnels for weeks before he was arrested in service tunnels under the University of Illinois at Chicago Saturday morning along with a 15-year-old companion. A third person escaped.

The incident prompted Mayor Richard M. Daley to order the CTA to examine all of its doors, closets, rooms, tunnels, passageways, entrances and exits to determine if any should be sealed off to protect the 500,000 commuters who daily use the system, which is 100 years old in some places.

"We will comb the system and look at these little places they built 70, 80, 90 years ago," Daley said. "What are they doing with them? If no one is using them for months, why do you need them?"

Transit police said from now on, trespassers will be fingerprinted and subjected to background checks.

Konopka was ticketed in November for trespassing, but no warrant check was run. He was wanted in Wisconsin for attacks on utilities, radio and television stations and was believed to be the leader of a group known as Realm of Chaos.

"Since Sept. 11, we've been doing a lot of examining and re-examining of the systems with police and law enforcement elsewhere and other transit systems," CTA chief Frank Kruesi said. "Out of what happened on Saturday, we are re-examining the sufficiency of the steps we have taken. There's no such thing as a closed and perfect system in a free country but we are determined to make it as safe as we can."

Police Superintendent Terry Hillard has described the defendant as a burglar and a computer hacker, no more dangerous than a graffiti vandal.

Federal investigators, however, said it is still unclear what Konopka intended.

-------- china

China Urges Anti - Terror Training

March 13, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-China-Military.html

BEIJING (AP) -- Citing the threat of an unstable world, China's president is calling on the military to make ``solid preparations'' for future conflicts and prepare itself to battle terrorism, state media reported Wednesday.

The military also said it would begin training its forces for domestic disaster relief.

Meeting Tuesday with military delegates to the National People's Congress, China's legislature, Jiang Zemin identified ``stability, centralization and unity'' as cornerstones of a strong armed forces, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

Xinhua's report did not give details of how Jiang, who wore a green military-style outfit for the meeting instead of his usual suit and tie, believes the military should be deployed to fight terrorism.

Nor did it give specifics of what ``solid preparations'' Jiang wanted the People's Liberation Army to make. But it said Jiang asked that the army ``include anti-terrorism in the military's duties.''

China has supported the international coalition against terrorism. It also has used the campaign to target opponents of Beijing's rule in the predominantly Muslim northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang. Militants have for years waged a low-level campaign of bombings and assassinations in the region, activities China says are terrorist.

Also Wednesday, the official China Daily, reacting to a U.S. newspaper report about American nuclear contingency plans that include China as a potential target, accused the United States of seeking ``absolute military superiority.''

The newspaper ran an editorial it said was written by Zhu Qiangguo, a defense technology expert. He accused the United States of exaggerating the new threats it faces from terrorism as ``a pretext for further arms buildup.''

In his address to military delegates Tuesday, Jiang exhorted the army to follow latest developments of military strength and technology in the world -- with an eye toward the modernization the Chinese military is pursuing.

He asked the military ``to make solid preparations for military struggles,'' Xinhua said.

Also on the army's mind, however, is domestic disaster relief. On Wednesday, Xinhua reported, the army said it would begin giving its soldiers rescue and disaster training for the first time in the army's 53-year history. It quoted Zhang Lizhi, chief political officer of the army's Shanghai garrison.

The army often responds to disasters within China. More than 300,000 soldiers helped shore up crumbling dikes and performed other relief duties during massive and deadly floods on the Yangtze and other rivers in 1998.

China's entry into the World Trade Organization will also help the military diversify, according to Jiang, who said membership will enable the army to ``learn useful experiences'' from foreign armies.

Jiang, in addition to being the Communist Party's general secretary, is also head of a powerful commission that oversees the military.

His comments came four days after military deputies to the legislature, citing WTO membership, said foreign and joint-venture firms should contribute to national defense.

Last week, the government announced a 17.6 percent rise in defense spending for the 2.5-million-member PLA, the world's biggest military.

The $20 billion budget is a $3 billion increase over last year, according to Finance Minister Xiang Huaicheng. Some military delegates said the money still wasn't enough to modernize hopelessly outdated barracks and equipment.

-------- colombia

Bush Seeks Legislation on Colombia

March 13, 2002
Washington Post
WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17241-2002Mar12?language=printer

The Bush administration has decided to seek legislative changes so that it can have more flexibility to help the Colombian government against rebels, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said.

Congress has limited U.S. security assistance to Colombia to the campaign against the drug trade, but the Colombian military's new priority is an offensive against the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The Bush administration has been hinting for weeks that it might ask Congress to expand the scope of U.S. security assistance to include the campaign against the FARC, which Washington lists as a "foreign terrorist organization."

-------- drug war

Thriving Peru Coca Hampers Drug War

March 13, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Peru-Losing-Drug-War.html

TINGO MARIA, Peru (AP) -- The jungle-draped mountains that loom over this town in the Huallaga valley conceal a truth that anti-narcotics officials have been loath to admit.

After years of declining prices and production, coca crops are on the rise again in Peru. Even more worrisome to U.S. counternarcotics officials, Colombian drug traffickers are promoting poppy plants, the raw material of heroin.

``We are very concerned about poppy growth in this country. There seem to be numerous indications that there is a vast increase in the amount of poppy out there,'' Jim Williard said, gazing up at the mountain peaks above Tingo Maria, 200 miles northeast of Lima.

Williard, chief of the Narcotics Affairs Section at the U.S. Embassy in Lima, said anti-drug police discovered and destroyed 375 acres of poppies last year compared with 62 acres in 2000, and that may only be the tip of a deadly iceberg.

As poppy fields expand, all signs indicate that Peru's much-lauded war on the coca leaf, cocaine's raw material, is foundering.

From 1995 to the end of 2000, coca fields shrank from 285,000 acres to 84,500 acres.

But the price of the leaf has soared to record levels, spurring peasant farmers to rehabilitate their plots.

U.S. officials say satellite photos of coca fields show new acreage last year was offset by the Peruvian government's forced eradication of coca plants. But the U.N. Drug Control Program, using satellite maps, aerial surveillance and ground assessment work, comes up with higher numbers of acreage. It says the coca crop has expanded to cover 114,000 acres in 2001, from 107,000 acres in 2000.

And U.S. officials working in programs to encourage alternative crops admit that although their figures show no overall increase in acreage, coca farmers have increased yields by packing many more plants into the same plots.

Peru's new anti-drug czar, Ricardo Vega Llona, is pessimistic. He estimates that total coca acreage may have climbed as high as 148,000 acres.

``I really don't like to say we are losing the war. It sounds better if we simply say we are not winning it,'' he said.

Until the early 1990s, drug smugglers flew raw cocaine to Colombia for refining, but U.S. surveillance flights closed the air bridge. Now the smugglers move drugs to neighboring countries over land and through a maze of Amazon tributaries.

The anti-narcotics campaign was weakened further by the suspension of U.S. surveillance flights a year ago after the Peruvian air force mistakenly shot down a Baptist missionary plane, killing an American woman and her infant daughter.

The war on drugs will be high on President Bush's agenda when he visits Peru on March 23, and U.S. officials say they hope to announce the renewal of surveillance flights by then.

Washington has tripled its anti-narcotics aid to Lima this year to $156 million, fearing that coca eradication efforts in neighboring Colombia may push production into Peru.

American -- and Peruvian -- officials appear even more concerned by the poppy proliferation. A recent State Department report called it ``alarming.''

Colombian traffickers are supplying Peruvian peasants with poppy seeds and offering technical assistance and cash loans, say anti-drug police stationed in Tingo Maria.

The Colombians have concentrated their efforts in the Huallaga valley, Peru's most important coca-growing region.

Demostenes Garcia, commander of the anti-drug police base in Tingo Maria, is worried.

``Poppy is the new threat here in the Huallaga valley,'' he said, explaining that peasants can earn $450 for a pound of opium latex, compared with just $50 for 25 pounds of coca leaf.

Garcia noted that Peruvian poppies produce about 50 bulbs per plant compared with 10 in Afghanistan, where poppy production is reviving from a crackdown by the previous Taliban regime.

He said a Colombian trafficker he arrested told him that because of the quality of its opium latex and because there is much less violence than in Colombia, ``Peru could quickly become the heroin capital of Latin America.''

Peru's poppy fields lie in remote Andean areas above 9,000 feet, beyond the reach of police helicopters.

Responding to that challenge, U.S. Ambassador John Hamilton announced in February that the United States would provide Peru with higher-flying helicopters.

During the past year, Peruvian anti-narcotics police have raided two laboratories that were producing morphine for smuggling to Colombia.

``There are some indications heroin may be produced as well in Peru,'' said Williard, the U.S. anti-narcotics official. ``It's not very difficult to manufacture heroin from morphine. The difficult thing is to get the morphine and they know how to do that now.''

-------- europe

UPI Hears ... Furious at President Bush's decision

March 13, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/13032002-105403-2823r.htm

Furious at President Bush's decision to impose 30 percent steel tariffs, the 15-nation European Union is refusing to come to Washington for the talks required as the first step in the WTO dispute process and insisting on neutral ground -- Geneva, starting next Tuesday. The talks will determine whether the European Union will go for immediate retaliatory counter sanctions on more than $2 billion worth of U.S. exports. In the meantime, the European Union is holding confidential talks with other affected countries such as Japan, Korea, China, Australia, Brazil and others, seeking a coordinated strategy against the United States. But all these others have already agreed to hold their talks in Washington.

-------- germany

UPI Hears ... German army morale low

March 13, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/13032002-105403-2823r.htm

A nasty row has broken out in the German army where former East Germans, who get only 90 percent of the pay of West German colleagues, complain that they are getting all the dirty overseas duty because it's cheaper for the government. Armed Forces Commissioner Wilfried Penner, urging the government to spend the extra $434 million required for equal pay, also confirms reports of very low morale among German troops in Kabul, who say they are in danger because their uniforms makes them look like Russians.

-------- iran

Those evil words

March 13, 2002
Embassy Row by James Morrison
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020313-95740046.htm

The head of the Washington office of the Iranian resistance cheered when he heard President Bush list Iran among the members of an "axis of evil."

But then he wondered: if Iran is evil, why is his group still on a U.S. list of terrorist organizations?

"How in the world does that make sense now that Iran is on the axis of evil?" asked Alireza Jafarzadeh of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

The resistance, based in Paris with an army in Iraq, has been trying for 16 years to overthrow Iran's repressive regime, which is listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.

During the Clinton administration, Washington began looking for centrists in the Iranian regime in an unsuccessful attempt to normalize relations. The State Department began including elements of the resistance on the list of terrorist groups in 1997.

First listed was the People's Mujahideen, a guerrilla group associated with the resistance council. James Rubin, State Department spokesman at the time, said the council itself was left off the list because, "after a careful review of the evidence," it did not qualify as a terrorist organization.

However, two years later, the council was included after Iran complained.

"The Iranian government brought this to our attention," Martin Indyk, then assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, told the Reuters news agency in October 1999.

The council sued, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled last year that the State Department had violated the council's right of due process. The case is continuing.

Mr. Jafarzadeh told Embassy Row this week that his group is pleased with the new direction of the Bush administration.

"It is a step in the right direction and a step away from the policy of appeasement," he said.

The ayatollahs, the real rulers of Iran, "have been the main source of terrorism for the last decade," Mr. Jafarzadeh charged.

The spiritual leader of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, "was the biggest enemy of Islam," Mr. Jafarzadeh said.

"He was a devil. He betrayed our religion," he said, condemning Ayatollah Khomeini for encouraging terrorism in the name of Islam. "If it were not for Khomeini, you would not have had September 11."

Mr. Jafarzadeh agreed that the resistance council has a public relations problem because of its association with Iraq, which along with North Korea completes the axis of evil. But he insisted that the relationship is only one of "convenience."

Mr. Jafarzadeh said the council does not approve of Saddam Hussein's government but accepts his hospitality in order to maintain the bases of the National Liberation Army on the Iraqi side of the border with Iran.

"We did not make the geography. We did not put Iraq next door to Iran," he said.

Besides, he added, when the resistance army first set up camp in Iraq, the United States was supporting Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war.

-------- iraq

BLINKERED BUSH HAS GOT IT ALL WRONG

By American former UN weapons inspector SCOTT RITTER
http://www.topica.com/lists/TRANSCEND-Bulletin/read/message.html?mid=802091630&sort=d&start=0

IRAQ is America's phantom menace. If the US attacks, it will be the result of a flawed policy by the West against Saddam Hussein.

The Bush administration has foregone any debate on whether Iraq represents a big enough threat to America for it to go to war.

The focus has shifted away from whether we should attack Iraq to how and when we will fight.

So let's consider America's obsession that Iraq is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

An "engineer" who worked on Saddam's palaces spoke of underground tunnels and secreted documents.

Inspectors found only a drainage tunnel and no documents. But Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi persuaded his American sponsors that the tunnels existed.

When the Americans needed a link between Iraq and September 11, Chalabi trotted out a list of "defectors" who claimed that would-be hijackers were being secretly trained in the town of Salman Pak.

But America's thinking is flawed on two counts.

Iraq has sought to embrace the Western model of economics and society.

And Hussein and Osama bin Laden are complete opposites in terms of ideology and motivation. They are natural enemies as opposed to secret allies. When George Bush recently told Iraq to let in UN weapons inspectors or "suffer the consequences," Chalabi conveniently produced another "defector."

He alleged that Saddam planned to hide biological and chemical weapons.

INSPECTOR: Ritter

I spent more than six years investigating the organisations the defector claimed to work for.

Elements of his story ring true, but the details used to embellish his tale of weapons of mass destruction are either impossible to pin down or just plain wrong.

The UN stopped using Chalabi's information as the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the US.

The reality is that most of Iraq's biological agents, along with its production facilities, have been destroyed.

America claims that Iraq lied to inspectors and still has deadly stockpiles.

But the Bush administration has shown little interest in sending the inspectors back.

It has used their absence to hype the threat of a re-armed Iraq.

In any event, America would find another war against Iraq much tougher than the last. Troops could face conflict as bitter as Normandy in 1944.

----

Military exiles are courted for Iraq coup

By Salah Nasrawi
ASSOCIATED PRESS
March 13, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020313-96534652.htm

CAIRO - Across Europe, the Middle East and the United States, the exiled officers who once ran Saddam Hussein's army are being recruited by a U.S.-backed Iraqi opposition group that sees signals the United States may soon embark on a concerted effort to topple Saddam.

The Iraqi National Congress (INC) is trying to bring the exiled, dissident soldiers together this month to discuss a future command structure for the army. Though no date or venue has been set, the opposition's planning has reached a feverish stage as Vice President Richard B. Cheney begins a Middle East tour, reportedly seeking support for American action against Iraq.

Mr. Cheney, who arrived in Amman, Jordan, from London yesterday, discussed with King Abdullah II likely U.S. military action against Iraq and the spiraling Israeli-Palestinian violence.

King Abdullah voiced "Jordan's concern from the repercussions of any possible strike on Iraq and the dangers of that on the stability and security of the region," a palace statement said.

It said the king "expressed hope for a solution to all outstanding problems with Iraq through dialogue and peaceful means."

Earlier in London, Mr. Cheney discussed the war on terrorism with British Prime Minister Tony Blair amid speculation Iraq would be the second main target.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday said Iraq posed a serious threat to global security but ruled out a military attack until compelling evidence showed it was needed, Reuters news agency reported.

"The Iraqi regime represents a severe threat to international and regional security as a result of its continued development of weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Straw told Parliament.

"Military action [...] cannot be ruled out in this situation, but no one who is serious should contemplate the prospect of military action unless there is the clearest possible evidence of the necessity of that military action," he said.]

Meanwhile, one potential military leader being touted in Iraqi-opposition circles is Gen. Nizar Khazraji, a former chief of staff and a hero of the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war who is now seeking asylum in Denmark.

Gen. Khazraji is from the Sunni sect of Islam that dominates Iraq and is the highest-ranking officer to defect from Saddam's ranks.

Among others floated as possible successors or members of an interim government are Fawzi Shamari, who defected in the mid-1980s and now lives in the United States, and Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

----

Egypt Agrees to Press Iraq to Accept U.N. Arms Inspectors

By REUTERS
March 13, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-cheney-mubarak.html

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said after talks with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday that Egypt would press Iraq to allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.

``We'll try hard with Saddam Hussein to accept the U.N. inspectors to go there,'' he told reporters at a joint news conference with Cheney, adding that he would tell Iraq's envoys that ``this is a must.''

Mubarak did not name the envoys but he is due to meet Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council, Thursday. Ibrahim was in Lebanon Wednesday in a bid to organize opposition against a possible U.S. strike.

Mubarak indicated that he thought the Iraqi President would accept the return of the inspectors.

``I think, as far as my knowledge is, he is going to accept the inspectors,'' Mubarak said. Iraq has said it will not accept the U.N. inspectors who are hunting for prohibited weapons.

-------- israel / palestine

U.S. Said to Reject New Aid for Israel

Wed Mar 13
Reuters
By Carol Giacomo and Adam Entous

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is blocking a request from Israel for hundreds of millions of dollars in new aid, administration and congressional sources said on Wednesday.

Amid a worsening spiral of Middle East violence, Israel had sought $800 million in aid beyond its usual $3 billion in annual U.S. assistance, and the administration gave serious consideration to providing $200 million.

But the request raised concerns over the major Israeli offensive against Palestinians, the high level of U.S. aid already given to Israel and the war on terrorism's growing strain on the U.S. budget, the sources said.

"It's not going to happen. OMB (the White House Office of Management and Budget) nixed it," one congressional aide told Reuters of the Israeli request.

OMB declined to comment. An administration official and other congressional sources also said the additional aid for Israel was not approved.

"I don't think there will be any request for Israel in the supplemental at this time," a congressional aide said.

A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington said when asked for comment, "We don't know about this."

The aid was considered as part of a new spending package totaling more than $15 billion for the Pentagon, front-line states in the war on terrorism, the New York recovery effort and homeland defense that President Bush will recommend to Congress shortly.

Sources said OMB slashed other requests as well by as much as one-third. It was unclear if the Israel aid request might be revived in the future.

Bush rebuked the Israeli government during a news conference on Wednesday, saying its military operations in the West Bank were "not helpful" to the task of setting the scene for a truce.

CHIEF AID RECIPIENT

Israel has long been the leading beneficiary of U.S. foreign aid, receiving about $3 billion annually.

During a visit to Washington earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) raised the issue of additional aid with Bush.

The discussion centered on some $800 million that was promised but never delivered to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak by former President Bill Clinton to help cover the cost of Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon and to defend against ballistic missiles from enemy states.

"We've been talking (with Bush) about what is the meaning of that commitment," an Israeli diplomat said.

The Sept. 11 attacks caused the United States to launch an unprecedented war on terrorism, with Israel considered among front-line states defending against potential attacks by Iraq, Iran and other parties Washington considers threatening.

Israelis had also argued that new U.S. aid was needed to help boost an economy that has been hit by regional violence as well as the worldwide economic downturn, analysts said.

Although Israel urged the full $800 million in new aid, several U.S. sources said the State Department had recommended $200 million instead of the full amount.

The request has prompted intense debate within the administration and among the administration, Republican members of Congress and pro-Israel advocates.

Many administration officials and members of Congress were sympathetic to Israel and believed Sharon was justified in the force used against Palestinians in retaliation for repeated suicide bombings in Israel, U.S. sources said.

But Bush's public rebuke of Israel on Wednesday underscored a growing U.S. impatience with intensifying Middle East violence, especially as his envoy, retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, is en route to the region on a peace mission.

There also is a recognition that Israel already receives the lion's share of U.S. foreign aid and that the war on terrorism has placed heavy new demands on the United States to assist other countries that have provided bases and other help in the fight against al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

"To give millions of new dollars to Israel could raise some eyebrows, especially in light of the criticism of Sharon's tactics" against the Palestinians, one analyst said.

Vice President Dick Cheney this week embarked on a trip to the Middle East with the primary aim of building a consensus against Iraq. But he has come under increasing Arab pressure to end escalating Israel-Palestinian violence.

The new $15 billion-plus spending bill Bush will send to Congress is expected to contain $10 billion more for the war on terrorism and $5.4 billion in recovery assistance for New York, where the World Trade Center was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The emergency spending bill is expected to include $250 million for Afghanistan (news - web sites) beyond the $297 million already promised and an as yet unpublicized amount for Turkey.

----

U.N. Council Backs a Palestinian State
U.S.-Sponsored Resolution Calls for Truce

By Colum Lynch
The Washington Post
Wednesday, March 13, 2002; Page A24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17358-2002Mar12?language=printer

UNITED NATIONS, March 12 -- The United States ended years of resistance to Security Council action on the Middle East conflict late tonight when it sponsored and helped pass a resolution formally endorsing the concept of a Palestinian state and calling for "the immediate cessation of all acts of violence."

The American resolution, which passed by a vote of 14 to 0 with Syria abstaining, affirmed "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders." It also called on the Palestinians and Israelis to restart negotiations on a political settlement.

"Our intent in doing this was to give an impulse to peace efforts and to decry the violence and terror," John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote.

It was the first time that a Security Council resolution has explicitly referred to a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel. It also was the first time the United States sponsored a resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute since at least 1985 and perhaps even longer, according to a U.S. spokesman. Although the resolution does not oblige the council to deliver independence to Palestinians, it carries enormous symbolic importance for the Palestinian cause.

Nasser Kidwa, the Palestinian U.N. representative, said the resolution will help "pave the way" for a comprehensive settlement of the conflict. "This is a helpful resolution," he said. "It is the first time that the Security Council spells out the vision of two states."

While Israeli has long opposed a role for the Security Council in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Israel's U.N. ambassador, Yehuda Lancry, called the resolution "balanced" and said it could help restart negotiations.

The council's action came hours after Israel launched a major offensive in the Palestinian territories. Diplomats here said that the U.S. initiative appeared calculated to demonstrate that the Bush administration is committed to supporting Palestinian aspirations at a time when Vice President Cheney is discussing possible military action against Iraq with Arab leaders.

In his strongest criticism of Israel since the Palestinian uprising began 18 months ago, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the council earlier today that the Israeli government is eroding its standing in the world through an escalating military campaign that is heaping "daily humiliation" on ordinary Palestinians.

The U.N. chief voiced alarm at Israel's use of advanced military equipment -- including attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets -- against Palestinian neighborhoods and refugee camps. "You must end the illegal occupation," Annan declared. "You must stop the bombing of civilian areas, the assassinations, the unnecessary use of lethal force, the demolition and the daily humiliation of ordinary Palestinians."

It marked the first time that Annan has publicly characterized Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands as unlawful.

Annan's statement, which came during a Security Council meeting, reflected the mounting dismay at the United Nations as Israel presses ahead with its biggest offensive against the Palestinians in two decades. Nearly 160 Palestinians and 60 Israelis have been killed in the past two weeks alone.

Annan also took a swing at the Palestinians, saying that the suicide bombings and rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are "morally repugnant" and undermine support for their cause. "The Palestinians have played their full part in the escalating cycle of violence, counterviolence and revenge," he said. "You must stop all acts of terror and suicide bombings."

U.S. and British officials blocked the Security Council from issuing a statement endorsing Annan's remarks on the grounds that Israel's initial invasion of Palestinian lands during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war was not necessarily illegal. And the U.S. refused a Palestinian and Syrian request to mention Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories in tonight's Security Council resolution.

But Negroponte told reporters that the Bush administration generally welcomed Annan's statement. "We might not endorse every single word of it, but we certainly think it is, in general terms, a fair characterization of the situation that is prevailing in the Middle East at the moment," he said.

Negroponte told the council privately that Washington's special envoy, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, will discuss the prospects of sending U.S. observers to the Middle East when he begins his latest peace mission on Thursday. Negroponte said the goal will be to implement a truce brokered in June by CIA Director George J. Tenet and the recommendations issued in May by an international committee headed by former senator George J. Mitchell (D-Maine).

Mitchell called for an end to violence, to be followed by measures to restore mutual confidence and a return to negotiations over a political settlement. "The U.S. would be ready to participate in such a mechanism if both parties agree," Negroponte said, according to a diplomat who attended the meeting.

--------

Bush Criticizes Israel for Role in Recent Middle East Violence

New York Times
March 13, 2002
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/13/international/middleeast/13CND-PREX.html

WASHINGTON, March 13 - President Bush criticized Israel today, saying that a halt to bloodshed in the Middle East depends on a willingness to "create conditions for peace" and asserting that Israel's actions of late have been counterproductive.

"Frankly, it's not helpful, what Israel has recently done," Mr. Bush said at an afternoon news conference.

At another point, the president said he hoped that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel was concerned about the loss of "innocent life" in the region.

"It breaks my heart," Mr. Bush said.

Scores of Arabs and Israelis have been killed in the past two weeks, as Israeli troops have swept through Palestinian enclaves in what Israel says is a hunt for terrorists and a self-defense operation against Palestinian suicide bombers.

But Palestinians have been enraged as some Israeli bullets have killed civilians, as the homes of some Palestinians have been demolished and as roadblocks and personal searches by Israeli soldiers have become more frequent.

Taking care to reaffirm the United States' overall support of Israel, Mr. Bush said, "People in the region have to recognize Israel's right to exist," and that the policies of nations in the region must be based on that principle.

Mr. Bush said the violence demonstrated "the need for us to be involved in the Middle East," and said the United States would indeed stay involved. The president has made that point often in recent weeks, making it ever clearer that his earlier, relatively aloof stance toward the Middle East is no longer operative.

The president's criticism of Israel came shortly after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told Israel that its military operations could undercut efforts by the United States Middle East envoy, Anthony C. Zinni, to bring about a cease-fire to the latest round of violence.

The president coupled his criticism of Israel with an expression of hope that General Zinni's work would indeed bear fruit. Alluding again to the necessity of achieving conditions for peace, Mr. Bush said, "If I didn't think he could make progress, I wouldn't have asked him to go."

The United States' criticism of Israel came a day after the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, told Israel it must "end the illegal occupation" of Palestinian lands.

While Mr. Annan called Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians "morally repugnant," his remarks were nonetheless interpreted as some of the sharpest criticism he has leveled at Israel in many months.

-------- spy agencies

Secret services hold terror talks in New Zealand

Wednesday March 13, 2:17 PM
Reuters
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-94573.html

SYDNEY - Secret service chiefs and senior Western security officials, including the head of the FBI, met in New Zealand over the weekend to discuss counter-terrorism.

Government sources said around 20 senior officials from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, the CIA, Britain's MI6 and Australian and New Zealand spy agencies met at the luxury Millbrook resort near Queenstown on New Zealand's South Island.

Officials declined to reveal their agenda but the New Zealand Herald newspaper reported on Wednesday that the meeting discussed counter-terrorism strategies and tactics.

FBI head Robert Mueller flew to Australia on Tuesday and met conservative Prime Minister John Howard to brief him about security threats in the United States six months after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

"He was able to brief me and my senior colleagues about the nature of the terrorist threat in the United States and around the world," Howard told Australian radio on Wednesday.

"And whilst American circumstances are different from our own, it did serve to remind me that nobody should luxuriate in the false belief that it can't happen in Australia. It can happen in Australia. It might happen in Australia."

Australia has been a stalwart supporter of U.S. President George W. Bush's "war on terrorism" and the military campaign in Afghanistan that ousted the fundamentalist Taliban in punishment for harbouring Osama bin Laden's militant al Qaeda network.

Around 150 elite Australian SAS troops are on the ground in Afghanistan, the bulk currently helping to root out al Qaeda remnants in eastern hills after a ferocious week-long battle.

Mueller spent only 24 hours in Australia before flying off in a U.S. air force Gulfstream jet.

----

Officials: CIA badly needs reform

By RICHARD SALE
UPI Terrorism Correspondent
3/13/2002
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=12032002-110452-2996r

The aging CIA is badly in need of streamlining and reforms, according to more than a half-dozen former and current agency officials interviewed by United Press International.

"You want some really good changes made, not just a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic," said former State Department and CIA counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson.

The sharpest criticisms center on faulty analysis, too many layers of bureaucracy, too much movement between "accounts" or assignments and too many managers.

The criticisms come as the Senate and House intelligence committees gear up for a single joint review of U.S. intelligence operations-focused on the U.S. response to terror over the last 16 years, and in particular on the Sept. 11 attacks and other Osama bin Laden operations.

As UPI recently reported, some in the intelligence community are skeptical about what the inquiry will achieve.

One longtime former agency official said the CIA has already undergone several facelifts: "We were reorganized along regional lines, then we were reorganized under functional lines. The point is that any new reorganization has got to result in a better product."

No matter what happens on Capitol Hill, reforms are badly needed, according to several current and former CIA officials who agreed to speak to UPI on condition of anonymity.

One very senior former CIA official said that prior to Sept. 11, the CIA had received "a strategic warning" of the attacks, which the CIA was unable to translate "to a tactical warning" which would have readied the nation for war.

He faulted the agency's analytical system, which he called "cumbersome," adding, "We collect a mountain of data every day, but we've lost the ability to connect the dots."

He commented that CIA Director George Tenet "goes around boasting that the analysts send to the White House a daily threat matrix of 50-100 targets. That's laughable. That's like saying in physics that there are 100 elemental particles. It shows you don't know physics."

But one senior CIA analyst, still active, said analysis is being undercut in the organization because it isn't on the fast track to promotion.

"For one thing, CIA bureau chiefs, who are really just editors, are paid more than analysts and have much more chance for promotion. They're management and analysts aren't."

Another agency analyst agreed that the career track made the job unattractive. "For analysts there is no way to go up." This inequity occurs in spite of the fact that the analyst's job "is key to processing on-ground information in key target areas." Determining the nature and degree of threats -- like that posed by al Qaida -- is "one of the first and foremost tasks of analysis," he said.

He also criticized the analytical process: "The bureau chief gets a paper, say on the economy of Egypt. He then edits and rewrites and returns the report to an analyst who incorporates corrections." But the report can ping-pong back and forth "three or four, even five times before the bureau chief sends it to the division chief who heads a geographical area such as the Near East, Russia, Central Asia, or South Asia," he said.

From the division chief the report goes to the CIA's Publication Board, and after approval there, gets forwarded to the CIA director and who then sends it to the White House, the analyst said.

"It's a ridiculous system," he said.

In addition, agency analysts need to write more, one serving CIA officer said. Since internal CIA magazines were abolished, "there are not that many outlets for analysts to publish in," he said.

Writing is important in honing analytical skills because "writing shows you the gaps in your knowledge and allows you to judge of the consistency of your sources," he said.

Vagueness was another "disease" of a lot of agency analysis, he said. "Analysis that is going to be used by decision-makers has to have a definite point of view. It has to commit itself and say, if this happens, then these three other things will happen," he said.

Others also identified the lack of "direct customers" for the CIA's product as a problem.

One current agency official said the Department of Defense has the Defense Intelligence Agency, which writes directly for DOD policy-makers, just as the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the State Department writes directly for the Secretary of State.

But the CIA "does not have intelligence bodies that interact directly with policy people," he said, adding that the agency "doesn't support the National Security Council directly. They don't even keep the same hours."

He said the NSC needs its own intelligence group: "direct staff in support of policy-makers."

Another factor that makes for a "bad product" is too many layers between supervisors and employees. A current serving official said: "An office director, who is management, often has two or three layers of administration between himself or herself and chief analysts. There is too little communication."

He said the State Department had been successful in eliminating many of those layers, while the agency has not. "The CIA is vast and corporate. When you get to the deputy director level, you have below you a huge edifice. I'm talking about thousands and thousands of people as opposed to about 300 at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research."

According to the very former senior agency official, the chief defect of the CIA at present is that its senior people are inexperienced and were not shaped by confronting a major intelligence challenge like the Cold War.

"People handling only peripheral accounts (minor geographic areas) have been moved to senior positions," he said.

George Tenet, the agency's director is case in point, he said, describing the former Senate Intelligence Committee staffer as having "only limited experience."

But another former senior official strongly disagreed: "Tenet is an intelligence pro. He's got brilliant analytical ability." Almost every source interviewed by UPI agreed on one thing -- there is much too much shuffling of personnel between assignments or "accounts."

A former longtime CIA operative in Asia said a glaring defect of current agency structure is that new recruits, many of them very bright, with masters degrees, spend too little time at one assignment and have too little exposure to the culture, language and political leadership of the target country they're covering.

"As it stands now, people from the (Directorate of Operations) switch accounts too often," he said.

"You spend six months mastering Arabic, and because you're good at what you do, you're moved to Venezuela, and your knowledge of Arabic is wasted," he said.

A currently serving official said that the average assignment on an account is "about two years, average." This should be increased to between five or even 10 years, he said.

Former State Department and CIA counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson agreed:

"I think we rush things. I think the best way to go is to use more business cover. Have an agent open in business in Panama, for example, then stay on the account for 10 years. That way you'll get somewhere."

As it stands now, everyone just wants to advance up the corporate ladder, he said.

Johnson and others cited the lack of ability of the current agency to hire foreign nationalities. "We need to be like Russia, hire the nationalities that can blend in and don't worry about getting soiled by hiring thugs if that's what it takes," he said.

"Certain agency people turn up your noses if you try and hire a drug smuggler," said a former high-level operative.

"But the fact is that drugs and terrorism almost always occur together.

"Either you are willing to soil your hands a bit for the sake of the information, or you're going to think well of yourself and get blind-sided the way we did on Sept. 11."

He added that in hiring people he described as "thugs" the important thing is control, "by getting something on them. In the old days we'd make them sign receipts for the money they got, and if they thought of straying off the reservation, they knew we'd mail those receipts to quarters where they would count."

Johnson said that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) "is absolutely the best U.S. intelligence agency. They deal with scum bags all the time, but they get great info."

But CIA spokeswoman Anya Guilsher said the agency's past restrictions on hiring "controlled assets" have been exaggerated by the press.

In the wake of the murder in Guatemala of Efrain Bamaca Velasquez, a Mayan resistance leader, by a former paid CIA informant, then CIA Director John Deutch issued 1996 guidelines that required CIA field officers to obtain prior headquarters approval before "establishing a relationship with an individual who had committed serious crimes or human rights abuses or other repugnant acts," as a CIA statement put it.

But even with those guidelines in place the CIA "never turned down a field request to recruit an asset in a terrorist organization," said Guilsher. "We don't avoid contact with individuals regardless of their past who may have information about terrorist activities," she added.

The only change since Sept. 11 is that the matter of signing off on recruitment "was pushed down to a field management level," Guilsher said.

But another former very senior agency official said the old Deutch rules had created the wrong kind of atmosphere in the agency.

"It wasn't what they said. It was the message they sent -- that hiring the wrong asset could backfire and jeopardize your career."

Hopefully that is over, he said.

-------- uzbekistan

Karimov bolsters his U.S. standing

By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 13, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020313-83181704.htm

Uzbek President Islam Karimov, whose country has provided critical support for the U.S. military campaign in neighboring Afghanistan, yesterday moved to cement his newfound standing in Washington.

Despite continuing human rights concerns in the central Asian nation, Mr. Karimov met with President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as the two countries signed a series of new agreements pledging closer bilateral military, economic and political ties.

Uzbekistan has been a clear winner in the months since September 11. Mr. Karimov has ruled the country since it gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1989.

The U.S.-led military effort in Afghanistan has severely damaged the militant Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which had close ties to al Qaeda. The Northern Alliance, the Afghan opposition group that helped oust the Taliban regime, has close ties to the Uzbek leadership.

The Bush administration has tried to walk a delicate line with Uzbekistan, whose help in the military campaign in Afghanistan has been vital but whose human rights record has been the target of frequent State Department criticism.

Mr. Karimov has been a "solid coalition partner" in the war on terrorism, Mr. Powell said at a Senate hearing yesterday before his working luncheon with the Uzbek leader.

"But at the same time, there are problems with respect to human rights in Uzbekistan, and we will not shrink from discussing them," Mr. Powell said.

Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters after the luncheon that Mr. Powell "stressed to President Karimov that the region's long-term security and stability are inextricably linked to the need to strengthen human rights and democratic institutions."

At least 1,000 U.S. military personnel have been assigned to a base in southern Uzbekistan since October. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. military effort in the region, has said the United States is not seeking a permanent base in Central Asia, but the Pentagon has also said it wants to ensure access to the region in case of new crises.

The administration also announced a threefold increase in U.S. aid to Uzbekistan, although officials stress that the money is targeted not to the government itself. For example, the Export-Import Bank yesterday signed an accord on a $55 million credit for Uzbekistan, which will go to small and midsized businesses there to finance the purchase of American products.

Eight lawmakers yesterday released the text of a March 7 letter to Mr. Bush urging him to keep the pressure on Mr. Karimov to "confront human rights abuses" in Uzbekistan.

Among the abuses they cite: arrests of about 7,000 Muslim leaders and believers, mistreatment of prisoners, and harassment of the press and nongovernmental organizations.

Uzbek authorities say the human rights situation has improved in recent months, and Mr. Karimov himself has said the new agreements mark a "turning point" in relations with Washington.

"This means raising our relations onto an absolutely new level, ensuring strategic relations between us," he told reporters in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, before leaving for Washington Monday.

Mr. Powell and Uzbek Foreign Minister Adulaziz Kamilov yesterday signed a broad framework defining bilateral political, strategic and legal ties between the two countries. In the framework, the United States said it "would regard with grave concern any external threat to the security and territorial integrity of the Republic of Uzbekistan.


-------- POLICE / PRISONERS

Angry police in protest march in London

By Al Webb
United Press International
March 13, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/13032002-110647-4285r.htm

LONDON, March 13 (UPI) -- More than 5,000 police officers from across Britain marched on Parliament Wednesday to protest government plans to reform the service, including sharp cuts in overtime pay, even as crime -- from homicide to mobile phone theft -- is on the increase.

The angry but peaceful demonstrators massed outside the Houses of Parliament to aim their grievances at the government, and one carried a placard telling Prime Minister Tony Blair and his administration that "The Boys in Blue Are Sick of You."

The protests came only hours after Home Secretary David Blunkett said that with the addition of 4,578 police over the past two years, the number of officers in England and Britain had reached 128,748, the highest since records began.

It was Blunkett's plans for reform, including the overtime issue and removal of a list of allowances, as well as a program to introduce a new breed of civilian wardens with police-style powers that had drawn the wrath of the protesters. Officers already have rejected the measures by an overwhelming 10-to-1 margin.

British police are banned by law against striking, but the demonstration Wednesday -- led initially by a band of kilted bagpipers -- marked "a pivotal moment in police history," said Fred Broughton, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales.

He said the officers had taken their arguments to members of Parliament "to explain not only for their sake but for the sakes of the communities they serve." Broughton blasted Blunkett for painting the police officers as "wreckers" of his reform plan.

The home secretary quickly hinted he might be prepared to compromise. "I am not looking for a fight," Blunkett told journalists. "I am looking for improvement."

He insisted he was "looking for radical change" to deal with rising crime across the land.

"In two years, we have got an extra 4,500 police into the system. I am delivering, and I want the police service to deliver as well," he said.

The demonstration had its lighter moments. Joining the officers were anti-capitalist protesters who were demonstrating against the police and handed out leaflets reading: "We demand a zero-hour work week for the police to give them fair time for reading, leisure activities with their friends or perhaps their partners ..."

The more serious background to the police protest was the sharp rise in crime in Britain -- including homicides averaging one a day in London and mobile phone robberies at record levels -- and their own insistence that even the record manpower level announced by Blunkett was not enough.

"What we need is closer to 140,000," Broughton said.

-------- terrorism

US in secret deal with 'torture' states

By Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
The Guardian (UK)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0203/13/world/world6.html

The United States has been secretly sending prisoners with suspected al-Qaeda connections to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US diplomatic and intelligence sources.

Prisoners are being moved to places in Egypt and Jordan where they can be subjected to torture and threats to their families to extract information sought by the US.

The normal extradition procedures have been bypassed in the transportation of dozens of prisoners suspected of terrorist connections, according to a report in the Washington Post, with suspects moved to countries where the CIA has close ties with the local intelligence services.

The report says US intelligence agents have been involved in a number of interrogations. A CIA spokesman refused to comment on the allegations on Monday.

A State Department spokesman said the US had been "working very closely with other countries ... It's a global fight against terrorism".

"After September 11, these sorts of movements have been occurring all the time," a diplomat told the Washington Post. "It allows us to get information from terrorists in a way we can't do on US soil."

Suspects are being sent to a third country rather than to the US so as to avoid highly publicised cases that could lead to a further backlash from Islamist extremists, diplomats say.

One of the prisoners, Muhammad Saad Iqbal Madni, is allegedly linked to Richard Reid, the Briton accused of the attempted "shoe bomb" attack on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December. He was flown from Indonesia to Egypt without a court hearing, after his name appeared on al-Qaeda documents. He remains in custody in Egypt and has been subjected to interrogation byintelligence agents.

An Indonesian Government official said disclosing the Americans' role would haveexposed President Megawati Sukarnoputri to criticism from Muslim political parties.

"We can't be seen to be co-operating too closely with the United States," the official said.

A Yemeni microbiology student has also been flown from Pakistan to Jordan, and US forces seized five Algerians and a Yemeni in Bosnia on January 19 and flew them to Guantanamo Bay after the men were released by the Bosnian supreme court for lack of evidence, and despite an injunction from the Bosnian human rights chamber that four of them be allowed to remain there pending further proceedings.

Civil rights lawyers based in Los Angeles have tried unsuccessfully to have Guantanamo Bay prisoners charged in US courts or treated as prisoners of war. The US administration has resisted this, arguing that those detainedwere not entitled to be regarded as prisoners of war because they were terrorists rather than soldiers and were not part of a recognised army.


-------- ENERGY AND OTHER

-------- alternative energy

U.S. SCORES POORLY ON RENEWABLE INVESTMENTS

March 13, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2002/2002L-03-13-09.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The United States lags far behind other developed countries in generating electricity from renewable energy sources, suggests a study released Tuesday by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).

Among the 30 member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States ranks 12th for its renewable generation, deriving less than two percent of its electricity from solar, wind, clean biomass and geothermal energy.

The renewable energy industry is booming in other nations, however. The European Union, for example, has set a goal of doubling the proportion of green energy from six percent to 12 percent of primary energy supply by increasing the share of renewable generated electricity from 14 percent to 22 percent by the year 2010.

Although the United States generates the most electricity from renewable sources, it has increased its generation from renewables by just 36 percent between 1990 and 2000 - demonstrating far less growth than other member countries of the OECD. The United States ranks behind 21 OECD countries that have boosted their energy production from sources such as solar, wind and geothermal energy.

The PIRG report argues that the U.S. risks losing a competitive advantage if it continues to invest in non-renewable energy sources at the expense of renewable energy technology. Worldwide, the wind industry is valued at $5 billion and is projected to rise to $70 billion by 2020, the report notes.

The United States, once a leader in developing renewable energy technology, is now falling behind its competitors. Denmark, a country with a small percentage of the U.S. population, controls 50 percent of the global market for wind turbines; in 2000, the U.S. share of global sales - including those in the U.S. - was six percent.

In 1999, the United States controlled 30 percent of the world market for photovoltaics - materials that convert sunlight into electricity, and Japan controlled 40 percent. According to the Energy Information Administration, this represents a marked change from 1995, when U.S. based manufacturing capacity accounted for 45 percent of world photovoltaic shipments, with Japan at 26 percent.

"Unless the U.S. government assumes leadership in the development of renewable technologies, the United States will lose its technological advantage to countries willing to divest from old, polluting energy sources and invest in cheaper, cleaner alternative such as wind power," the report argues.

"Implementing a national standard of 20 percent of all electricity generated from renewable sources by 2020 could jump start a technological renaissance in the United States not seen since the space program of the 1950s and 1960s," concludes the report. "The U.S. could become the global supplier of clean energy to countries eager to mitigate global warming pollution, reduce air pollution and diversify away from environmentally harmful fossil fuels and nuclear power."

----

US wind power industry gets tax credit boost (R)

REUTERS USA:
March 13, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14983/story.htm;

SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. wind power industry this week welcomed a two-year extension of a key federal tax credit, saying it will restore momentum to an industry that saw record growth last year but then froze in its tracks due to a delay in the credit.

The wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) - an important factor in financing new wind power projects - was part of the economic stimulus bill signed on Saturday by President George W. Bush.

The PTC, which had expired on Dec. 31, will be extended retroactively from that date to Dec. 31, 2003. It provides a 1.5 cent-per-kilowatt-hour tax credit for electricity generated by wind turbines.

"It's great news because now we can begin to tap into the momentum that was running so strongly at the end of last year," said Randall Swisher, executive director of the Washington-based American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

The tax credit means about $3 billion in wind energy investments - or projects totaling about 3,000 megawatts - forecast over the next several years are now back on track, he said.

Last year, about 1,700 megawatts of new wind generation equipment worth about $1.7 billion was installed in the United States - more than double the previous record year of 1999 when 732 megawatts were added.

That put the United States in second place behind Germany in terms of new capacity installed in 2001.

One megawatt of wind energy is enough to power about 300 homes, according to AWEA.

BACK TO WORK

Swisher also said that hundreds of idled wind industry employees can now go back to work building and installing new high-tech wind turbines.

He said Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems , the world's biggest wind turbine maker, has put its workers back on full time. Many Vestas employees had been working reduced hours due to the industry slowdown after Congress at first failed to extend the PTC.

Shares in Vestas and other Danish wind turbine makers such as NEG Micon , the world's fourth-biggest turbine company, rose in Copenhagen trading this week on news of the extension.

Swisher expects "significant" project development later this year, but says a repeat of the 2001 banner year is unlikely because of the delay of the tax credit.

"It (the extension) means this year won't be a disaster, but at least 500 megawatts to 1,000 megawatts of projects may not be completed because of the delay," he said.

Industry players say the lack of a consistent U.S. policy for wind energy has hurt expansion. In contrast, European wind turbine manufacturers, benefiting from strong government support, dominate the world market.

The AWEA continues to push for a five-year extension of the PTC included in the energy bill now being debated in the Senate.

The trade group projects that wind will provide 6 percent of the nation's electricity by 2020 from less than 1/2 percent now.

----

Congress Fuels Wind Energy Boom with Tax Credit (ENS)

March 13, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2002/2002L-03-13-02.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The U.S. wind energy industry is set to spin into high gear with the passage by both houses of Congress of an extended production tax credit for electricity generated by wind power.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) executive director Randall Swisher said that with the tax credit back in place "wind energy development in the U.S. should resume the blistering pace it set last year when more wind capacity was installed than in any previous year in U.S. history."

The King Mountain Wind Ranch near Odessa, Texas, added almost 77 meagwatts of capacity to the state's wind power capacity in 2001.(Photo courtesy Cielo Wind Power)

The 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit, which had expired December 31, 2001, will be extended retroactively for two years to December 31, 2003.

The measure was passed as part of an economic stimulus and unemployment insurance bill (H.R. 3090) approved by the House on March 7 and by the Senate on March 8. The House approved the package by an overwhelming vote of 417-3. The Senate approved the same package by a vote of 85-9, with six members not voting.

President George W. Bush has indicated that he will sign the bill containing the tax credit into law.

Swisher said the reinstatement of the tax credit means that about $3 billion in wind energy investments forecast over the next several years are now back on track. "More importantly, hundreds of furloughed wind industry employees can now go back to work building and installing new high-tech wind turbines." he said.

Formed in 1974, the 700 member AWEA is the national trade association of the U.S. wind energy industry including turbine manufacturers, wind project developers, utilities and academics.

The delay in extending the tax credit put the high flying industry on pause after 2001, a year in which it installed more than twice as much new generating capacity, close to 1,700 megawatts (MW), as in any previous year. The previous record was 732 MW installed in 1999.

Texas alone installed more new wind capacity in 2001 (915 MW) than the previous record for the entire United States, due to a strong state law encouraging renewable energy.

The nation's largest wind energy producer, FPL Energy, in mid-December flipped the switch for two large windfarms - the 278 megawatt King Mountain Clean Energy Center near Odessa, Texas, and the 263 megawatt Stateline Clean Energy Center near Walla Walla, Washington.

In all, FPL Energy began operating 844 megawatts of wind power during 2001, more than double its prior capacity of wind energy.

Elimination of the federal production tax credit for wind power would have negatively impacted future construction of these renewable energy power plants across the country, said Dean Gosselin, FPL Energy vice president of wind development, and immediate past president of the American Wind Energy Association.

Three wind turbines at Bushland, Texas (Photo courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab)

"Many suppliers of wind energy components slow or close their production lines, and even those who would like to move forward with wind projects will be unable to do so," Gosselin said.

New high-tech wind turbines are energizing rural economic development, providing supplementary income for farmers and ranchers who lease small portions of their land to wind developers. Wind leases can provide landowners with income of about $3,000 per turbine, per year, for about 20 years.

"We know there are many more opportunities for wind energy throughout the country and great support in many regions for new wind power facilities," Gosselin said.

Swisher said the industry association aims to provide six percent of the nation's electricity from wind by 2020.

The AWEA is working for the five year extension of the production tax credit contained in the energy policy bill (S. 517) now being debated in the Senate.

-------- environment

EPA chief defends halving toxic waste cleanups as Superfund money nears depletion

Wednesday, March 13, 2002
By John Heilprin,
Associated Press
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/03/03132002/ap_46657.asp

WASHINGTON - EPA chief Christie Whitman on Tuesday defended cutting by half the toxic waste sites being cleaned up around the nation.

The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency said the fewer sites arise from having to spread the same amount of money each year for more costly, more complex, and larger sites. At the same time, Congress and the Bush administration have been reluctant to reimpose a Superfund tax on polluters and other businesses.

"One of the concerns that I know the president has had about the way the Superfund tax is imposed is that it's not all on polluters," Whitman told a House Appropriations subcommittee. "It is on everyone in an industry, so that even those that have the best of environmental records are also paying."

The special tax on the oil and chemical industries and other businesses that process or use toxic substances expired in 1995. Since then, the Superfund financed by the tax has dwindled from a high of $3.6 billion in 1996 to a projected $28 million next year.

President Bush proposed in the budget he submitted last month that the shrinking fund pay $593 million of this year's projected $1.3 billion in cleanup costs, with the remaining $700 million to come from the Treasury.

With less money coming in, about 40 Superfund cleanups a year are expected to be completed during the Bush administration; 47 were done last year. More than 80 sites were cleaned up during each of the last four years of the Clinton administration.

Whitman said EPA expects to complete within several weeks a new review of which sites should be given the highest priority.

She said corporations responsible for the contamination have been paying to clean up 70 percent of the number of sites on the EPA's national priority list, of which there were 1,222 as of Feb. 26. Because the government can charge up to triple the actual cleanup costs plus penalties, many companies opt to pay for their own cleanups. The trust fund paid to clean up the other 30 percent, she said.

The special tax poured about $1.3 billion a year into the fund prior to 1996. But last year, for the first time, more money was spent on Superfund from general tax revenues than from the fund.

Whitman declined to answer whether Bush would ever support renewing the tax and referred questions about that to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. "You'd have to ask OMB. Well, the White House," she said.

Congress asked Resources for the Future, a Washington-based independent research group, for a study last year to help lawmakers determine whether the Superfund tax should be resumed. The group's report found that government costs for cleaning up sites are not expected to decrease for another eight years and will far outstrip money available. It estimated the government will spend $14 billion to $16.4 billion on Superfund cleanup programs between 2000 and 2009, with annual costs of between $1.3 billion and $1.7 billion.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the panel with jurisdiction over EPA's budget expressed worry that heavily contaminated sites are not getting the attention they should and that taxpayers will have to pick up more and more of the tab. "The concern many of us have is we want to get things cleaned up," Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., told Whitman, a former GOP governor from that state.

Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., said Bush should ask Congress to reinstate the Superfund tax if he really believes in the principle behind the program - that polluters should pay. "The president is wonderful at providing leadership when he wants to provide leadership," Mollohan said.

----

Drug Wastes Pollute Waterways
80% of Streams Checked by USGS Contain Trace Amounts

By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17092-2002Mar12?language=printer

The first nationwide study of pharmaceutical pollution of rivers and streams offers an unsettling picture of waterways contaminated with antibiotics, steroids, synthetic hormones and other commonly used drugs.

Of the 139 streams analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey in 30 states -- including Maryland and Virginia -- about 80 percent contained trace amounts of contaminants that are routinely discharged into the water in human and livestock waste and chemical plant refuse.

Seven or more chemical compounds were found in half the streams sampled and 10 or more compounds were found in a third of the streams; a single water sample contained as many as 38 chemicals.

The USGS study, which will be published in today's issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology, stresses that in many cases the measured concentration of contaminants such as painkillers, insect repellent, caffeine and fire retardants was low -- less than 1 part per billion -- and rarely exceeded federal standards for drinking water.

But many of the chemical compounds detected are not covered by drinking-water standards or government health advisories, and little is known about how the interaction of those chemicals can affect humans, animals and the environment.

"Protecting the integrity of our water resources is one of the most essential environmental issues of the 21st Century," the report states. "Little is known about the potential interactive effects . . . that may occur from complex mixtures of [waste contaminants] in the environment."

In many ways, water quality mirrors societal behavior and medical practices: Antibiotics and other prescription and nonprescription drugs and personal care products used widely by Americans inevitably turn up in wastewater; manufacturers and chemical plants legally dump thousands of tons of compounds into streams and rivers, and the waste of livestock treated with veterinary pharmaceuticals flows into streams.

The study, conducted in 1999 and 2000, surveyed the occurrence of 95 pharmaceuticals, hormones and other organic waste in streams across the country. The authors said the compounds were selected because they enter the environment through common wastewater pathways in large quantities and may have human or environmental health implications.

The sampling technique focused on streams most susceptible to contamination, downstream from large urban areas -- including New York, Boston, Chicago and Denver -- or industrial plants or livestock yards. In the Washington, D.C., region, scientists sampled water from the Pocomoke River and Nassawango Creek near Snow Hill, both on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and Christians Creek near Jolivue, Va.

"We're not talking about rampant dumping," said a U.S. Geological Survey official. "We're looking at the effect of normal existing usage for these different chemicals."

The study was not designed to compare the water quality of different streams, but to create a baseline for future study by scientists of the persistence and migration patterns of the compounds and their potential impact on humans and the environment, according to USGS officials.

Environmentalists say that while water quality has vastly improved since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the government fell far short of the congressional goal of creating "fishable and swimmable" waters nationwide by 1983. Moreover, they said, there are scores of potentially harmful chemical compounds in the water that can accumulate in humans and animals, compounds that are not governed by the law, which was last reauthorized in 1987.

"On the one hand, we have eliminated the smelly, rotting sewage floating in the Potomac River and other streams that [former first lady] Lady Bird Johnson talked about," said Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace USA's toxics campaign. "But the poisons unseen continue to fester in the water, animal life and sediments of all of our rivers and lakes."

-------- genetics

Two Studies Cast Doubt on Stem Cells

March 13, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Stem-Cells.html

Two new studies cast doubt on the tantalizing theory that adult stem cells can serve as the body's all-around repairmen, capable of converting into any type of cell to fight disease or replace faulty organs.

The findings, if confirmed, could force scientists to focus more on embryonic stem cells, whose use is highly controversial because they are taken from embryos that are killed in the process.

The studies could also influence the debate in Washington, where the Senate is expected to take up the issue in the next few weeks of whether to ban the use of cloning to create human embryos for medical research.

Scientists have long known that stem cells from embryos are all-purpose cells that can transform themselves into different kinds of specialized tissue, such as muscle, bone, skin and organs. Researchers hope someday to harness this ability to treat various diseases and injuries.

In recent years, scientists have found surprising evidence that stem cells taken from adult creatures have some of the same transforming properties, or plasticity.

But the two new studies, conducted in separate laboratories in the United States and England and published online Wednesday by the journal Nature, cast doubt on that belief.

In the two studies, embryonic stem cells from mice were marked with fluorescent tags and mixed in laboratory dishes with mouse bone marrow and brain cells. But instead of transforming into their neighboring cells, the stem cells simply merged their genetic material with the marrow and brain cells. The merged cells had twice the number of chromosomes as is normal.

The researchers said the same phenomenon may have occurred in studies involving adult stem cells, and may have fooled scientists into thinking that the cells had transformed themselves.

Petri dish experiments using bone marrow cells and adult stem cells have shown similar preliminary results, said University of Florida biologist Naohiro Terada, who led one of the research teams. Austin Smith of the University of Edinburgh wrote the second research paper.

The new findings ``call into question almost all of the data generated using adult stem cells,'' said Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology, a Worcester, Mass., biotechnology company. ACT was not involved in the two studies but has a strong interest in embryonic stem cell research.

Lanza said the findings could influence the political debate.

``One of the main arguments that is being used to ban this research is the fact that adult stem cells have been found that can do the same thing -- i.e., why kill human embryos if you don't have to?'' Lanza said.

``These two papers should send a message to lawmakers and to the public: It's premature to conclude that adult stem cells have the same potential as embryonic cells. In fact, it throws into question which if any of these adult stem cells can be harnessed to cure human diseases.''

However, opponents of embryonic stem cell research described the Nature papers as nonsense.

``These studies don't show anything in particular as to how adult stem cells turn into different cell types in an adult body,'' Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement.

President Bush issued regulations last summer forbidding federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research except for experiments involving cell colonies that already exist.

``I think the major point of both papers is to call into question all of this excitement that has been engendered by claims that there is plasticity in tissue stem cells,'' said Harinder Singh, a genetics and biology professor at the University of Chicago.

Catherine Verfaillie, director of the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute, said the papers do not disprove adult stem cell plasticity findings by other researchers, including herself.

However, she said it suggests stem-cell researchers should take a closer look at the chromosomes in the cells they are studying.

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

NAFTA's silent suit

By Carter Dougherty
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 13, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20020313-76898488.htm

Trade ministers from the United States, Canada and Mexico last year tried to impose greater openness on a procedure under NAFTA that allows companies to sue governments for millions in monetary damages, but the effort has so far failed.

As a result, United Parcel Service Inc. is now using the procedure to attack one of its major competitors, Canada Post, in relative secrecy, angering anti-NAFTA activists and the Canadian government. Few details are available about the suit.

The Atlanta-based company is using a procedure known as Chapter 11, named after a specific section of NAFTA. It allows corporations to seek compensation from governments that discriminate against investors from NAFTA countries in favor of their domestic competitors.

Since NAFTA took effect in 1995, companies have filed 15 such cases against all three NAFTA governments, including one involving the Mixing Bowl construction project in Springfield, Va. Cases are heard by a three-person tribunal and can take up to three years from start to finish.

Many Canadian groups fear they will be shut out of the process until the very end.

"Only when the decision has been reached are Canadians informed of the results," said Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians, a group critical of NAFTA.

UPS filed its case in 1999, taking aim at Canada Post, a state-owned postal company. The American company charged that Canada Post was using its monopoly on letter delivery to bankroll its package-delivery service, an advantage UPS does not have.

Though UPS is seeking $160 million in damages, many observers suspect the company wants a settlement that gives it access to Canadian post offices for its parcel-drop boxes.

Charges of secrecy have dogged the Chapter 11 process since its inception. Many NAFTA supporters now concede that the closed tribunals have contributed to public distrust of the agreement, and advocate greater openness for the procedure.

There is no central registry for NAFTA investment cases. The State Department, which defends the United States before the tribunals, set up its first Internet site for documents from the lawsuits last fall, nearly seven years after NAFTA was passed.

Until then, the best source for information was a two-year-old private Web site, NaftaClaims.com. It is run by Todd Weiler, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan. Even now, Mr. Weiler's home page offers concise information about NAFTA that the government site does not.

"It's convenient for me to have everything, and putting it on the Internet makes it readily available," said Mr. Weiler, a NAFTA supporter who advises governments and companies on some cases.

In an effort to boost confidence in NAFTA, U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts agreed in July to make documents from Chapter 11 cases public "in a timely manner."

That meeting began the process that led to the U.S. government Internet site, and officials had hoped it would mute criticism of the system.

The precise arguments being made in the UPS-Canada Post case are still unknown, because the company is refusing to release its legal brief to the public, according to sources close to the case.

The Canadian government is pressing to release all documents, and the tribunal is now considering the request, these sources said.

UPS has said it will abide by the tribunal's decision.

"We're not going to have objections when the time comes," UPS spokesman Ken Churchill said.

Since the tribunal imposed a confidentiality order before the trade ministers made their decision, the documents are still under wraps.

With UPS opposed to releasing them, the public must now wait for a decision by the tribunal, which could choose to release the documents when the entire case is complete, NAFTA critics note. <a name="activists"></a>


-------- ACTIVISTS

FYI: Greenland tour

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002
From: william.peden@uk.greenpeace.org

Dear all

For more than a week now five Greenpeace people, sixteen greenland dogs and two sleds have been touring remote villages in Greenland talking to the locals about Star Wars and Greenlands role in it.

They are facing terribly harsh conditions.

Below is a short backgrounder on the tour and if you want to find out more visit the Greenpeace UK website at <http://www.greenpeace.org.uk> where regular updates and some amazing photos are regularly posted.

Any media you think may be interested please let them know.

Cheers
William

GREENPEACE EXPEDITION IN WEST-GREENLAND

Greenland can make a difference for global security by saying no to Star Wars March 2002

Five Greenpeace campaigners, two sleds, 16 dogs and 400 kilogrammes of equipment have started a dog sled expedition in the Diskobay area of Greenland. The Greenpeace expedition is in Greenland to discuss US missile defence plans with the people of Greenland. The expedition will aim to visit as many towns and villages in the Diskobay area as possible during march.

This expedition is part of the ongoing Greenpeace campaign against US Star Wars plans for the Thule early-warning radar base on Greenland. The campaign, which started in August last year when the Greenpeace ship MV Arctic Sunrise visited several towns and villages along the Greenland west coast as well as Thule itself. More than 1200 Greenlanders visited the ship during its tour and several gave video-testimonies against Star Wars. These testimonies have now been compiled and will be shown to decision makers in Washington later on this year.

Temperatures can be extreme at this time of year and natural obstacles and ice-conditions can make this journey very difficult. Temperatures can range from -15 to -45 Celsius. (5 to -49 Fahrenheit) with the wind chill factor lowering the temperature to as much as -80 Celsius.

The expedition will have to cross several difficult natural obstacles on the way. For example, the famous ice-fjord at the end of the Jacobshaven-glacier is the most active glacier in the world. It moves 25-35 meters a day, and every day it sprays out ice which equals New York's freshwater consumption in one year. Crossing this will be done with local guides but it will prove one of the most challenging obstacles for the expedition team.

The US has not yet officially asked Greenland and Denmark for permission to use the Thule- base as part of Star Wars. But it is only a matter of time before they do as designing, developing and building the system of which Thule will play a crucial role is well under way. This year alone, 7.8 billion US dollars will be spent on the Star Wars programme on the system and another missile test is being prepared for March 15.

So if Greenland and Denmark want to have their say it is now.

William Peden Greenpeace International Disarmament Campaigner c/o Greenpeace UK Canonbury Villas London, United Kingdom N1 2PN phone +44207 865 8245 fax: +44207 865 8201 general mobile: +447801 212 992 US mobile: +1 202 285 9130

"Stop Star Wars - No New Nuclear Arms Race"

----

Anti-anti-war crowd dreams up a disloyal opposition

Wed Mar 13
Walter Shapiro
USA TODAY
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20020313/pl_usatoday/3935754&printer=1

WASHINGTON -- On the battlefield, all wars are different. But on the home front, all wars slowly begin to resemble Vietnam.

The best evidence to support that second assertion was a Tuesday morning news conference called to herald the formation of a muscular new organization, ''Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.''

Led by former Education secretary Bill Bennett, the indefatigable crusader for virtue and conservative values, the group stands ready to wage holy war against those who would weaken America's resolve to fight terrorism. In his opening statement, Bennett pledged to take this fight ''to campuses, salons, oratorical societies, editorial pages and television.''

Thirty years ago, similar groups used to make pilgrimages to the Nixon White House to buttress the president's spirits during the dark days of Vietnam. Back then, they were the right wing's answer to the peace movement. But these days, there is no anti-war ferment in America, aside from a handful of college students who naively believe that world peace can be achieved through sugar-free bake sales. The latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 91% of Americans approve of our military action against terrorism.

So who is the target of Bennett's heavy rhetorical artillery? Who is weakening America's resolve? Are we back to blaming George McGovern and Jane Fonda?

When pressed for specifics, Bennett began by fingering Jimmy Carter for criticizing George W. Bush's ''axis of evil'' speech as counterproductive. The former president's remarks seemed far too mild to justify Bennett's angry response. ''He's wrong, and those who rally to him weaken the resolve of others,'' Bennett said. Continuing his scattershot answer, Bennett then read aloud intemperate comments by left-wing House Democrats Maxine Waters of California and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, backbenchers who have minimal influence in the national Democratic Party.

As rogues' galleries go, it was an innocuous display. Bennett and his allies, former CIA (news - web sites) director James Woolsey and former Reagan Defense official Frank Gaffney, seem determined to create an anti-war movement in order to defeat it. This belief in a phantom opposition reflects their own version of the ''Vietnam syndrome.''

Bennett even felt compelled to warn, ''There was more unanimity and less dissent in the early days of the Vietnam War in the early '60s than there is now.'' And in a further echo of Vietnam, Gaffney chimed in to raise concern about some outlandish future congressional effort to cut off funding for the war effort.

A close reading of recent polls does suggest that for all his popularity as a wartime leader, Bush has yet to fully cement the case for expanding the war beyond al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

In the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, only a bare majority of those surveyed (52%) back mounting ''a long-term war to defeat global terrorist networks.'' In contrast, 40% prefer to limit military efforts to punishing the ''specific terrorist groups'' responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

These wisps of doubt about defining America's war aims too broadly worry those beating the drums for immediate military action against Iraq. At the news conference, Woolsey predicted that a decision to take on Saddam Hussein would prompt ''a much more contentious argument than the decision to go into Afghanistan (news - web sites).'' When it comes to Iraq, part of the problem may be Bush's mixed record as explainer-in-chief. Even though the president warned Monday that ''inaction is not an option,'' he has yet to lay out the full implications of an all-out war to topple Saddam. Here are three areas that eventually need to be addressed:

- The morality of a pre-emptive attack. Until now, America's unquestioned justification has been that we are responding to the worst terrorist assault in modern history. But the administration has not offered any evidence that Saddam was implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks. Democratic nations do not traditionally go to war without a direct provocation, such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. But despite Saddam's dangerous penchant for weapons of mass destruction, his overt actions have not markedly changed since he was left in power at the end of the Gulf War. Are we ready to wage the first pre-emptive war in our history?

- The risks of a final war in Iraq. If we go into Iraq, Saddam will be under no illusion that he can survive defeat. In that ultimate struggle, what is to prevent Saddam from employing his presumed biological and chemical arsenal on the battlefield or using it in Scud missiles aimed at Israel? Deterrence doesn't work if one's adversary is facing death.

After Saddam, what? Are we prepared to commit tens of thousands of U.S. troops to occupy Iraq? Can we envision an alternative government that could inspire credibility? Or are we going to war along with a few allies and a handful of Iraqi exile groups and hoping for the best? Given our mixed record in fostering post-Taliban stability in Afghanistan, these are not idle questions.

A full-throated national dialogue on Iraq will not weaken our resolve. For the true lesson of Vietnam is that the lack of honest debate in Washington is what undermines national unity.

----

Ten Brazilian Dam Protesters Hospitalized

March 13, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2002/2002L-03-13-03.html

SAO PAULO, Brazil, Ten anti-dam protestors were hospitalized on Tuesday after clashes with the police in Rio Grande do Sul state in the far south of Brazil, according to a report from the Brazilian branch of the conservation group International Rivers Network.

The demonstrators are part of Brazil's Movement of Dam-Affected People (MAB) which is engaged in a national campaign of protests against Brazil's hydropower energy policy.

Four MAB supporters, including two well known Catholic priests, were injured by police rubber bullets at the Barra Grande dam site on the Uruguay River. The priests were among the 500 people marching to the dam worksite. They were hospitalized in Esmeralda.

The other six activists were hospitalized after being beaten by military police who attacked protestors at a public meeting at an electric agency in the state capital, Porto Alegre.

The mobilization marks the week of March 14, the Fifth International Day of Action Against Dams and for Rivers, Water and Life.

Itaipu Dam in southern Brazil. Its hydroelectric power plant is the largest in the world. (Photo courtesy AmericaTravelling)

Also on Tuesday, MAB led a march of more than 500 people to the site of the Inter-American Development Bank's annual meeting in Fortaleza in northeast Brazil. The bank plans to finance new dams in Brazil.

Other protests took place in 11 states, including Minas Gerais and Mato Grosso, where MAB is camped out in front of the governor's palace to try to meet with state political leaders.

MAB will protest in Brasília on Thursday and present a series of demands to the federal government.

The group is demanding that the government halt subsidies to energy intensive industries, such as aluminum production, and instead provide electricity to rural communities. Aluminum companies, including multinationals Alcoa and Billiton, plan to build a series of huge dams in the Brazilian Amazon.

Also on Thursday, a protest in the city of Altamira on the Xingu river, a major Amazon tributary, will target plans to build Belo Monte, which would be the world's third largest hydropower plant.

Opponents say that Belo Monte would only be economically feasible if at least four more reservoirs are built to store water upstream. These dams would flood over 10,000 square kilometers of the Amazon rainforest, affecting indigenous communities and endangered species, the International Rivers Network says.

The anti-dam protesters are urging the government to provide incentives for improved energy efficiency and energy conservation, biomass and co-generation, and wind and solar energy.

MAB is demanding fair compensation for people who have lost their lands and livelihoods as a result of dam construction. Tens of thousands of families have received either inadequate compensation or no compensation at all, and have been forcefully expelled from productive lands to regions with barren soils.

MAB is calling on the Brazilian government to support these families with development programs which encourage small-scale farming communities.

Tomorrow's International Day of Action Against Dams, and for Rivers, Water, and Life, will be marked by events in 35 countries worldwide. Details of these events are online at: http://www.irn.org/dayofaction.

----

NATIONAL VIEQUES SUMMIT FOR PEACE WITH JUSTICE
Fri-Sat, April 12-13, NYC

for more information read on or go to:
http://www.afsc.org/lac/puertorico.htm
http://www.viequeslibre.addr.com/summit/summit.htm http://www.viequessummit.org

Objective:

The National Vieques Summit will bring together community activists, environmentalists, labor leaders, religious leaders, cultural workers, artists and elected officials who have been in solidarity with and who have shown commitment to the struggle for peace with justice in Vieques. The summit seeks to reaffirm the commitment of those gathered and reactivate the national-international campaign to work in tandem with the leading organizations of Vieques that will focus on the points of unity outlined below. The National Vieques Summit will work to achieve the following:

(1) Outline a strategy and redefine a work plan to guide Vieques solidarity efforts in the United States;

(2) Produce a written communication (e.g. resolution, position paper, etc) endorsed by summit participants to be presented before the President of the United States.

Points of unity: Summit supporters and participants will unite in solidarity around the following:

1. Understand that the central objective of the struggle in the island municipality of Vieques is the universally accepted 4 point program of demilitarization, decontamination, devolution of land, and sustainable economic development;

2. Recognize that the struggle for peace with justice in Vieques is a human rights issue that has had serious ramifications of genocide, and ecological and environmental degradation;

3. Endorse non-violent, peaceful civil disobedience, and other efforts in that spirit, as a strategy to stop military training exercises, demand immediate cessation of such exercises and denounce the occupation of the island municipality of Vieques by the U.S. Navy.

The National Vieques Summit will have as its priority the above outlined points of unity. Organizations, individuals or elected officials interested in supporting and/or participating in the summit can address any issue(s) that fall outside of the outside of the purview of the points of unity at the information and literature space located at the summit. Please call to reserve.

The Summit is committed to the inclusion of any person or organization committed to peace and justice independently of their political affiliation, tendency or preference regarding the future political status of Puerto Rico.

For more information: Tel: (212) 348 8004
E-mail: viequessummit@yahoo.com
CUMBRE NACIONAL PARA

--------

NEW online news service from PN

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002
From: Ippy D <editorial@peacenews.info>

Hello lovely people all over the world

On Friday 1 March Peace News begins offering a limited news service on the website http://www.peacenews.info Please note: This is a separate and additional service to the existing online publishing of our print magazine

We hope, in time, that this will be a forum for both publicly displaying news from the international peace/antimilitarist movements, but also for inspiring and sharing our activist and campaigning tactics within our community - a place we can meet to hear about what specifically nonviolent, peace/antimilitarist activists are doing.

Unlike the rather fantastic indymedia network (see http://www.indymedia.org), this service is provided by a non-profit company (Peace News Ltd) based in London and has a relatively narrow focus. News stories cannot be submitted directly to the site (as a Ltd company we are open to being sued by big business etc under the notoriously unfair English libel laws!), but please send your stories to editorial@peacenews.info with the first word of the subject line "NEWS".

As well as coming directly from our London office, news will also be posted by a group of volunteer stringers around the world (if you are interested in becoming a PN news stringer drop us a line at editorial@peacenews.info to discuss becoming a "trusted user" of the system). The amount, type and freshness of news on the site reflects a combination of the type and frequency of news submitted to us, and the capacity we have at any given time for actually publishing stories. We hope this capacity will increase over time and with more enthusiastic volunteer input!

This area of our site is dedicated to bringing you relevant short news items from all over the world. It is intended to be both supplementary and complementary to our quarterly magazine - Peace News - which is published in London by Peace News Ltd.

Editorial objectives

We aim to publish short news stories written by nonviolent activists and campaigners from around the world which meet our editorial objectives.

Peace News' editorial objectives:

1. To support and connect nonviolent and anti-militarist movements around the world;

2. To provide a forum where such movements can develop common perspectives;

3. To take up and promote issues suitable for international campaigning;

4. To promote pacifist analysis by testing assumptions against contemporary events;

5. To promote and give critical support to nonviolent revolution.

Criteria for news stories

As well as meeting our editorial objectives, we like short, snappy news stories which reflect the concerns and activities of nonviolent activists and campaigners. The general kind of "categories" of news we will publish include:

- Conscientious Objection
- Antimilitarism
- Anti-war
- Arms trade
- Environmental
- Peace prisoners
- Nuclear (waste, power, weapons, testing etc)
- Other (peace, general)

We particularly welcome news stories from/about people living outside of western Europe and the US.

Send your news and pictured to editorial@peacenews.info

- Texts should be submitted in English and be no more than 300 words long. They should include: a headline; brief outline of text (max 50 words); the author (not compulsory); any contact details for groups mentioned in the text; the source and URL of source; the news story itself.

- Images may be submitted as either colour or black and white jpegs. Files should be no bigger than 60k. Please include a caption and any credit.

How you can help Peace News online news service

You can help this project by

- submitting news stories

- becoming a Peace News online news service volunteer

- placing a link to our site from yours (drop a line to webmaster@peacenews.info to let us know - and for reciprocation purposes)...

The small print

- Peace News does not necessarily actively endorse or support groups or individuals posting news on the site.

- News will only be posted if we feel it meets our editorial objectives and does not threaten the political or practical integrity of the company.

Peace News Ltd reserves the right to:

- edit all material submitted

- refuse to print any material without recourse

- remove published news items at any point without recourse


-------

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

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