------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Nuclear Weapons Talk on the Rise
Lithuanian govt says needs EU help on nuke
Jospin's support of nuclear power angers Greens
India to help Nepal crush Maoist rebellion
North Korea asks Russia to build nuclear plant
Joint exercises rile North Korea
Russia Buries Last of Kursk Victims
UN Agency Appeals for Funds to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
Russia and U.S. Narrow Differences in Arms Talks
U.S. Will Hold 2,400 Warheads in Short - Term Reserve
America's dangerous nuclear posture
Nuclear madmen in the White House
Meeting on Indian Point's Fate Draws Overflow Crowd From Both Sides
Praxair cleanup raises specter of deadly toxins
Report criticizes agency's policy regarding release of radioactive scrap
Bush oil drilling plan facing Senate defeat, says survey
Conscription: A Tradition of Slavery
Panel OKs attack-probe plan

MILITARY
Americans hunt for Chechens in Afghanistan
Prisoners Freed From Afghan Prison
U.S. Forces Find Bomb Factory
Afghans Say U.S. Troops Abused Them
Islamic law declared illegal in Nigeria
U.S. Rules Out Training Indonesia Army
Al-Qa'ida biological weapons laboratory is 'found in Afghanistan cave'
Troops Find Suspected Biowarfare Lab in Afghanistan
Boeing Expects $9.7 Billion Plane Order
Weapons Chief Refuses to Step Down
China missile test
Pro-China center: Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Hank Stackpole
US Seeks to Protect Colombia Pipeline
EU Faces Calls to Boost Defense
EU Sees Need to Boost Military
Kashmir Grenade Explosions Wound 52
Baghdad Launches Charm Offensive
Pentagon official says no Iraq nuclear evidence needed
U.N. Inspector Tells Council Work in Iraq Could Be Fast
Us: UN Should Ignore Iraq Questions
Mideast Peace Talks Resume
Land mines have no place in modern militaries
U.S. Troops Surrounded by Minefields
We didn't do it: Peru's Shining Path, Tupac Amaru rebels
Japanese Accuse Former Russian Envoy
FBI Moves to Prevent Espionage
Norway Pushing for Tight Arms Embargo on Somalia
Poor countries welcome UN anti-poverty drive but want to see action
USD Aldridge Media Roundtable on Acquisition Program Updates
Hellfire shot
'Q' comes to anti-terror war
Tribunal Rules Aim To Shield Witnesses
Pentagon's Tribunal Plan
Taiwanese Officials Confiscate Copies of Magazine in Raid

POLICE / PRISONERS
U.S. rules for military terror trials draw criticism
U.S. Imposes New Curbs on Weapons Data
Panel ties funding to Ridge testimony
Simulation trains area hazmat teams
'Delayed, Defiled and Demeaned'

ENERGY AND OTHER
Senate Approves Weakened Renewable Standard
Senate backs more electricity from renewable sources
Senate Defeats GOP Effort to Kill Alternative Power Clause
United Tech sells fuel cell plants to Verizon
UN Warns of Severe Water Shortages
Energy Dept. Says It Tried To Engage Green Groups

ACTIVISTS
Activists stop Sellafield nuclear fuel train
With Carrots and Sticks, China Quiets Protesters
China Protest Suspended in Hope Leaders Freed
Nongovernmental Organizations Show Their Growing Power
Bangladesh police battle opposition protesters
Student Protesters Foul U.S. - S.Korea Landing Drill



-------- NUCLEAR

Nuclear Weapons Talk on the Rise

By Christopher Newton
Associated Press Writer
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1024-2002Mar22?language=printer
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Danger.html

WASHINGTON -- In rhetoric and reality, nations around the world seem to be creeping toward a new military philosophy that says it is acceptable to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield or to settle regional disputes.

Everywhere, there are signs that "the unthinkable" is being redefined to accommodate new anxieties and advancing technology.

President Bush and the British government have warned terrorists with weapons of mass destruction that "all options" are open for a military response.

Military officials in both India and Pakistan have openly discussed how their nuclear weapons would prove superior to their neighbors in a conflict. The CIA believes North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one nuclear weapon and still has designs to claim South Korea.

Those who watch attitudes toward nuclear weapons say the "temperature" is rising.

"The world is searching for a new status quo, that will involve new players and new dangers," said Ret. Army Col. Daniel Smith, who is chief of research at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.

"Our nuclear posture seems to move us closer toward use of nuclear weapons in a conflict even against a country that has no nuclear weapons of any kind," he said. "The belief that countries that do develop chemical or biological weapons would be able to blackmail the United States is prompting us to look into ways to change the equation."

Part of what is causing the renewed discussion of nuclear weapons is the idea that they can be scaled down and used in a limited fashion, so as not to bring about a doomsday scenario.

The United States demolished the Japanese city of Hiroshima with an atomic bomb that had an explosive yield of 13 kilotons - equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT. In its arsenal now are weapons that dwarf those - some with explosive yields of many megatons (millions of tons of TNT). The nation wants to develop weapons about a quarter of the size of those used in World War II.

The Defense Department has asked Congress for permission to develop such bombs for demolishing fortified, underground military facilities.

But even if the nuclear weapons are smaller, the United States is setting a harmful precedent by developing them, some say.

Atomic pioneer Hans Bethe and fellow Nobel laureates Dudley Herschbach and John Polanyi condemned the plan for ending the taboo against using nuclear weapons "beyond their Cold War function of deterring a Soviet attack."

The threat of nuclear weapons being used in regional conflicts has also never been greater. Rivals India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998.

Since then, the situation has worsened.

The conflict over Kashmir, a territory that sits along the border between the countries, brought the neighbors to the brink of war this year.

This week CIA Director George Tenet said, "The chance of war between these two nuclear-armed states is higher than at any point since 1971."

"If India were to conduct large-scale offensive operations into Pakistani Kashmir, Pakistan might retaliate with strikes of its own in the belief that its nuclear deterrent would limit the scope of an Indian counterattack. We are deeply concerned, however, that a conventional war, once begun, could escalate into nuclear confrontation."

Even in a regional war, the effect could be horrific.

M.V. Ramana, a Princeton University physicist from India, calculated that a 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Bombay would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 people in the short term.

There are also trouble spots in East Asia.

In late January, a CIA report assessed that "North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons."

President Bush signaled his concern about North Korea two months ago when he said the country was part of an "axis of evil" together with Iraq and Iran. This week, the administration said North Korean officials need "to comply with their international obligations and agreements."

And some experts even worry that the long-standing cold war between China and Taiwan could reach the point where small-scale nuclear weapons could be used one day.

There is so much talk about the possibility of nuclear weapons use that even Britain, which usually remains silent in nuclear posturing, felt the need to talk about its arsenal.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and leaders of other "states of concern" should be aware of Britain's willingness to use nuclear weapons if circumstances demanded, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said Wednesday.

"There are clearly some states who would be deterred by the fact that the U.K. possesses nuclear weapons and has the willingness and ability to use them in appropriate circumstances," Hoon said. But some states less friendly to Britain, "I would be much less confident about."

Some of those who oppose the development of nuclear weapons say the United States is worsening the situation.

"The approach of this administration has been to throw arms control out the window and attempt to obtain overwhelmingly superior force against everyone, through new weapons and missile defense," said Randall Forsberg, director for the Institute for Defense and Disarmament.

"That is going to cause small nations to develop weapons, not stop them."

On the Net:
Center for Defense Information: http://www.cdi.org/
Institute for Defense and Disarmament: http://www.idds.org/

-------- europe

Lithuanian govt says needs EU help on nuke

REUTERS LITHUANIA:
March 22, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/15144/story.htm

VILNIUS - Lithuania's European Union negotiators said yesterday the country would not agree to close its Chernobyl-style nuclear plant by the EU's deadline of 2009 without a solid committment for financial help.

The statement came after meetings between Lithuania's EU negotiators and EU officials in Brussels, who consider the plant dangerous since its reactors are similar to those at Chernobyl, sight in 1986 of the world's worst civilian nuclear disaster.

EU-aspirant Lithuania has already agreed to close the first of Ignalina's two reactors by 2005 and has received over 200 million euros in pledges of support from the international community, with the bulk of it coming from Europe.

The EU has made Lithuanian membership in the 15-nation bloc contingent on an agreement on when to shut Soviet-built Ignalina's second reactor - which Brussels wants done by 2009.

But Lithuanian officials say they need an iron-clad agreement for financial support, otherwise the country cannot afford to close it alone.

Lithuania's European Committee said in a statement current estimates see the costs of closing Ignalina hitting three billion euros ($2.65 billion) over the coming decades - which equals about 23 percent of the country's 2000 gross domestic product.

"Lithuania will not undertake any obligations on a closing date (for Ignalina) until there are clear financial sources to cover the decommissioning costs," the committee said.

Lithuania aims to finish its EU talks this year and take part in the EU's planned 2004 enlargement.

Ignalina, currently supplies Lithuania with over 70 percent of its electricity. The EU has already proposed 70 million euros ($61.57 million) per year in aid in 2004-2006, but Lithuanian officials say that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Lithuania's government is expected to vote next week on a resolution to revise the national energy strategy, linking any obligations to close the second reactor to long-term financial committments from the EU.

-------- france

Jospin's support of nuclear power angers Greens

Sat Mar 23, 2002
AP
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020323/ap_wo_en_po/france_elections_nuclear_3

PARIS - French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin has angered the Green Party by saying he is committed to maintaining France's reliance on nuclear power.

In an interview published Saturday in several regional newspapers, Jospin said he "wasn't in favor of France giving up nuclear power" because the country would become too dependent on outside energy sources.

Jospin, a Socialist, is a top contender in France's presidential race. If elected, he would likely team with other leftist parties to form a coalition government, such as the one currently in place, which includes the Green and Communist parties.

The Greens say they won't take part in a coalition unless its leaders work to phase out nuclear energy - which represents three-fourths of the nation's power. However, the four other parties in the coalition support nuclear energy.

Noel Mamere, the Green Party's presidential candidate, said Jospin's remark amounted to "a declaration of war against the Greens."

"Perhaps (Jospin) just wrecked the future of the leftist coalition," Mamere told Le Monde newspaper.

Jospin and incumbent President Jacques Chirac, a conservative, are expected to be the main contenders in presidential elections to be held in two rounds, April 21 and May 5.

-------- india / nepal

India to help Nepal crush Maoist rebellion

By Y.P. Rajesh
Friday March 22, 1:21 AM
Reuters
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-96199.html

NEW DELHI - India on Thursday pledged neighbouring Nepal intelligence information, equipment and training to help crush a violent Maoist revolt in the impoverished Himalayan kingdom.

A senior Indian foreign ministry official told reporters the offer was made during talks between visiting Nepali Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and Indian leaders who backed the ongoing military offensive against the Maoist rebels.

"We offered to cooperate by way of exchange of information, cooperation between intelligence agencies, improved surveillance along the border and offers of equipment and training," the official, who did not want to be identified, said.

The official did not say what kind of equipment it would provide to Nepal and Nepali officials have not detailed the type of Indian help they are seeking.

But New Delhi recently provided two helicopters to Nepal in its fight against the rebels as it lacks an air force and Thursday's promise of equipment and training was the first public announcement of security cooperation between the two countries.

The announcement came as Nepal said its army killed 15 rebels in its anti-insurgency drive while one soldier died in an ambush.

The Indian official said New Delhi also conveyed its concerns about allegations that Nepali territory was being used by Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to infiltrate India and the need to stop it.

TOP REQUEST

Enlisting Indian help to crush the Maoists, who are fighting to replace Nepal's constitutional monarchy with a communist regime, was the top item on Deuba's agenda on his six-day visit to India, the first by a Nepali premier in nearly two years.

Deuba met Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani, External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh, Defence Minister George Fernandes and was also slated to call later on President K.R. Narayanan and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, the Indian foreign ministry spokeswoman told a news briefing.

Landlocked Nepal, ringed by India on three sides and with the Himalayan mountains on the north, is struggling to quell a six-year-old Maoist rebellion that has taken a heavy toll on one of the 10 poorest countries of the world.

Over 2,900 people have died in the conflict as Nepal's poorly-equipped security forces battle the rebels.

The insurgency has deepened Nepal's economic woes, hurt tourism and further threatened the country's political stability shaken last June after popular King Birendra and other kin were slain by his son Prince Dipendra in a drunken shooting spree.

The two countries also agreed that each other's territory should not be used for terrorist activities, Rao said, adding they also agreed to strengthen a 1953 extradition treaty.

Kathmandu has in the past alleged the Maoist insurgents received support and training from leftist rebels in India and said this had to be stopped.

India, in turn, has complained that its long and open border with Nepal has been used by Pakistan intelligence agents to carry out acts of terror against New Delhi.

Rao said the two nations also agreed to seek to resolve a row that erupted after Kathmandu accused India of building dams on rivers flowing into India from Nepal, causing flooding in Nepal. New Delhi denies the allegations.

"Both sides agreed a joint technical survey should be undertaken and thereafter the matter resolved," she said.

-------- korea

North Korea asks Russia to build nuclear plant

REUTERS RUSSIA:
March 22, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/15145/story.htm

MOSCOW - North Korea, branded part of an "axis of evil" by U.S. President George W. Bush, has asked Moscow to build a nuclear power station, but Russian officials said yesterday no deal had been struck.

A spokesman for Industry Minister Ilya Klebanov told Reuters that a high-ranking North Korean delegation, visiting Moscow earlier this week, had "expressed a desire for Russia to build a nuclear power station in North Korea".

But he said the meeting had been only an exchange of opinions and no formal documents had been signed. Pyongyang also asked Russia for help in upgrading infrastructure and energy plants built with Moscow's assistance in the Soviet era.

The talks between Moscow and Pyongyang come as Washington said for the first time that it was unable to confirm North Korea was abiding by a 1994 agreement designed to contain its weapons programmes.

Last week North Korea threatened to pull out of the deal altogether in response to a U.S. nuclear review that sketched contingency plans for U.S. use of nuclear weapons against seven countries, including North Korea.

The review also singled out Russia as a possible target.

Under the 1994 agreement, North Korea was to halt its nuclear programme in exchange for oil and Western-built light-water reactors, whose fuel is harder to convert to military use.

Pyongyang has often said it is keen to take reactors from Russia, which has also supplied India and Iran with light-water reactors.

Russia had in the early 1980s agreed to build a nuclear plant in North Korea, but the deal was put on hold indefinately after the demise of Soviet Union in 1991.

Russia established ties with South Korea later that year, angering the Communist North and chilling relations with its former ally. But a visit to Russia by North Korea's reclusive Stalinist leader Kim Jong-il in August 2001 served to rekindle neighbourly links.

----

Joint exercises rile North Korea

By Jong-heon Lee
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020322-13893817.htm

SEOUL - South Korea and the United States yesterday began their largest joint military exercises since the Korean War despite protests from North Korea, which termed the exercises a declaration of war.

Military officials in Seoul said the exercises were purely defensive, designed to evaluate coordination, procedures and systems used by U.S. and South Korean forces.

North Korea criticized the drills as preparations for invasion. A North Korean Foreign Ministry statement claimed the exercises were part of "very dangerous war gambles to seize the chance to provoke a nuclear war" targeting the North.

The drills are "a declaration of war," the ministry added, and the North would "wipe out the aggressors to the last one" if war erupted.

The weeklong exercises merge for the first time two annual joint military maneuvers, a drill called Reception, Staging and Onward Movement Integration and an outdoor field maneuver code-named Foal Eagle. The purpose of the dual maneuvers was training efficiency, said Lee Ferguson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military command in Seoul.

The war games, which will continue through Wednesday, will be the biggest since the 1950-53 Korean War, Miss Ferguson said. Exercises involve the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and parts of U.S. forces from bases around the Pacific region as well as 650,000 South Korean soldiers. Most of the exercises will be computer simulations under the supervision of the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command.

[Meanwhile, Seoul yesterday confirmed the arrival of 24 more North Korean refugees, days after 25 Northerners reached South Korea after a dramatic dash for freedom through China and the Philippines, Reuters news agency reported.

[The South's National Intelligence Service said most of the 24 North Koreans had fled their country in February 1997 and made their way to South Korea through third countries. It gave no details on their escape routes or arrival times.

[It said the latest arrivals have taken the number of North Koreans to have reached South Korea this year to 162. Last year, a record 583 Northerners defected to the South.]

The joint military exercises come amid growing signs of tension on the Korean peninsula largely because of a stalemate in ties between the United States and North Korea. President Bush dubbed the Pyongyang government part of "an axis of evil," along with Iran and Iraq, in his January State of the Union address.

To ease tensions, members of the U.S.-led U.N. command offered to meet with North Korean military officials to formally notify Pyongyang of the purpose of the military exercises. The North Koreans declined.

-------- russia

Russia Buries Last of Kursk Victims

By REUTERS
March 23, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-russia-submarine.html

St. PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - A naval chief hailed the sailors killed on the Kursk as heroes who had prevented atomic disaster as Russia laid to rest on Saturday the last of the bodies recovered from the submarine's wreck.

The captain of the nuclear-powered submarine, Gennady Lyachin, was among seven victims buried at St. Petersburg's Seraphimovskaya cemetery, joining 25 crew already buried there.

``We bid farewell today to heroes,'' Navy commander Vladimir Kuroyedov told reporters after the funeral.

``In sacrificing their lives, they saved hundreds of thousands of people in northwestern Russia and Scandinavia, preventing a possible atomic explosion of the reactor.''

In fact, the factory that designed the Kursk says its reactors shut off automatically, suggesting the crew may have had little role in preventing a possible nuclear accident.

The Kursk's entire 118 crew was lost when the submarine sank in the Barents' Sea in August 2000. A week-long rescue effort and its eventual failure led to a nationwide outpouring of soul-searching and grief.

About 1,000 mourners laid flowers on the coffins which were displayed in a hall before they were brought outside and lowered into graves. An honor guard of naval officers wearing black overcoats fired a gun salute.

Including the seven laid to rest on Saturday, Russia has identified and buried 115 bodies of Kursk crew members. The three remaining crew members are believed to be mutilated beyond recognition and unrecoverable.

The hull of the submarine, separated from the bow, was brought to the surface last year in a dramatic salvage operation.

An investigation has focused on a faulty torpedo as the cause of the blast that sank the Kursk, although the conclusion has not yet been declared final.

Last year, President Vladimir Putin demoted top commanders of the northern fleet citing its poor state, but not linking the moves directly to blame for the Kursk.

-------- terrorism

UN Agency Appeals for Funds to Combat Nuclear Terrorism

March 22, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2002/2002L-03-22-02.html

VIENNA, Austria, The United Nations agency responsible for inspections and verifications of nuclear facilities around the world has approved an action plan to upgrade worldwide protection against acts of nuclear terrorism. The International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors is now calling on governments to contribute to funding of the plan "as a matter of urgency."

In approving the plan, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) acknowledged that national measures for protecting nuclear material and facilities are "uneven in their substance and application."

IAEA safeguards inspectors at work (Photo courtesy IAEA)

In his remarks to the Board March 19, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said, "All of us are vulnerable because all of us use nuclear materials and radioactive materials can easily move across borders."

As an independent intergovernmental, science and technology based organization that serves as the global focal point for nuclear cooperation, the IAEA admitted, "There is wide recognition that the international physical protection regime needs to be strengthened." The IAEA has calculated its annual funding needs at $12 million to carry out its action plan and an additional $20 million per year to enable the agency to respond to urgent situations that require immediate security upgrades.

A number of countries have already contributed to fund the plan, including Australia ($100,000), Great Britain ($350,000), Japan ($500,000), the Netherlands (EUR 250,000), Slovenia (EUR 14,000), and the United States ($1 million).

UN inspection shows damaged Tammuz-2 reactor at Tuwaitha, Iraq. (Photo courtesy Mouchkin/IAEA)

A number of other countries announced in-kind support to the plan, including Finland, France, Germany, India, Romania, and Turkey. Other countries expressed hope to finance or provide support to the plan in the near future.

Also, in November 2001, the United States and the Nuclear Threat Initiative each pledged $1.2 million for the fund.

ElBaradei emphasized that these new activities will not "diminish the primary responsibility of the state on all matters of security; rather they are designed to supplement and reinforce national efforts in areas where international co-operation is indispensable to the strengthening of nuclear security."

"This modest investment in nuclear security will bring benefits for all states," he said.

The IAEA currently safeguards over 900 facilities in 70 countries on a regular safeguards budget of approximately US$80 million per year.

-------- treaties

Russia and U.S. Narrow Differences in Arms Talks

March 22, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-arms-nuclear-talks.html

GENEVA - Russia and the United States said on Friday they had narrowed differences in two days of talks on a pact to cut nuclear arms which they hope to sign in May.

``We have reduced the field of our disagreements,'' Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov said at the end of talks here with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, their third meeting in recent weeks.

``But there are still two or three important questions which will decide whether the negotiations will be completed in time for the (May) summit,'' he told journalists in Geneva.

President Bush and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have said they want to slash their countries' strategic arsenals of between 6,000 and 7,000 nuclear warheads by some two-thirds by 2012.

They want to seal the deal, which will also include a declaration on the countries' new strategic relationship in a post-Cold War world, at their summit in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

``The talks were very productive. We made progress (although) we still have a number of issues still to resolve,'' Bolton told a news conference.

He said Secretary of State Colin Powell and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov would continue the discussions in Madrid in early April, with he and Mamedov due to meet again in Moscow later in the month.

Mamedov said one of the sticking points was how the warhead count should be made, with Russia holding out for the same system used in the earlier START strategic weapon treaties.

``The main problem is a secure reduction -- how to make sure that a reduction is real and not just on paper,'' he said.

Washington wants only those missiles that are ''operationally deployed'' to be included, whereas the START treaties adopted a wider definition based on the operational capability of a launching system.

``The U.S. wants to change but Russia proposes that we use the same procedure for the new treaty because it is very simple, mutually agreed and verifiable,'' Mamedov said.

On the question of whether warheads taken out of service must be destroyed, or whether they can merely be stockpiled as Washington wants, Bolton said that there had been progress.

``We have not reached an agreement, but we have fully explained to their satisfaction what we have in mind,'' Bolton said, adding that previous arms treaties had never raised the issue.

``I think that we understand that in order to reach an agreement in May we need to focus on the subject that is of most concern -- the operationally deployed warheads,'' he said.

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

U.S. Will Hold 2, 400 Warheads in Short - Term Reserve

By REUTERS
March 22, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-arms-nuclear-usa.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020322/pl_nm/arms_nuclear_usa_dc_7

WASHINGTON - The United States plans to have 2,400 strategic nuclear warheads in a reserve ``responsive force'' in the year 2012, on top of the 1,700 to 2,200 warheads it usually talks about in public, arms control experts say.

The experts, who had a briefing from U.S. officials earlier this month, said the Bush administration also planned to aim for the 2,200-warhead figure, the upper limit of the range which it announced in November and expects to enshrine in an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin this May.

Besides the 2,400 warheads in the ``responsive force,'' the United States would keep many thousands more in an inactive reserve the exact size of which is hard to predict, they said.

The term ``responsive force,'' which appears in this year's Nuclear Posture Review, refers to warheads which are not physically present on their launch vehicles -- whether on missiles, in bombers or on submarines.

But many of the 2,400 warheads in the responsive force could be deployed relatively quickly, some within a matter of days, others within weeks or months, according to leaked extracts from the Nuclear Posture Review. All could be ready for use within three years of a decision to prepare them.

U.S. officials have said in public that under its plans to reduce the U.S. operational nuclear arsenal some warheads will go into storage and will not be destroyed.

NO SIGNIFICANT DECREASE

But until the briefing this month, they had not said how large the responsive force was likely to be in 2012.

The National Resources Defense Council, in a detailed analysis of the nuclear review, concluded that by the year 2012, the end of the decade of promised reductions, the United States will probably have much the same number of nuclear warheads as it has in 2002.

``In a decade with only one warhead type scheduled for retirement (approximately 600 W62s), and with a modest new production capability planned, the number will not decrease significantly,'' the analysis said.

Detailed tables show that the total U.S. arsenal, included tactical nuclear warheads which are often overlooked, could decline from 10,656 in 2002 to 9,980 in 2012.

Members of Congress with an interest in arms control have cast doubt on the Bush administration's commitment to reducing the nuclear arsenal and accused it of inadvertently risking proliferation by giving Russia an incentive to store its own warheads, possibly under imperfect security conditions.

``What kind of an example do we set for other nations when we say we are reducing our strategic nuclear stockpile to 1,700 or 2,200 nuclear warheads when what we really are thinking of doing is moving nuclear warheads from missiles and bombers to warehouses where they could be quickly and easily brought back to service?'' asked Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat.

ARMS TALKS IN GENEVA

``This approach surely will make it highly unlikely that Russia will destroy its nuclear warheads. If we store our nuclear weapons, Russia is likely to follow suit. And if there are more warheads retained by Russia, the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons will increase,'' Levin said.

U.S. and Russian negotiators ended another round of talks on a nuclear arms agreement in Geneva on Friday and said they had narrowed the differences between them.

``But there are still two or three important questions which will decide whether the negotiations will be completed in time for the (May) summit,'' the head of the Russian delegation, Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov, told journalists.

Mamedov and U.S. Under Secretary of State John Bolton said differences remained over how to count operational arsenals and over the question of storing rather than destroying warheads.

An arms control expert in Washington said a U.S. draft of an agreement gave either side the right to exceed the numerical limits merely by informing the other side of its intention.

In other words, if the United States felt a crisis was brewing, it could immediately start shifting warheads from its ''responsive force'' into operational mode.

Most arms control agreements have a six-month notification period before either side can exceed the limits.

``It would be a legally binding agreement in name only. It would not provide the permanence and stability the Russians are looking for,'' said the expert, who declined to be named.

-------

America's dangerous nuclear posture

The Japan Times:
March 22, 2002
http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?ed20020322a1.htm

The leak of a Pentagon report on the U.S. nuclear posture has unleashed a storm of controversy. Critics argue that it lowers the threshold at which the United States will use its nuclear weapons. That is not necessarily true. The cornerstone of the U.S. posture continues to be deterrence. The real concern is that the Nuclear Policy Review could undermine key pillars of the nuclear control regime.

The NPR is a periodic review of U.S. nuclear weapons policy that has been mandated by Congress. It is not an administrative initiative designed to radically alter U.S. policy, nor does it provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning. Rather, it is an assessment of the security environment and the contingencies that might require a nuclear response.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained that the NPR is part of a broader package, which includes the Quadrennial Defense Review, released last September, that attempts to better prepare the U.S. for security challenges in the post-Cold War world. To that end, it envisions a "new triad" of forces that consists of offensive weapons (both nuclear and nonnuclear), defensive systems and a new infrastructure that allows for the U.S. to develop new capabilities to meet new threats.

Integral features of this new posture include a drastically reduced inventory of nuclear warheads (down to 1,700-2,200), ballistic missile defense and new munitions that allow precision targeting and can destroy reinforced or hidden targets. While the first of these three components is welcome, the other two are worrisome. And even the first has been hedged; the U.S. is not going to destroy those excess warheads but plans to store them in the event of an emergency.

The chief controversy surrounding the leaked report concerns the possible use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries. The NPR notes that states or state-supported terrorists might use chemical or biological weapons against the U.S., and says Washington should be prepared to respond with nuclear weapons. This "asymmetrical" threat is a problem for the U.S., which has abandoned its own chemical and biological weapons programs. An enemy might be encouraged to use such weapons, knowing that the taboo against nuclear weapons might give them an advantage. The NPR is designed to eliminate any doubt about the U.S. willingness to respond with its own weapons of mass destruction.

This strategy is not new. During the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. warned Iraq that the U.S. would respond with nuclear weapons if Baghdad used chemical or biological weapons against the coalition. That warning seemed to work, and even critics agree that such a declaratory policy -- designed to deter potential adversaries -- does not violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

There is justifiable concern that the NPR seems to endorse a pre-emptive strike against those same nations. While responding to WMD attacks in kind is one thing, claiming the right to strike first is another. That would be indefensible; fortunately, it is hard to believe that any U.S. president, no matter how hawkish, would be willing to risk international condemnation by doing so.

Nevertheless, there are other grounds for concern. First, there is the NPR's reliance on defensive systems. Missile defense continues to be a pillar of the Bush administration's security policy. While the test results have been mixed, MD's impact on other countries is unmistakable. Chinese efforts to defeat MD will spur India to respond in kind, and Pakistan is likely to follow. This action-reaction cycle is inextricably tied to U.S. policy. Similarly, the U.S. commitment to its own nuclear weapons undermines efforts to get other nations to cut their arsenals or to discourage them from developing their own.

The NPR's call for development of a new nuclear infrastructure is equally dangerous. In short, the policy calls for new weapons to destroy reinforced or buried targets. Not only does this policy confirm the utility of nuclear weapons, but the development of those weapons requires testing. Although the U.S. has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it has abided by its provisions. That restraint would evaporate with adoption of the NPR's new "infrastructure."

This commitment to new nuclear weapons does serious damage to the international nonproliferation regime. It explicitly endorses the utility of such weapons and implicitly repudiates the bargain in the NPT, whereby nonnuclear states forgo the development of their own nuclear arsenals while the declared nuclear powers promise to reduce and eventually eliminate their own. This combined assault on the NPT and the CTBT undermines efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That should encourage the U.S. to rethink its nuclear posture. More nuclear weapons will only diminish U.S. security and that of its allies.

-------

Nuclear madmen in the White House
Bush gang's new chapter to atomic horror story

By Eric Ruder
March 22, 2002
From: "Viviane Lerner" <vlerner@interpac.net>
http://socialistworker.org/2002-1/399/399_02_NuclearMadmen.shtml

THE BUSH administration has gone from MAD to worse. For decades, the aptly named concept of "MAD"--Mutual Assured Destruction--was the supposed reason why there wouldn't be a nuclear war between the U.S. and former USSR.

The huge nuclear arsenals of the Cold War superpowers would "deter" the use of nukes, went the argument, because any first strike would be met by an apocalyptic counterattack.

But the Bush gang has different ideas. The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, finished earlier this year, is a blueprint for carrying out a nuclear first strike.

The Pentagon report advocates development of a new kind of nuclear weapon for the 21st century--a so-called "mini-nuke" that could be targeted at underground bunkers or protected stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons. In other words, a "usable" nuclear weapon.

The proposal violates international arms control agreements, but that isn't stopping the Pentagon. "That old process is incompatible with the flexibility U.S. planning and forces now require," its report declares.

No one in their right mind could be less than terrified by the Bush gang's nuke-happy scheme. But this is only the latest chapter in the U.S. nuclear weapons horror story:

-- The U.S. is the only power ever to use these weapons of mass destruction--against Japan at the end of the Second World War.

-- Since 1945, the U.S. has threatened to use nuclear weapons 16 times that we know of. The most famous instance was during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, but the U.S. also considered using nukes against Vietnam, China and even USSR forces in East Germany.

-- The U.S. has spent more than $5.5 trillion to develop, produce, deploy and maintain nuclear weapons since 1940--almost $20,000 for every man, woman and child living in the U.S. today.

-- The U.S. has detonated 1,125 nuclear devices in tests. In 1952, the U.S. vaporized an entire island and part of two more in the Pacific during a weapons test.

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

-------- new york

Meeting on Indian Point's Fate Draws Overflow Crowd From Both Sides

New York Times
March 22, 2002
By WINNIE HU
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/nyregion/22NUKE.html

WHITE PLAINS, March 21 - In a sign of the growing frustration here, more than 700 people jammed into the Westchester County Center tonight for a public meeting on whether the Indian Point nuclear complex should remain open after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

So many turned out that the meeting room was packed, and the overflow crowd of about 200 was relegated to the lobby downstairs. They clapped and chanted to be let in.

The crowd upstairs was generally orderly, but broke into loud boos at times to drown out speakers who took the microphone. Many residents and environmentalists pointed to safety lapses at Indian Point and demanded that it be shut down, while many plant workers and others defended the nuclear operations and rattled off their economic benefits.

"I want to show support for my livelihood, and for a plant that is vital to the economic vitality of this state," said Stephen McGuire, 39, an engineer at the Indian Point 3 unit.

But Maura Costello, 36, a mother of three in Yorktown, said she had grave concerns not only about the safety of Indian Point but also about whether families could be safely evacuated in case of a disaster. "I don't sleep at night thinking about what could happen," she said.

The meeting was the latest in a series of public events that have been held around the county in recent months to address widespread concerns about the two active nuclear plants (a third is currently not in operation) in Buchanan, about 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan. But unlike some earlier events, tonight's meeting seemed to be roughly divided between supporters and opponents, with neither side seeming to have the upper hand.

Two committees of the Westchester County Board of Legislators held the meeting to discuss two proposed resolutions. One called for closing and decommissioning Indian Point and, if possible, converting it to natural gas or alternative fuel operation. The other urged an evaluation of Indian Point's emergency plan by an independent group outside the government. The resolutions are expected to be voted on in the next month.

But even if county legislators adopt the more forceful resolution calling for the closing of Indian Point, it would be largely symbolic. Though it would be a first for Westchester, the Rockland County Legislature and many towns and villages in both counties have passed similar resolutions, with little effect.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that oversees Indian Point, has approved its operations, though the commission has also given it the highest scrutiny of any nuclear plant in the country because of recent mishaps there.

Michael B. Kaplowitz, the county legislator who proposed the Westchester resolution, said he hoped tonight's hearing would increase pressure on federal officials and others to close the nuclear operations and convert the site to something safer. "When a little snowball starts down the side of a mountain, once it has momentum, it gets bigger and bigger," he said. "I think this is a mainstream, soccer-mom issue now."

The Entergy Corporation, which owns Indian Point, has maintained that its operations are safe, and plant workers and others have increasingly mobilized to counter what they call "misinformation" that has alarmed the public.

Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy who attended the hearing, said that shutting down the nuclear operations would displace 1,500 plant workers; cut off a source of 2,000 megawatts of electricity, or enough power for two million homes; and result in a sharp rise in electric rates. He said that converting the site to alternative sources of energy like natural gas would be difficult, costly and impractical.

"The support for this resolution comes from people who've always wanted to shut down the plant, and they see Sept. 11 as a way to finally accomplish that," he said.

Mr. Steets added that he did not object to the resolution calling for an independent evaluation of the emergency plan for Indian Point.

-------

Praxair cleanup raises specter of deadly toxins

By T.J. PIGNATARO
The Buffalo News
NORTHERN SUBURBS
3/22/2002
From: df7332@aol.com

The remnants of a secret government project were still visible at the Linde Air Plant in the Town of Tonawanda when Tony Cioppi and John Lauer worked at the facility in the 1950s.

Several buildings of the Linde Ceramics Plant were cordoned off. Workers weren't allowed to go near them.

Cioppi and Lauer, like most of their co-workers, knew very little of the "Manhattan Project" or the uranium ore processed there for the nation's first atomic bomb, and never was there mention of the potential for safety risks.

Plant officials today still insist Linde workers never have been in danger - not those involved in developing the atomic bomb during the 1940s, not those like Cioppi and Lauer who worked there in subsequent decades when radioactive material remained on site, and not those today at the plant, now known as Praxair, as a cleanup takes place.

But in light of a recent state Department of Health study that found higher-than-normal cancer rates in the residential neighborhoods surrounding the plant, former employees are wondering about the thousands of people who worked close to the radioactive material.

"They always said it was safe," Lauer said of the Linde managers. "But every year, they came in and took samples and drilled in the ground."

In fact, The Buffalo News reviewed dozens of government documents, held secret for half a century before being declassified a few years ago. They indicate the federal government was concerned about health risks to Linde workers who helped build the atomic bomb:

- A weeklong survey conducted at the Linde plant in 1948 by the New York Operations Office of the Manhattan Engineering District found 18 of 138 employees surveyed had been exposed to "above preferred levels" of radioactive particles. Fifteen of the 18 were exposed to concentrations 32 times above acceptable workplace levels at that time.

- Some low-level radioactive materials that workers were exposed to "may produce toxic effects on the body from a chemical standpoint," according to the Manhattan Project's in-house medical volume published in 1947.

- The medical team believed it could be years before some of the ill effects of exposure surfaced: ". . . the results of overexposure might not become apparent for long periods after such exposure," the medical report states.

In 2000, the federal government set up a pool of money to compensate workers directly involved in the atomic bomb development project. Now, there's a move to study the effect radioactive material had on sites such as Linde in the decades following the government's atomic energy projects.

Representatives of U.S. Rep. John J. LaFalce's office said they hope the study will help workers such as Cioppi and Lauer to one day share in the compensation pool the federal government set up two years ago for employees directly involved in the atomic energy project at Linde between 1943 and 1949.

One hitch, however, is that very little of the money has been paid so far to even people who worked directly on the atomic project. Critics say the government has set up a bureaucratic quagmire making it all but impossible to prove a direct link between a person's cancer and their job exposure.

"It's a dog-and-pony show," said Ralph Krieger, a former union president who worked at the plant for 30 years before retiring in 1998. "Why would they have to keep studying a site that they already know is contaminated while they keep taking contaminated materials from the site?"

Manhattan Project

Dennis Conroy, site manager for Praxair, which now owns the Linde site, said the company was unaware of the specific testing referred to in the secret government documents.

The company was not privy to very much about the Manhattan Project because of the government's desire for "speed and secrecy," he said.

"The Corps of Engineers took over one-quarter of this property. They were engaged in the first step of uranium ore processing. Did Praxair (or its predecessor Linde) know what they were doing? My goodness, no.

"Nobody knew what they were doing."

Speed and absolute secrecy were hallmarks of the government project, he said.

Nonetheless, Conroy said there's nothing to establish a direct link between the low-level radiation at the Linde/Praxair site and worker illness either during the 1940s or later decades. Repeated studies done by the company as well as the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration support that finding, he said.

In 1954, Conroy said, the site was declared "clean" by the standards at the time. In 1974, based on new standards, the federal government reported for the first time that low-level radiation did exist at Linde, Conroy said. A government-ordered cleanup of the site - which is now 80 percent complete - began in 1995.

But the levels, he said, are such that there's more radiation at a cocktail party where four people are smoking than in the buildings.

"People do not understand radiation. We are very concerned about our employees and our neighbors but there have been four scientific studies that show no statistically significant excesses of disease," Conroy said. "We do not believe there is a health risk."

Workers complain

For a while, Lauer, Cioppi and other Linde workers said they believed it when company officials said the plant was safe.

But then co-workers began to get sick.

Cioppi, 69, started at Linde in 1951 sweeping floors at age 18 before working his way up to the carpenter shop and as a lab mechanic. He spent much of his time at the plant in buildings 14 and 30, both suspected to be radioactively contaminated, according to former workers. Building 30 has since been torn down.

"When I started there, the buildings that were used (by the Manhattan Project) were taped off and signs said "Do Not Enter,' " Cioppi said. "No one to my knowledge ever said anything about radiation. It's just a shame if they did know about it that they allowed it to happen."

Cioppi had a prostate problem in his 50s and is now undergoing chemotherapy for bladder cancer.

Lauer, 68, of Cheektowaga, worked at Linde from 1952 to 1991 in the machine shop and in quality control. He says he and others worked in all the known "hot spots" on the property. Lauer has been through bladder cancer twice.

Joseph Cinelli, 68, of Grand Island, started at Linde in maintenance in 1952, and worked at the plant in a variety of jobs until retiring in 1994.

Cinelli was diagnosed with cancer three times in 11 years.

Three weeks ago, he finished seven months of rigorous chemotherapy and antibody treatment for lymphoma. He had prostate cancer in 1999 and lung cancer in 1991.

Just Monday, Cinelli, with his hair growing back, learned his third cancer had also gone into remission. "Early detection is important," he insists.

Skeptical over the years

Beyond the diseases, the former Linde workers said they became more skeptical over the years as they heard talk of the government removing buildings and soil from the grounds they worked on.

"When I first realized they were having problems, I sent a memorandum to the safety guys at the plant and asked if there was any dangerous material there, where it was located, and if it was hazardous to the workers," recalled Charlie Spencer, 71, of North Buffalo. He worked at the plant from 1956 to 1991, first as a timekeeper who visited every building on the site distributing time cards and then in the company's bookkeeping department.

"The safety director called me over to his office and he said, "In reply to your memorandum,' then he pointed to these 50 books up on the shelf and said, "There's your answer.' But, nobody came right out and told me anything."

Russ Gaiser said the safety director told him everything was fine.

"They (director of safety) just told me the radiation there was as much as you had in the dial of your watch," Gaiser said. "That's what they always said."

Gaiser, 68, worked at Linde from 1952 to 1993 in a variety of jobs that put him in known contaminated areas. To this day Gaiser is healthy.

"Building 14 was one of the hottest spots in the whole area. I would work in there. I ate lunch in there," said Gaiser. "I'm still healthy, I've never had any problem."

"I believe it could have hurt people, but then again I look at myself and I worked in a lot of those places and in a lot of those buildings (believed contaminated). Am I just lucky?" he said. "But, let's just put it this way: it didn't help us."

A connection to work

In fact, Shirley Albicocco, 66, of Palm Beach County, Fla., said her late husband was convinced his workplace was responsible for his fatal disease.

Donald A. Kreuter worked at Linde from 1952 to 1976 as a chemical operator before joining the staff of the union who represented the company's workers. In April 1982, he was diagnosed with cancer, which accelerated rapidly through his lymph nodes and lungs. He died that August at 50. He left his 45-year-old widow, Shirley, and their two children.

"He always felt his sickness was connected to his work," Albicocco said. "The doctor himself admitted it was highly suspicious he died of that cancer with his work environment.

"Our children always felt they were denied their father. We were a close family."

Despite Kreuter's longevity, Albicocco receives just $30.22 per month from the company, she said. He did not qualify for a death benefit.

Albicocco said she's been fighting with the government for two decades to get compensation for her late husband.

It's a fight many of Kreuter's former colleagues support.

Thomas M. Murphy, who worked at Linde from 1953 to 1991 and lives about a mile and a half from the plant, puts it this way: "If there's no contamination and there's nothing wrong then why are they hauling all the stuff out to Utah?"

Conroy said there's a simple answer to that question.

"This stuff," he said, "does not belong here."

e-mail: tpignataro@buffnews.com

--

COMMENTS:
If anyone is interested in the complete, factual story; they may want to look at "THE FEDERAL CONNECTION" which can be found at the FACTS' web site.

--

1981 State Assembly Report
The Federal Connection Volume I

A History of U.S. Military Involvement in the Toxic Contamination of Love Canal and the Niagara Frontier Region

REFERENCE: http://www.factsofwny.com/Federal%20Connection%20Volume%201/Fed%20Vol%201/

--

1981 State Assembly Report
The Federal Connection Volume II

A History of U.S. Military Involvement in the Toxic Contamination of Love Canal and the Niagara Frontier Region

REFERENCE: http://www.factsofwny.com/Federal%20Connection%20Volume%202/Fed%20Vol%202/

--

Further stories concerning the Linde/Praxair contamination and its effects on both workers and local residents may be found at:

HOT NEWS AREA:
The current news, news articles and world wide web links. http://www.factsofwny.com/hot.htm

FACTS Homepage:
http://factsofwny.com/

F.A.C.T.S. (For A Clean Tonawanda Site), Inc.

F.A.C.T.S. is a non-governmental, non-profit, public interest group that is recognized by the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE) as a "community coalition" stakeholder in the required public environmental review process that is to select a "final" cleanup plan for several Tonawanda properties that were contaminated with thousands of tons and millions of gallons of Manhattan Project radioactive wastes from a dirty wartime uranium refinery that operated in the Tonawanda area 50 years ago.

F.A.C.T.S. is located in the Western New York area. The Town of Tonawanda is located just north of the City of Buffalo. Linde Air Products Company (now known as Praxair) was a prime contractor for refining uranium ore for the production of the world's first atomic bombs. We now have to deal with the consequences of the war effort's "go for broke" attitude that was prevalent in the 1940s.

-------- us nuc waste

Report criticizes agency's policy regarding release of radioactive scrap

Friday, March 22, 2002
By Nancy Zuckerbrod,
Associated Press
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/03/03222002/ap_46748.asp

WASHINGTON - The federal government inconsistently decides whether slightly radioactive materials should be recycled, put in a landfill, or securely stored, says a report released Thursday.

There's no evidence public health has been jeopardized, said Richard Magee, an environmental engineer and lead author of the National Research Council (NRC) report. But he said it is bad public policy to have haphazard decision-making. "We ought to agree as a country how we want to manage this stuff, and it ought to be uniform," Magee said.

At issue are the tons of materials that are thrown out at existing commercial nuclear facilities or sites being decommissioned. These slightly radioactive items can include piping, tools, cabinets, and building structures.

The licensees that operate the facilities say it is cost effective to recycle the scrap into everyday items or release it into landfills. But environmentalists say they want it stored in a secure, isolated facility as nuclear waste.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes the decisions. The study found the NRC doesn't always use the same criteria to judge similar materials. For example, a slightly radioactive piece of metal from a nuclear plant is treated differently from metal with the same level of radioactivity that was taken from a hospital. In addition, the NRC relies on standards when considering releasing materials that have radiation on their surface, but it has none for materials contaminated throughout. Instead the agency decides on a case-by-case basis whether to release those materials, according to the report.

The NRC asked the research council to examine its policies governing the release of slightly radioactive materials from the commercial facilities it licenses. NRC spokeswoman Rosetta Virgilio said the council was asked to recommend changes to the decision-making process. She declined to comment on the report, saying the agency needed time to review it.

In the past, the NRC has tried to set standards that would allow an increase in the amount of slightly radioactive material released but has been thwarted by Congress. The steel industry, against having its product stigmatized as potentially radioactive, is among the groups that have lobbied against the commission's proposals.

The NRC asked the council to consider the science behind the issue, but Magee said the panel opted not to take an opinion on what level of contamination is safe for release. Instead, the report recommends the agency involve all interested parties in its decisions. "Our idea is if we're going to move forward, it's got to come out of a process where all stakeholders are involved," Magee said.

Among the options the report recommended the agency consider are freely releasing slightly radioactive materials from NRC sites, releasing them for restricted use, or banning their release altogether.

The Energy Department has had a ban on recycling scrap metal from its nuclear facilities in place for about two years. The Bush administration is reviewing that policy.

-------- us politics

Bush oil drilling plan facing Senate defeat, says survey

Friday, March 22, 2002
By Tom Doggett and Chris Baltimore,
Reuters
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/03/03222002/reu_46745.asp

WASHINGTON - President Bush's proposal to open a remote and pristine Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling seems doomed in the Democratic-led U.S. Senate, a Reuters survey of lawmakers showed Thursday.

Fifty senators, including five Republicans, said they are opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), according to the poll.

Despite intensive lobbying by the Teamsters labor union, which favors drilling for the thousands of jobs it would create, only 40 senators surveyed by Reuters were willing to go on record in support of Arctic drilling. Ten senators said they were undecided.

However, even if pro-drilling forces were able to win over all 10 undecided senators, they would still far fall short of the 60 votes needed to end a promised filibuster by Democrats opposed to opening the refuge. Under the Senate's rules for dealing with controversial measures, 60 votes are needed in the 100-member chamber to cut off debate and allow a vote.

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said Thursday he is ready to force a showdown on the matter when lawmakers return April 8 from their two-week spring recess. The vote looms as a key battle in the debate over U.S. energy policy as senators decide how to boost domestic energy supplies yet still protect the environment. It could also surface in the November election campaigns of some senators.

The refuge, which holds a potential 16 billion barrels of oil, is deemed critical by the White House to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign crude. Environmentalists and Senate Democrats want to keep the refuge closed to protect polar bears, migratory birds, and wildlife. The remote wildlife refuge, stretching over 19 million acres, is located on Alaska's north coast. The U.S. government's Energy Information Administration said recently that it would take about two decades before crude oil from the Arctic refuge could reduce U.S. imports.

10 UNDECIDED SENATORS

If the Senate is able to pass a broad energy bill, it must still work out differences with energy legislation passed by the Republican-controlled House last year. The House bill won overwhelming support for drilling in the Arctic refuge, due in part to the strong lobbying arm of labor.

The Reuters poll showed five Democrats would cross party lines to vote for drilling. The same number of Republicans said they would go against their party and oppose drilling.

Republican vote counters said they expected to pick up eight or nine of the 10 undecided senators, but that still falls short of the number needed to get the issue to a vote.

Undecided lawmakers include two Democrats: Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The undecided Republicans are John McCain of Arizona, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Ensign of Nevada, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Pat Roberts of Kansas, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.

Analysts said McCain and Specter might cross party lines and vote against drilling. "You just never know with McCain because he's a gadfly," said Andy Laperriere, a political analyst with the ISI Group. "Specter tends to be more liberal but the unions matter in his home state of Pennsylvania, and he often votes with the Republican leadership in a pinch."

Other undecided senators in the spotlight are Democrats Lincoln and Byrd. Lincoln, a first-term senator from Arkansas who has focused on farm issues, could come under pressure to go with her party and vote against drilling. "I don't plan on making a decision on (drilling) until it comes up for a debate," she said.

Byrd, a senator since 1959, represents the energy-producing state of West Virginia where labor unions are important. The Teamsters, which sees the issue as a crucial vote for its interests, plans to step up lobbying during the two-week congressional break. "We will remember in November," said Teamsters President James Hoffa recently, referring to the Nov. 5 congressional election date.

----

Conscription: A Tradition of Slavery

by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
March 22, 2002
Antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul26.html

I rise to introduce legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the United States government should not revive military conscription. Supporters of conscription have taken advantage of the events of September 11 to renew efforts to reinstate the military draft. However, reviving the draft may actually weaken America's military. Furthermore, a military draft violates the very principles of individual liberty this country was founded upon. It is no exaggeration to state that military conscription is better suited for a totalitarian government, such as the recently dethroned Taliban regime, than a free society.

Since military conscription ended over 30 years ago, voluntary armed services have successfully fulfilled the military needs of the United States. The recent success of the military campaign in Afghanistan once again demonstrates the ability of the volunteer military to respond to threats to the lives, liberty, and property of the people of the United States.

A draft weakens the military by introducing tensions and rivalries between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been conscripted. This undermines the cohesiveness of military units, which is a vital element of military effectiveness. Conscripts also are unlikely to choose the military as a career; thus, a draft will do little to address problems with retention. With today's high-tech military, retention is the most important personnel issue and it seems counter-productive to adopt any policy that will not address this important issue.

If conscription helps promote an effective military, then why did General Vladisova Putilin, Chief of the Russian General Staff, react to plans to end the military draft in Russia, by saying "This is the great dream of all servicemen, when our army will become completely professional...?"

Instead of reinstating a military draft, Congress should make military service attractive by finally living up to its responsibility to provide good benefits and pay to members of the armed forces and our nation's veterans. It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests. Until this is changed, we will never have a military which reflects our nation's highest ideals.

Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America's founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.

During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional:

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."

Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said:

"...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state - not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers - to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."

President Reagan and Daniel Webster are not the only prominent Americans to oppose conscription. In fact, throughout American history the draft has been opposed by Americans from across the political spectrum, from Henry David Thoreau to Barry Goldwater to Bill Bradley to Jesse Ventura. Organizations opposed to conscription range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and from the National Taxpayers Union to the Conservative Caucus. Other major figures opposing conscription include current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the long-term military interests of the United States, individual liberty, and values of the Declaration of Independence by co-sponsoring my sense of Congress resolution opposing reinstatement of the military draft.

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

----

Panel OKs attack-probe plan

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020322-120232.htm

A Senate committee voted yesterday to establish an independent commission charged with investigating events surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Authored by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the measure would establish a bipartisan, independent commission to conduct a broad investigation into the attacks. The committee approved the bill by a voice vote.

"It's up to the commission members to investigate what they want to investigate regarding the terrorist attacks," said Mr. Lieberman's spokeswoman, Leslie Phillips.

A White House spokeswoman yesterday declined to endorse the Lieberman proposal. A Republican senator said he was "disinclined" to support the plan, while one Democratic senator said he was "reluctant" to approve an independent probe.

The House and Senate intelligence committees already are conducting a joint investigation focusing on the failures of the U.S. intelligence community before September 11.

Sen. Robert G. Torricelli, New Jersey Democrat who helped craft Mr. Lieberman's bill, said the intelligence committees' joint investigation is narrower in scope than the independent commission's would be. He said the commission would have "a more open mandate."

Miss Phillips also stressed that unlike the joint intelligence probe, the 14-member commission would not consist of any elected officials, but rather would be composed of citizens who have expertise in relevant areas.

The Lieberman bill would authorize the commission to look into intelligence and law enforcment agencies, diplomacy, immigration, non-immigrant visas and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation other areas of the public and private sectors it deems relevant.

The independent commission would be charged with investigating relevant facts and circumstances relating to the September 11 terrorist attacks, including any relevant legislation, executive order, plan, policy, practice or procedure.

It also would also be charged with reviewing lessons learned regarding the government's structure, coordination, management policies and procedures set up to detect, prevent and respond to such terrorist attacks.

Commission members would consist of nongovernmental "prominent U.S. citizens" who have experience in fields like law enforcement, intelligence gathering, public administration, armed services, commerce, aviation and foreign affairs.

The president would appoint four commission members and the rest would be appointed ultimately by House and Senate leadership, based on recommendations made by leaders of key committees of both chambers, including the judiciary, armed services and intelligence panels.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the administration is working closely with the Senate and House intelligence committees' joint investigation.

"We feel it's important for the intelligence committees to be the one to conduct the review," Miss Buchan said. "The commission would run the risk of pulling people off of the front lines who are fighting the war on terror."

Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, said he hasn't examined the Lieberman bill, but would be "disinclined" to support an independent commission. "I would think congressional oversight would be sufficient," he said.

Mr. Specter said the Senate Judiciary Committee has already asked for additional funding to conduct oversight of the FBI, INS and other agencies under its jurisdiction, regarding September 11.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican and Governmental Affairs Committee member, also seemed skeptical. "I'm reluctant to support it, but I'll take a look at it," he said of the Lieberman bill.

The Lieberman bill requests $3 million for the independent commission.


-------- MILITARY

-------- afghanistan

Americans hunt for Chechens in Afghanistan

By Chris Otton
AFP
2002/03/22
http://www.dawn.com/2002/03/22/int12.htm

KABUL: They have been the stuff of nightmares for Russian troops and now US forces face the prospect of trying to combat Chechen fighters in Afghanistan who have thrown their lot in with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network.

"There are a hell of a lot of them and they sure know how to fight," one senior American officer said after the conclusion of the recent offensive Operation Anaconda against diehard fighters in eastern Paktia province.

The man who led the offensive said that a large proportion of the fighters who chose to fight to the death were non-Afghans.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "called them dead-enders," said US Major General Frank Hagenbeck. "They are left with no choice but to fight." The general said coalition forces had come across fighters from Uzbekistan and northwest China, while many Pakistanis are also thought to be fighting with the Al Qaeda and Taliban.

But Chechen separatists, who have been involved in a fierce war for independence from Russia for the past 29 months, appear to make up the largest contingent of Al Qaeda's foreign legion.

The conflict for the Russians in Chechnya has ironically revived memories back in Moscow of the way the Red Army became bogged down in Afghanistan before it was forced to retreat back into the old Soviet Union some 13 years ago.

Hundreds of Russian soldiers have been killed in attempts to bring rebels to heel in the breakaway republic, while Chechens have been blamed by the Kremlin for a number of deadly explosions in September 1999 which killed more than 300 people.

The explosions prompted President Vladimir Putin to send troops into Chechnya the following month. Russia has repeatedly linked its "anti-terrorist" campaign in the North Caucasus to the US-led war against terror.

Just as the Americans have followed the Russian example of waging war in Afghanistan, the United States now also finds itself up against another enemy that has caused no end of trouble for Moscow.

Following the downfall of his Taliban protectors in Afghanistan, there has been speculation that Osama may now try to seek refuge in Chechnya. "We know the history of the Chechens. They are good fighters and they are very brutal," Hagenbeck said.

The general said he has heard of reports out of the Pentagon that a unit of 100-150 Chechens had moved into southern Afghanistan.

Hagenbeck said US intelligence was exchanging information with foreign counterparts to help fight the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but he would not say if there had been any specific exchanges with Moscow over the Chechens.

----

Prisoners Freed From Afghan Prison

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-Freed-Prisoners.html

SHIBERGAN, Afghanistan (AP) -- Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum supervised the release of 250 prisoners Friday under an amnesty granted in honor of the Persian New Year.

The ethnic Pashtun prisoners, who have been held in an overcrowded prison in Dostum's hometown in northern Afghanistan, were chosen for the amnesty either because they were very young, very old or ill.

Before the journey home, they were forced to sit in the pouring rain for hours while being processed for release.

The 3,000 prisoners in the prison 75 miles north of Mazar-e-Sharif were detained four months ago by the northern alliance, accused of collaborating with the Taliban.

Besmellah, 19, awaiting release in white plaster casts, both legs splattered with mud, claimed that he was pressed into the Taliban's service but didn't go into battle.

``When I go home, first I'll wait to be healthy and then I'll work on the farm,'' he said.

Daweza, 80, admitted he had been a guard for the Taliban, but said: ``I never fought against the northern alliance -- look, I'm an old man, I can't fight.''

The fate of the hundreds remaining -- filling the prison to 10 times capacity -- is still unclear.

The prison doctor said disease in the prison is rampant, ranging from diarrhea to heart disease and kidney ailments.

Some of the prisoners flashed emaciated torsos as they changed their shalwar kameez shirts while waiting in Red Cross lines for the equivalent of dlrs 15 before boarding buses for home.

Afghan authorities are responsible for their security and transport, but Red Cross officials said they will follow up to ensure their safe return to their homes.

The amnesty for this holiday is the second at the prison since the northern alliance brought the detainees here in November; another 200 were released for the Islamic holiday Eid al-Adha, or Feast of Sacrifice.

U.S. military interrogators have also questioned inmates at the compound and took a few for further questioning to determine if they were top Taliban figures or al-Qaida members.

Across the muddy courtyard where the prisoners were being registered, Khalid Seffula lay unable to move in his sweat- and urine-stained mattress in the makeshift prison clinic as flies buzzed around the windowless room.

He is one of the estimated 1,100 Pakistanis at the prison who came to Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban -- and not among those released.

Seffula, 23, said he left his studies in Islamabad, Pakistan and arrived to fight two days after the American bombing campaign started in October.

``When I was there, I heard that Americans were attacking Muslims. When I arrived here, I saw that was wrong -- that Americans helped Muslims -- but after that I couldn't leave,'' he said, his left leg atrophied from disuse after it was injured during fighting in Kunduz.

``If they can't treat us, they should kill us here. We don't want to be alive here,'' he said.

--------

U.S. Forces Find Bomb Factory

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-US-Military.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. forces searching through the Shah-e-Kot valley in eastern Afghanistan have found what appears to be an explosives factory abandoned by Taliban and al-Qaida fighters, a military spokesman said Friday.

The site contained explosives and equipment to make more, as well as medical supplies, said Navy Cmdr. Dan Keesee of U.S. Central Command in Florida. Keesee could not say whether the factory was in a cave or in buildings. It was found on March 13.

No evidence of chemical or biological weapons research or production was found at the site, Keesee said.

Keesee said Marine Corps helicopter gunships have also destroyed as many as a dozen ammunition caches in the Shah-e-Kot area.

U.S. surveillance teams remain in the Shah-e-Kot valley area, despite the end of Operation Anaconda, a Marine Corps spokesman in Afghanistan said.

The operation was launched March 2, to clear the valley of al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. Gen. Tommy Franks declared the operation over this week and deemed it a success, although Afghan commanders said most of the al-Qaida and Taliban fighters escaped.

Elsewhere, U.S. forces have recently found what appears to be another rudimentary al-Qaida biological weapons research site near Kandahar, a defense official said Friday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The lab appeared to be under construction, and officials found no evidence the terrorist organization could make weapons out of diseases or poisons, the official said. Instead, searchers found medical supplies and commonly available chemistry equipment.

The only surprise was the lab's location, which was not previously known to U.S. forces. The defense official did not say how the United States learned about the lab.

U.S. forces have investigated dozens of suspected chemical and biological weapons research sites in Afghanistan. But they concluded that al-Qaida's effort had not advanced enough to create any weapons capable of killing massive numbers of people.

``Documents recovered from al-Qaida facilities in Afghanistan show that bin Laden was pursuing a sophisticated biological weapons research program,'' CIA Director George J. Tenet told a Senate committee this week.

--------

Afghans Say U.S. Troops Abused Them

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-Detainees.html

SANGESAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- More than 30 Afghans seized by American troops in a 3 a.m. raid on a village security post said they were kicked and abused at a U.S. Army detention center before being freed four days later.

``If they gave us all of Afghanistan now, this wouldn't make up for this insult,'' said one of the bruised and angry men, Fida Mohammad, 35.

Another man said it was fortunate his armed security team didn't react defensively to the U.S. force.

``If we reacted, there might have been a firefight, and many people might have been killed,'' said Ghousullah, 22.

Maj. Ralph Mills, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said any injuries could have happened when the men were apprehended in last Sunday's raid.

``Some of the people may have resisted when being subdued, and they may have been bruised in the process,'' Mills said Friday. ``We don't have anything that suggests that anyone was mistreated while in captivity.''

The military has been reluctant to discuss its detention center at a U.S. airport base outside Kandahar, 25 miles east of here. Scores of Taliban and al-Qaida terrorist suspects are held there.

The Afghans' accounts of mistreatment were similar to those in February from another group, seized on Jan. 23 when U.S. special forces raided a compound in Uruzgan province and witnesses reported 21 Afghans killed.

After that attack, American officials acknowledged that the dead and the 27 men detained were neither Taliban nor al-Qaida operatives, but insisted U.S. forces were fired on first.

Men captured in that raid said in interviews with reporters that they were treated so badly that some lost consciousness and suffered fractured ribs, loosened teeth and swollen noses. At the time, the U.S. command denied that those detainees had been abused.

Sunday's latest raid was disclosed in Washington on Tuesday, when two U.S. military officials said it had been determined the men seized were neither Taliban nor al-Qaida members. On Wednesday, however, a military spokesman said the men were still being ``evaluated.'' But also on Wednesday, another spokesman, Brig. Gen. John W. Rosa Jr., they ``never became detainees.''

In fact, the men were not released from the detention center until late Thursday morning, according to the detainees as well as a knowledgable U.S. military source in Afghanistan.

The Afghans had been housed and were operating from the compound, beside the main regional east-west road here, under provisional security arrangements made after a U.S.-led war toppled the Taliban government in December.

The dozens of militiamen, loyal to a member of the new pro-U.S. Afghan Cabinet, Aref Khan Noorzai, the small-industries minister, maintained security on the road and surrounding area, which has been quiet since the war.

The Pentagon's Rosa said the raid was carried out because weapons were known to be in the compound and Afghans working with U.S. forces ``did not know who was in that compound.''

Afghan officials said anyone who asked would have been told who they were.

``Someone gave the Americans wrong information, that there were al-Qaida and Taliban based here,'' said Mohammad Sharif Khan, 64, chief of the security force.

He said the raid early Sunday involved at least one helicopter and other aircraft, 10 to 15 vehicles, and 50 to 60 uniformed U.S. soldiers.

He quickly saw the raiding party was American and ordered his men, aroused from sleep, to cooperate, Sharif Khan said Friday. The U.S. force, which had overpowered four guards outside, then drove off with 31 detainees, the U.S. military later reported. Sharif Khan said they numbered 34, all of them bound, half of them barefoot. No shots were fired at the compound.

At the airport detention center, hoods were pulled over their heads and they were ``thrown down'' face first on rocky ground, Sharif Khan said. ``Then one person took you by the head and another by the feet, and they were pounding on your back with their foot.'' He had a freshly bruised arm.

Several other men also told of being kicked. All were treated the same way, their chief said.

``My ribs had been broken before and so they were weak,'' said Fida Mohammad. ``They picked me up and threw me down on the rocks. It was painful. I couldn't rest on my chest. When I moved they kicked me.'' He had a fresh black eye.

The Americans next shaved their beards, which their Muslim faith obliges them to grow. Their heads also were shaved and they said they were left completely naked for a period.

Later, held in wooden-barred ``cages,'' they were at times punished for talking by being made to kneel with hands behind their heads for long periods, and were kicked again when they moved, the men said.

Their account provided a rare glimpse into the secretive detention center, where they saw Arabs, Chechens, Sudanese and other suspected al-Qaida members.

They said 18 of them were kept in a plastic sheet-topped cage about 10 feet by 30 feet, with desert dust blowing in. They had no exercise and no toilet facility other than a bucket for use in the crowded space, they said, and were fed bread, cookies and potato chips.

They were interrogated repeatedly on Sunday and Monday, but then the Americans realized they were not Taliban or al-Qaida, Sharif Khan said. Still they were held for more than two days further.

The freed men said they would demand of the Americans the names of those who misinformed on them. Those responsible should be arrested, they said.

They said they were promised a meeting Saturday with American officers, Kandahar provincial officials and elders from this area to discuss their ordeal.

-------- africa

Islamic law declared illegal in Nigeria

World Scene
March 22, 2002
Combined dispatches and staff reports
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020322-76824716.htm

LAGOS, Nigeria - The Nigerian government yesterday declared the strict Islamic law operating in 12 northern states to be in violation of the constitution after international outcry over the sentencing last year of a woman to death by stoning for adultery.

The declaration, which surprised the volatile African country and which has significant political implications, came in a letter, dated March 18, sent to the 12 states that have introduced Islamic law.

It is expected to cause considerable unease in northern Nigeria, where the mainly Muslim population generally supports the system, known as the Shariah, but Christian leaders oppose it.

-------- asia

TERRORISM
U.S. Rules Out Training Indonesia Army, but Will Aid Its Antiterror Police

New York Times
March 22, 2002
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/international/asia/22INDO.html

WASHINGTON - After deciding to send American soldiers to train antiterrorism forces in the Philippines, Yemen and Georgia, the Bush administration has decided it would be "counterproductive" to deploy troops in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, because of concerns about an anti-American backlash, senior administration officials said today.

Instead, White House and Pentagon officials have determined that the best way to pursue terrorists operating from Indonesia is to work through law enforcement agencies. To underscore that policy, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, quietly visited Indonesia last Friday to develop contacts with his counterparts there.

The decision to rely more on law enforcement efforts and less on military action is significant because American intelligence officials believe Indonesia to be a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda. They also believe that the country is the center of operations for a group that has planned attacks on American targets throughout Southeast Asia. Three Indonesians were arrested in the Philippines last week, officials said, and while interrogations are still under way, the men are thought to be linked to suspected terrorists now in detention in Malaysia and Singapore.

Policy toward Indonesia has been closely watched around the world and has been the subject of intense debate within the White House. The country presents a test case of how the administration handles the presence of terrorist cells in a nation opposed to American military intervention. While the Bush administration has identified a strong Qaeda-linked terrorist presence in Indonesia, the government of President Megawati Sukarnoputri has made it clear to Washington that American troops could destabilize her fragile hold on power.

"I can think of all the ways that it can be counterproductive, and I can't see how it would be necessary," Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, said in an interview today. Mr. Wolfowitz, who served for three years as ambassador to Indonesia and is considered among the administration's experts on the country, added: "There is a deep sense of national pride and independence on the part of the Indonesians. If we want their cooperation, and their cooperation is essential to our success, we can't look like we are interfering in their internal affairs."

Aside from the Philippines and Singapore, both of them longtime allies, another senior administration official said, "I don't think there is a chance of us having a deployment in Indonesia, or perhaps anywhere else in Southeast Asia." The official said that while the White House often talks about how nations are "with us or against us" in the fight against terrorism, "Indonesia is infinite shades of gray right now, and you need a more nuanced approach."

But Mr. Wolfowitz did say that the administration was working with Congress in hopes of loosening legislative restrictions on American military contacts with Indonesia, which were severely curtailed in 1999 after the Indonesian Army was accused of atrocities in the now-independent East Timor.

Military contacts might resume for relief operations, Mr. Wolfowitz said, and he did not exclude the possibility that the two militaries could, over time, train together for counterterrorism and counternarcotics operations - though he stressed that there was no such planning now under way.

"We really are moving very carefully," Mr. Wolfowitz said.

Indonesia has been coaxed along by Mr. Wolfowitz and others. For two months after the Sept. 11 attacks the country's central bank officials refused to help track or freeze terrorist finances, and the Jakarta government denied there was any terrorism problem in the country. But that attitude has changed. In recent months, Mr. Wolfowitz said, Indonesia has provided "significant cooperation," even handing over a Pakistani terror suspect seized on its territory. He is now in detention in Egypt.

Still, the F.B.I. director's visit was kept deliberately low key. He met with Indonesia's chief security minister and the national police chief, but the sessions took place far from Jakarta, where anti-American protests were common even before Sept. 11. The meetings occurred a week ago in Bali, a predominantly Hindu area of an overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

Mr. Wolfowitz distinguished Indonesia's situation sharply from the problems in the Philippines, where the Abu Sayyaf and other Muslim separatist groups occupy significant territory. Indonesia, he said, is more like "the United States, and most European countries," with suspected Qaeda cells present within the society - a situation that creates "much more of a law enforcement challenge."

At the same time, American intelligence about the Qaeda presence in Indonesia has been poor at best, American officials acknowledge. Two senior American officials have said that before Sept. 11, American intelligence was wholly unaware of one of the main Islamic radical groups in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah, which they now suspect has Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Wolfowitz said there was little indication that Qaeda members fleeing the American offensive in Afghanistan were heading toward Indonesia; instead, he said, they appear to be seeking safe passage to Iran, Pakistan, Yemen or the Caucasus republics.

On dealings with the Indonesian military, he said, "the trick is to find ways to move forward that encourage reform in the Indonesian military rather than turn a blind eye to some of the past problems."

But any significantly increased contacts with the Indonesian military will draw careful scrutiny - most likely opposition - from critics in Congress, led by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.

"Some of their top military officers, including some still serving, planned, orchestrated and then covered up the attacks in East Timor," Senator Leahy said today of the Indonesians. "As long as they are running things, with nothing done to hold them accountable, it would be premature for us to launch joint operations."

-------- biological weapons

Al-Qa'ida biological weapons laboratory is 'found in Afghanistan cave'

By Mary Dejevsky
23 March 2002
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=277486

US special forces scouring the mountains of south-eastern Afghanistan for remnants of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida uncovered a biological weapons laboratory hidden in caves, Whitehall sources said yesterday.

They said that the find confirmed the determination of al-Qa'ida to develop and deploy biological weapons, as indicated by the pages of evidence turned up in abandoned houses in Kabul and other cities after US bombing raids.

The laboratory find was made recently in the course of Operation Anaconda, which was conducted in the Shar-e-Kot mountains south of Kabul by joint US and Afghan forces. Tracking down and destroying any similar installations will be one of the tasks of the British army contingent being dispatched to Afghanistan this weekend, the sources said.

Although the Pentagon has declared Operation Anaconda successfully completed, US special forces encountered unexpectedly fierce resistance and were forced into extensive fire fights. Eight Americans and an unknown number of the enemy were killed. The US claimed that several hundred Taliban fighters died, but fewer than 20 enemy deaths have been confirmed. The British sources said the likelihood was that many Taliban and al-Qa'ida escaped further into the mountains.

Britain enjoys a close intelligence relationship with the US, but the Pentagon has disclosed nothing about a weapons laboratory. It reported that US forces had found a large cache of (unspecified) weapons in the early stages of Operation Anaconda - and has repeatedly cited al-Qa'ida's intent to develop biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons, but yesterday's disclosure was the first to allege the existence of a laboratory in the mountains.

There was no detail about what the laboratory consisted of: whether it contained scientific equipment or maybe just a few canisters of potentially dangerous substances.

News of the discovery came against a background of misgivings in British political circles about the dispatch to Afghanistan of 1,700 British troops, including Marines trained for winter and mountain conditions. Officially, they are to take part in "mopping up" operations in the same mountains where Operation Anaconda met such forceful resistance. No term has been set for their withdrawal, however, and the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, aroused concern when he said this week that the mission was "open-ended".

Whitehall sources admitted yesterday that the presentation of the new troop deployment had left much to be desired. The boast that this was the biggest combat deployment since the Gulf War had, they said, while "just true", been particularly unfortunate.

They admitted that Downing Street had been "shocked" by the hostile political reaction, which they put down to the - erroneous - impression the public had gained that the war in Afghanistan was over and won.

----

Troops Find Suspected Biowarfare Lab in Afghanistan

Sat Mar 23
By Charles Aldinger
Reuters
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020323/ts_nm/afghan_usa_biological_dc_1

WASHINGTON - U.S. troops have found a laboratory under construction in southern Afghanistan (news - web sites) where al Qaeda guerrillas apparently planned to produce biological weapons, the United States said on Saturday.

U.S. officials told Reuters the facility near the bustling city of Kandahar was apparently being built to produce deadly anthrax and other agents when it was found earlier this month.

"It wasn't completed, so they weren't at the point of producing weapons yet. There were no samples of biological agents," Air Force Maj. Bill Harrison, a spokesman for the military's Central Command, said in response to questions.

He said in a telephone interview from command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, that the laboratory was found by troops operating near Kandahar, but the discovery (news - web sites) was not connected to a major military operation in Afghanistan's eastern mountains.

The United States has warned repeatedly that fugitive al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) wanted to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Defense officials said on Saturday the discovery of the unfinished facility was the strongest sign yet of such planning.

"It contained medical supplies and commonly available laboratory equipment suitable for growing biological samples as well as a variety of associated supplies," Harrison told Reuters.

He and other officials declined to provide additional details, including the exact site of the laboratory.

The White House said on Saturday that there was no evidence that the militant Islamic group headed by bin Laden, accused by Washington of masterminding Sept. 11 hijacked airliner attacks on America, had obtained anthrax.

NO EVIDENCE OF ANTHRAX YET

"We have no evidence that they've acquired anthrax, but we've always said that we know that al Qaeda wants to acquire biological and nuclear weapons. So none of this would surprise us," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan told Reuters.

"This is why we need to be diligent in waging this war" on terrorism, she said.

A British government source told Reuters in London on Friday that U.S. troops had found a biological laboratory in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan near Gardez during a major military thrust this month against regrouping al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

But Harrison said such a facility was not found in that area, suggesting the source had simply given the wrong location. U.S.-led forces recently wound up a major assault, called "Operation Anaconda," in the region.

The British source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the evidence of biological weapons was a major factor behind Britain's sudden decision this week to send up to 1,700 elite mountain troops to reinforce the U.S.-led coalition waging the war on terror.

Although Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said there is ample evidence that al Qaeda wanted weapons of mass destruction, U.S. defense officials said earlier this week that no evidence of actual biological, chemical or nuclear arms had been found to date in about 60 al Qaeda and Taliban sites searched by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

-------- business

Boeing Expects $9.7 Billion Plane Order

March 22, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-arms-boeing.html

LONG BEACH, Calif. (Reuters) - Chicago-based Boeing Co. (news/quote) (BA.N) on Friday said it expects to win a $9.7 billion contract for 60 more C-17 transport planes within 30 days, and the planes would be delivered between 2004 and 2008.

``We should be awarded the contract within 30 days,'' Howard Chambers, vice president and general manager of Boeing Aircraft and Missile Systems in southern California, told reporters.

The Defense Department has already agreed to buy 120 C-17s and the follow-on contract for 60 more C-17s, which Boeing said it discounted 25 percent, has been expected for some time.

Boeing is eyeing a possible further order after Air Force Gen. John Handy, commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, last month said the military needed 42 additional planes to meet its combat and humanitarian mission needs.

The aircraft, which carries troops and cargo, has been used in Afghanistan. It can also perform airlift missions.

Boeing officials have said the contract for 60 more planes will keep Boeing's production line in Long Beach, California operating through 2008.

Chambers said Boeing had already delivered 82 aircraft to the U.S. military and four to Britain.

-------- chemical weapons

Weapons Chief Refuses to Step Down

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Chemical-Arms.html

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) -- The head of the chemical weapons monitoring organization lost a U.S.-sponsored vote of no-confidence in his leadership Friday, but he refused to step down.

A senior U.S. official said the executive committee of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons voted ``overwhelmingly'' against the Brazilian director-general, Jose Bustani, even though more countries abstained than voted.

The organization said a majority of nations failed to support the motion, and the director had no intention of resigning.

The vote was 17 in favor of the no-confidence motion, five against and 18 abstentions, said the U.S. official on condition of anonymity. The vote was privately confirmed by organization officials, though official results have not been released. One delegation was absent from the 41-member committee.

The countries voting against the U.S.-sponsored vote were Cuba, Russia, China, Brazil and Iran, the U.S. official said.

``The director general has said all along that he has done no wrong and that he has nothing to hide,'' said Gordon Vachn, Bustani's special adviser, speaking at a news conference.

Vachon said Bustani volunteered to have a special committee review his performance. But a proposal by Brazil to create such a committee failed to pass.

Although the no-confidence vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to automatically trigger a special session of all the member states, the United States requested an extraordinary meeting, Vachon said. It needs 48 other countries to join its request to summon the full membership before its regularly scheduled meeting in October.

Bustani can be fired only by a vote of the full 145-member organization, which was formed in 1997 to monitor the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty banning such weapons and setting out the process to destroy existing stockpiles.

Bustani was elected to a second four-year term in May 2000.

His refusal to quit could prompt Washington to reevaluate its cooperation with the organization, which could have serious consequences for its work.

The United States contributes 22 percent of the $60 million annual budget. This year, it is 50 percent behind on its payment. Only 58 of 145 countries have fully paid their membership dues.

Earlier this week, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher accused Bustani of financial mismanagement. The organization, he said, ``is beset by a number of problems that have resulted in a loss of confidence in the current director.''

Bustani retorted that the U.S. attempt to oust him was unexpected, unwarranted and an attempt to strip the global body of its independence.

``The very principle which is at the foundation of the work of every international organization, its independence and that of its chief executive officer, is being jeopardized,'' he said in a statement Wednesday to the executive committee.

The senior U.S. official said that Bustani had sided with severe criticism of a U.S. arms export policy, but he declined to be more specific.

-------- china / taiwan

China missile test

March 22, 2002
Inside the Ring
by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020322-22077586.htm

China's military conducted a flight test of a CSS-6 short-range missile recently as part of efforts to build up its missile forces near Taiwan. The missile test took place several weeks ago and was monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, said officials familiar with reports of the test.

China has deployed hundreds of CSS-6 and CSS-7 short-range missiles opposite Tawian. U.S. intelligence agencies estimate there are about 350 of the systems now deployed. The missiles are destabilizing because they provide little warning of an attack.

CIA Director George J. Tenet said on Tuesday that "China continues to upgrade and expand the conventional short-range ballistic missile force it has arrayed against Taiwan."

Intelligence officials tell us that a trainload of 20 new containers was spotted leaving a missile factory in China. The containers are believed to be either new CSS-6s or CSS-7s bound for the China coast near Taiwan.

Adm. Dennis Blair, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, told the House Armed Service Committee on Wednesday that the Chinese missile buildup is threatening.

"Where we are right now is that China is capable of causing a great deal of damage to Taiwan, damage that cannot be stopped by the Taiwanese armed forces or by forces of the United States, if they were ordered in," Adm. Blair said. "And this is because of China's buildup of short-range ballistic missiles ...."

The flight test also comes amid increasing anger in Beijing over the Bush administration's decision over having permitting Taiwan's defense minister to attend a defense-related conference in Florida earlier this month.

---

Pro-China center: Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Hank Stackpole

March 22, 2002
Inside the Ring
by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020322-22077586.htm

The Pentagon's inspector general is investigating the U.S. Pacific Command's Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, which many in the Pentagon view as a haven for pro-Beijing thinking. It is headed by retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Hank Stackpole.

The probe is focusing on whether there was any improper hiring and employee practices by the center's executive director, Jimmie R. Lackey, we are told.

Pentagon sources tell us the real problem at the Hawaii-based center is its pro-China bias, which is demonstrated in the vehement opposition to U.S. missile-defense efforts from center officials.

Top center officials have stated in not-for-attribution lectures to U.S. military officers and visiting foreign military officers that "missile defense will cause the PRC to mount an arms race," one official told us. "In fact, PRC (People's Republic of China) concerns seem to take prominence" for most of the center's top leaders, the source said.

The biased lectures are said to be presenting a false picture of U.S. defense policy, the official said.

Gen. Stackpole, for example, recently criticized President Bush for identifying Iraq, Iran and North Korea as "axis of evil." Gen. Stackpole claimed the president made the remarks only because he is intent on disrupting U.S. relations in Asia.

Before his current job, Gen. Stackpole was president of Loral Asia-Pacific, a subsidiary of Loral Space and Communications Ltd. In January, Loral paid a $14 million fine to the State Department, ending a five-year investigation into charges the company illegally helped China improve its long-range missiles through satellite deals.

A Pentagon official told us Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has been looking for an excuse to shut down the center because of its pro-China views.

•Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough are Pentagon reporters.
Mr. Gertz can be reached at 202/636-3274 or by e-mail at bgertz@washingtontimes.com.
Mr. Scarborough can be reached at 202/636-3208 or by e-mail at rscarborough@washingtontimes.com.

-------- colombia

US Seeks to Protect Colombia Pipeline

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Colombia.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration said Friday it is seeking $6 million in new money for Colombia to protect an oil pipeline that has been a frequent target of terrorist attacks.

This is in addition to a previously announced request of $25 million to help Colombia combat terrorist kidnappings, and $4 million to expand the reach of Colombia's police to areas previously not under government control.

The combined $35 million request was sent to Congress Thursday night as part of a broader package to finance the war on terrorism.

Earlier this year, the administration asked Congress for $98 million for the pipeline protection project, but earmarked it for the fiscal year that begins in October.

State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said the administration wants to get an early start on the project. Repeated rebel attacks on the pipeline last year cost the Colombian economy hundreds of millions of dollars.

Meanwhile, the State Department issued a statement alerting U.S. citizens to the increased potential of kidnapping by terrorist groups along the Venezuelan and Colombian border.

The U.S. Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, recommended that U.S. citizens avoid travel to within 50 miles of the border with Colombia.

The $98 million request was a clear signal that the administration wanted military aid to go beyond counternarcotics efforts. Congress has insisted on that limitation for years.

Thursday's request to Congress codified the administration's intention, disclosed last week, that it wants an end to all restrictions that limit the use of military aid.

This would enable the administration to help Colombia go after not only narcotraffickers but also three armed groups that the officials contend are terrorist organizations. They are the leftist FARC and ELN groups and the anti-communist AUC. All derive much of their operating funds from illicit narcotics sales.

At a news conference Friday, Colombian Ambassador Luis Alberto Moreno said he welcomed the U.S. commitment to help Colombia combat kidnappings, which total an estimated 3,000 a year.

``This has a tremendous impact on foreign investment in the country,'' Moreno said.

He said the $6 million for pipeline protection would be used to train those who would guard the pipeline.

The $98 million is addition to $435 million the administration has requested in assistance to Colombia for the next fiscal year.

Moreno said the administration's interest in helping Colombia sends a message to terrorists: ``Their days are numbered.''

He was due to fly to Lima Friday night to confer with President Andres Pastrana in advance of Saturday's meeting there involving President Bush and four Andean regional presidents.

In addition to Pastrana and Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, the meeting also will be attended by the presidents of Ecuador and Bolivia.

On Monday, Asa Hutchinson, the director of the Drug Enforcement Administration, will travel to Colombia for talks with Pastrana and other officials on DEA activities in Colombia.

-------- europe

EU Faces Calls to Boost Defense

By Paul Ames
Associated Press Writer
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1824-2002Mar22?language=printer

ZARAGOZA, Spain -- European Union defense ministers opened talks Friday facing calls from NATO to spend more money on modernizing their armed forces or risk Europe's marginalization as a military power.

More than 1,000 police and civil guard officers were deployed for the two-day summit to guard against a terrorist attack or a repeat of the rioting outside last weekend's EU summit in Barcelona. Antimilitary groups planned demonstrations Friday and Saturday.

"Unless Europe does more militarily, we will not be able to operate alongside America's rapidly modernizing armed forces," NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson said on Thursday.

"I believe that would be a disaster," Robertson told a conference in Prague before heading to the EU meeting in Spain's military academy on the outskirts of Zaragoza.

As well as discussing Europe's military capability, delegates are scheduled to discuss closer EU cooperation in fighting terrorism, plans for an EU force to take over NATO's peacekeeping task in Macedonia and efforts to consolidate Europe's fractured armaments market.

Robertson's comments in the Czech capital were the latest in a string of recent speeches where he has berated European allies for not doing enough to narrow the capability gap between European and U.S. military - a disparity underscored by the high-tech American operations in Afghanistan.

NATO commanders complain in particular that European forces lack heavy transport planes needed to get troops to crisis spots quickly, precision attack weapons, electronic warfare equipment, up-to-date intelligence gear, missile defense and special forces.

Figures released by the alliance show U.S. military spending scheduled at $305.9 billion last year was almost double that spent by all the European NATO members - even before President Bush announced a $40 billion anti-terrorist package after Sept. 11.

"If Europe wants to punch its economic weight when it comes to crises on its doorstep or more widely, we must modernize our militaries and do so quickly," Robertson said. "The answer can only lie in higher defense budgets and in smarter investment, using these budgets more effectively."

With economies slowing and budgets tight, European nations are reluctant to increase defense spending.

However, in a sign that Robertson's message is getting through, Germany's parliament on Wednesday released long delayed funding of $4.5 billion for a new military transport plane to be developed by Airbus.

Germany is scheduled eventually to purchase 73 of the A400M planes, and Britain, France, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Turkey and Luxembourg a total of 123 more. The planes are scheduled to come into operation by 2008 to help solve Europe's troop transport deficiencies.

Spanish Defense Minister Federico Trillo, who was chairing the meeting, told his colleagues EU nations must work closer together to fight against international terrorism. He urged them to develop improved intelligence cooperation and coordinated plans to protect against nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

He also wants to improve Europe-wide monitoring of air traffic, a measure European military sources said was urgently needed to better guard against a Sept. 11-type attack in Europe.

-------

EU Sees Need to Boost Military

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-EU-Defense.html

ZARAGOZA, Spain (AP) -- European Union defense ministers Friday agreed on the need to boost their military capacity to better tackle terrorism, but showed little confidence they could persuade their governments to increase spending.

``If there is an increase in military spending we would certainly welcome it (but) we're not a trade union asking for more money from our prime ministers, we are only defense ministers,'' said Federico Trillo, the Spanish minister who chaired the talks.

The EU ministers opened their two-day meeting with a stark warning from NATO that failure to spend more money modernizing their armed forces means running the risk of marginalizing Europe as a military power.

``Unless Europe does more militarily, we will not be able to operate alongside America's rapidly modernizing armed forces,'' NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson warned Thursday.

``I believe that would be a disaster,'' he told a conference in the Czech Republic before coming to the EU meeting in this northeastern Spanish city.

The EU's own foreign and security chief, Javier Solana, also chided governments for their weak military posture.

``European defense spending has steadily declined throughout the 1990s,'' Solana told the defense ministers. ``Our ambitions ... must be matched by adequate efforts in the area of defense spending.''

Although the Spanish Defense Ministry issued a statement saying all the ministers to bolster defense and security, Trillo later told a news conference they had focused on how to spend existing money more effectively rather than asking for an increase in defense spending.

Trillo said the other ministers backed an appeal for the EU to help in the fight against terrorism by developing improved intelligence cooperation; coordinated plans to protect against nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and improved Europe-wide monitoring of air traffic which the military believes is urgently needed to guard against a Sept. 11-type attack.

The defense ministers met amid tight security in Spain's military academy on the outskirts of Zaragoza. Over 1,000 police and civil guard officers were deployed to deter terrorist attacks or a repeat of the rioting outside last weekend's EU summit in Barcelona.

Antimilitary groups planned demonstrations Friday and Saturday but there were no immediate reports of violence.

Spain said the ministers also agreed the EU's fledging military arm -- which foresees the creation of a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force -- be developed to take on anti-terrorist operations.

That is unlikely to happen soon since it would require rewriting the EU treaty, something that is not scheduled to happen until 2004 at the earliest.

NATO's Robertson has repeatedly warned the EU governments in recent months about the dangers posed by the disparity between U.S. and European forces which has been underscored by the long-range, high-tech American operations in Afghanistan.

``Europe's relative military weakness must be recognized and rectified,'' he said in an interview published Friday in the European Voice, a news weekly published in Brussels, Belgium.

``The challenge is not to match U.S. capabilities, that is clearly impossible,'' he said. ``The challenge is to have the capabilities necessary to make a credible contribution ... as a strong partner to the United States.''

NATO commanders complain European forces lack heavy transport planes to ferry troops to crisis spots, precision attack weapons, electronic warfare equipment, up-to-date intelligence gear, missile defense and special forces.

NATO figures show U.S. military spending of some dlrs 306 billion last year was almost double that spent by all European NATO members -- even before President Bush announced a $40 billion anti-terrorist package after Sept. 11.

-------- india

Kashmir Grenade Explosions Wound 52

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Kashmir-Violence.html

SRINAGAR, India (AP) -- Attackers hurled grenades at a bus stand and marketplace Friday, wounding 52 people in a rare attack on civilian targets in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

Police blamed Islamic separatists for the attacks, and army officers said three militants were killed in gunbattles in two other places in Kashmir on Friday.

Civilians are killed or wounded in Kashmir mostly when they are caught in cross fire, or a grenade aimed at security forces misses its target, or when Islamic militants kill people they suspect to be police and army informers, a senior paramilitary official in Kashmir said on condition of anonymity.

The civilian casualties in Friday's attacks were the highest since the Oct. 1 bombing of the Jammu-Kashmir state assembly building in Srinagar, in which 38 people were killed and approximately 60 wounded -- mostly civilians. In December, 41 people, mostly civilians, were wounded when grenades thrown at security forces exploded on civilians.

On Friday, attackers threw four or five grenades into a busy market at midmorning, wounding 35 civilians in Shopiyan, about 30 miles south of Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu-Kashmir state, said an officer at the state's police control room.

``There were no security forces present. We were going about our daily market routine,'' said Mohammed Shaban, 55, one of the wounded, who was hospitalized in Srinagar.

About five hours later, at least two grenades exploded at a busy bus stand in Anantnag, about 35 miles south of Srinagar, wounding 17 people. They were all civilians except for two paramilitary troopers from the Central Reserve Police Force, said the police control room officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

The police officer said Islamic militants fighting to separate Kashmir from India were suspected.

The Indian government says more than 30,000 people have died since a dozen Islamic militant groups began fighting in 1989 to make the Himalayan region of Kashmir independent or join it with Pakistan. Human rights groups say the number killed is more than 60,000.

In a 14-hour gunbattle in Quimoh village, near Anantnag, about 35 miles south of Srinagar, one militant holed up in a house was killed while an accomplice escaped, said Border Security Force spokesman Tirath Acharya.

Paramilitary police attacked a hide-out of Islamic guerrillas in the woods of Badipathri in Kangan, about 25 miles northeast of Srinagar, killing two guerillas while a third escaped, said Col. G.S. Mann, commander of the paramilitary force in Kangan.

He said the man who escaped was a local commander of Tehrik-e-Jihad-e-Islami from Pakistan, and one of the dead was a Pakistani. The other dead man, Mann said, was a member of the Hezb-ul-Mujahedeen, the largest Kashmiri militant group in Jammu-Kashmir.

An Indian army camp came under rocket attack on Friday, but there were no injuries or damage, said Army Maj. Ajay Pal.

Police have said that militant groups have begun joint operations against the Indian security forces.

``Reorganizing groups is perhaps a reaction to the pressure within Pakistan on Islamic militant outfits,'' said R.S. Bhullar, deputy inspector-general of the Border Security Force.

India accuses Pakistan of aiding the Islamic militants who cross the frontier to make attacks. The Pakistan government supports their cause, but denies helping them. In January, the government of Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf began arresting militants, and banned some groups, but in recent weeks, there have been newspaper reports that thousands have been released.

-------- iraq

Baghdad Launches Charm Offensive

By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press Writer
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1220-2002Mar22?language=printer

CAIRO, Egypt -- Saddam Hussein has dispatched his top officials on a swing through Arab capitals to counter Vice President Dick Cheney's argument during his own Mideast tour that the time had come for a regime change in Iraq.

In Egypt and Bahrain, the Iraqis shadowed Cheney, arriving hours after he departed. In other countries, they beat him to his next stop, but left before his arrival. They also toured nations not on Cheney's itinerary, like Syria and Morocco.

Arguing that Arab governments should not support a U.S. strike on Iraq, they appeared to be preaching to the converted as they traveled from Africa's Atlantic coast to the Arabian deserts. The Iraqi envoys - Izzat Ibrahim, Taha Yassin Ramadan, Tariq Aziz and Saadoun Hamadi - are the four most important officials in Saddam's regime.

During an 11-nation tour that ended Wednesday, Cheney sounded out Arab leaders on plans to widen the U.S. war on terror beyond Afghanistan to include Iraq. He heard the same words at virtually every Arab stop: Don't strike Iraq to remove Saddam.

In the Iraqi charm offensive, experts say Baghdad is trying to court Kuwait, the small oil-rich Gulf nation it invaded in 1990, and strengthen the widely accepted view that deposing Saddam would threaten regional stability by breaking up Iraq into a Kurdish north, a Shiite Muslim south and a majority Sunni Muslim center.

Officials are also capitalizing on the economic importance of Iraq's imports from countries like Egypt, Syria and Jordan. These nations could earn even more from trade with Iraq if U.N. sanctions are lifted. Supporting attacks against Baghdad could put such opportunities at risk.

"The Iraqis were definitely shadowing Cheney to demonstrate the superior rationale of the Iraqi position over the U.S. position," said Eugene Rogan, director of Oxford University's Middle East Center in England.

"For one thing, they are arguing that it would be very difficult to control the (regional) consequences of military action," said Rogan, an American.

Experts say a U.S.-led military campaign to oust Saddam and replace him with a pro-Western regime would also set a dangerous precedent in a region where most leaders are either monarchs with absolute powers, military dictators or civilian leaders who won office through flawed electoral systems, experts said.

Kuwaiti analyst Ayed al-Mannah warned that a U.S. attempt to oust Saddam would provide a "model to be followed" elsewhere in the Middle East.

Some Arab leaders have hinted that their objection to attacking Iraq may have to do more with timing than principle. Speaking Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Jordan's King Abdullah II said:

"I strongly believe that right now, action (against Iraq) would be a mistake because you don't know the end result and with the crisis going on with the Palestinians and the Israelis, I don't think the Middle East would handle any sort of strike."

Ibrahim, the deputy chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, said in Bahrain this week that more than a decade after the 1990 invasion, Iraq and Kuwait should let bygones be bygones.

"It runs contrary to logic, reason and pragmatism for Iraq to threaten Kuwait," Ibrahim said. "It's (in) Iraq's interest that Kuwait enjoys stability and feels secure in its borders."

Kuwait, which relied on U.S.-led forces to end the seven-month long Iraqi occupation in 1991, appeared unimpressed by Baghdad's latest overtures.

Saudi Arabia, whose territory was also invaded by Iraq and hit by its Scud missiles in 1991, is the only Gulf Arab nation besides Kuwait with no direct contacts with Baghdad.

"The leaders of the Iraqi regime are free to say what they want. They are free to exchange roles, to maneuver, to paint the victim as executioner and vice versa," Kuwaiti Information Minister Sheik Ahmed Fahd Al Ahmed Al Sabah said in an interview published Wednesday in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai Al-Amm.

"As for us in Kuwait, we cannot be bitten by the same snake twice. Playing smart will not benefit (Iraq) because the only way out for Iraq is implementing international resolutions."

President Bush would agree. He has labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as members of an "axis of evil" and warned Saddam that he faces unspecified consequences if he fails to allow U.N. arms inspectors back into Iraq.

The inspectors must verify that Iraq has dismantled its arsenal of mass-destruction weapons to see sweeping U.N. sanctions imposed in 1990 lifted.

Baghdad calls the inspectors spies. Ramadan, the Iraqi vice president, said recently that the aim of their return would be "to refresh their data on Iraq so that the next strike will be more harmful than the previous ones."

----

Pentagon official says no Iraq nuclear evidence needed

By JoAnne Allen
Friday March 22, 2002
Reuters
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-96313.html

WASHINGTON - While Iraq considers whether to permit the return of U.N. arms inspectors, a top Pentagon official warned on Thursday the United States does not need proof that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is using weapons of mass destruction before taking action to stop him.

"What the president has said is we can't wait until we have evidence that somebody is using weapons of mass destruction against the United States before we do something to prevent it," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in a CNN interview.

Wolfowitz, a proponent of making Iraq an early target as the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign extends beyond Afghanistan, said Saddam was "a very serious problem" that President George W. Bush has made clear the United States intends to resolve.

"I don't think he's said what that solution will be, but waiting forever is not a solution," Wolfowitz said.

The number-two man at the Pentagon expressed scepticism about whether weapons inspectors would be able to do their jobs if they were allowed back into Iraq.

"They would be severely challenged because Saddam has had several years to hide everything," Wolfowitz said. "It would have to be a very, very forceful inspection system to work."

U.N. inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes meant to punish Baghdad for not cooperating with the arms experts. Iraq would not allow the inspectors to come back and is now in talks with the United Nations on whether to allow their return.

In a separate interview on PBS, Wolfowitz denied suggestions that Israeli-Palestinian violence had become a hurdle preventing the United States from taking action against Iraq. Many Arab leaders have said publicly that they would not support a U.S. move against Iraq as long as violence rages in the Middle East.

Wolfowitz said he understood that the Arab leaders were in a tough position.

"If you were asking someone who's under threat from a serious criminal what should you do about him, I don't think you'd expect that person to go out in public and say 'well I think the law enforcement agencies should come and deal with him,' I think they'd want to know what the law enforcement agencies are going to do."

----

U.N. Inspector Tells Council Work in Iraq Could Be Fast

New York Times
March 22, 2002
By CHRISTOPHER S. WREN
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/international/middleeast/22NATI.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 21 - The chief United Nations arms inspector told the Security Council earlier this month that his inspectors could conceivably accomplish their disarmament tasks in Iraq in less than a year once Baghdad gave the green light for their return, but only if Iraqis actively cooperated.

Once the inspections were carried out to his satisfaction, the chief inspector, Hans Blix, could recommend that the council suspend, though not lift, penalties that have been in place since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Continuing inspections would ensure that Baghdad was not secretly acquiring new chemical, biological and nuclear stockpiles.

Mr. Blix, a Swedish diplomat who is the executive chairman of the United Nations arms inspection commission, briefed the Security Council in a closed session on March 8, a day after the first visit in more than a year by an Iraqi delegation. Details of his briefing, and of questions that the Iraqis handed to Secretary General Kofi Annan, filtered out this week.

The Iraqi delegation was led by Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and included Maj. Gen. Hussam Mohammed Amin, Baghdad's liaison for working with inspectors inside Iraq. The Iraqis described the meetings as "constructive and positive." A United Nations spokesman called them "frank and useful."

Diplomats familiar with Mr. Blix's briefing said he avoided being pinned down on how long the inspectors would be in Iraq, explaining that a renewed search for weapons of mass destruction involved many uncertainties, not least being Iraq's cooperation.

United Nations inspectors have not been on Iraqi soil for more than three years, giving Baghdad opportunity to pursue its weapons program without close scrutiny. The United Nations pulled its inspectors out of Iraq in November 1998 after President Saddam Hussein kept obstructing their access. Their departure opened the way for punitive airstrikes in December by the United States and its allies against Baghdad.

A year later, the Security Council made clear in Resolution 1284 that Iraq must cooperate with the inspectors and that substantial progress must be made in fulfilling the remaining disarmament tasks before the penalties could be lifted.

"It's more than just letting us in," a United Nations official said.

Diplomats here doubted that progress would be so smooth, given Iraq's history of intransigence. Baghdad is demanding answers to its list of 20 questions about the inspections. Diplomats who have seen them have described some questions as technical, others as provocative and intended to prompt a dialogue that could sow dissension among the members of the council.

Robert Wood, a spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations, said the questions given to Mr. Annan were "an attempt by Iraqis to distract U.N. attention away from Iraq's noncompliance with its obligations under Security Council resolutions and to portray Iraq as a victim."

Baghdad's questions vary from disarmament and inspection issues to Iraq's relations with the Security Council and the country's right to defend itself and be compensated for destruction caused by the long-running penalties.

Some questions alluded to the Bush administration's tough stance on Iraq. One question asked whether one permanent Security Council member could interpret the council's resolutions so as to take "unilateral actions" regarding Iraq. Another asked whether threats to invade Iraq and change its government by force violated the United Nations charter, international law and Iraq's own sovereignty.

Other questions asked what was achieved in seven years and seven months of Iraq's cooperation with arms inspectors, what remained to be clarified though inspections, how long would it take to accomplish the tasks and how much time the inspectors would need to reach a degree of certainty that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraqis further asked whether the inspection teams would include previous inspectors who were "involved in spying activities." They also asked how American and British inspectors could fulfill a neutral international mandate, and what guarantees there were that the inspectors would not use the same inspection "formula" that led Iraq to be bombed in 1998.

A senior diplomat said Iraq would not be allowed to set preconditions for cooperation.

"The Iraqis have nothing to negotiate," he said. "They have to say yes."

Mr. Annan forwarded the Iraqis' questions to the council on Tuesday, diplomats said, and gave it the option of responding by April 10. The Iraqis are due back for further talks, possibly on April 18 and 19.

----

Us: UN Should Ignore Iraq Questions

Friday March 22, 2002
AP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-1602965,00.html

UNITED NATIONS - The United States does not want the Security Council to consider a list of questions from Iraq, including whether U.S. actions toward Saddam Hussein violate international law.

``The Iraqi questions given to Secretary-General (Kofi) Annan earlier this month are an attempt by the Iraqis to distract U.N. attention away from Iraq's noncompliance with ... Security Council resolutions and to portray Iraq as a victim,'' said Robert Wood, spokesman for the U.S. mission at the United Nations.

Annan passed the 19 questions on to the U.N. Security Council and asked for a response by April 10.

The questions were given to Annan by Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri during talks focusing on the return of weapons inspectors. A second round of U.N.-Iraq talks is expected to be held around April 18.

Annan said the initial meeting with Sabri had been ``a good start.'' But it produced no sign Iraq would allow weapons inspectors to return - the first step toward lifting 11-year-old U.N. sanctions and a key demand of the United States and other council members.

Inspectors left Baghdad before the United States and Britain carried out airstrikes in December 1998 to punish Iraq for not cooperating with the inspection program. Saddam Hussein's government has barred them from returning.

President Bush has warned Saddam that he faces unspecified consequences if he fails to heed American demands that inspectors be allowed into Iraq to verify whether it has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction.

Diplomats said some of the questions were technical in nature while others appeared to be conditions.

Wood said the Security Council should not ``entangle itself'' with the questions. ``Iraq has an obligation to permit full inspections that can demonstrate the end of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. That is where the council should focus.''

Sabri's questions did not rule out allowing the return of weapons inspectors but indicated that Iraq wants inspections to be conducted for a limited time period and lead to certification that the country is free of weapons of mass destruction - the key condition for sanctions to be lifted. Western officials, however, reject any conditions set by Iraq and demand unfettered access to suspected weapons sites.

The questions deal with the time needed to complete weapons inspections and to certify that Iraq's banned weapons programs have been eliminated, the nature of the inspections, and the composition of inspection teams.

-------- israel / palestine

Mideast Peace Talks Resume

New York Times
March 22, 2002
By JAMES BENNET with TODD S. PURDUM
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/international/22CND-MIDE.html?pagewanted=all&position=bottom

JERUSALEM, March 22 - Israel and the Palestinians resumed truce talks today despite Palestinian suicide bomb attacks, including one on Thursday that killed three Israelis.

In a new bombing today a Palestinian blew himself up at an Israeli military checkpoint in the West Bank, wounding an Israeli officer. It was not immediately clear whether the bomber had intended to carry out an attack in Israel or at the checkpoint.

After Thursday's bombing, in downtown Jerusalem, Israel canceled talks scheduled for later that night.

But today the Israeli Foreign Ministry said Israel had accepted a request from the United States and would resume negotiations under the leadership of the American envoy, Anthony C. Zinni.

The Palestinians sent a delegation to the talks, which got under way several hours after General Zinni held a tense meeting with Yasir Arafat at the Palestinian leader's headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Thursday's bombing, which followed one on Wednesday that killed seven Israelis aboard a bus, has jeopardized the Bush administration's tentative overture to restoring relations with Mr. Arafat.

Senior administration officials said it now appeared highly unlikely that Vice President Dick Cheney, just back from the Middle East, would return for a meeting with Mr. Arafat by early next week, as had been hoped. "We're not ruling it out," an official said, "but this doesn't help."

In sharp rebuke to Mr. Arafat, the State Department moved to designate Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the Palestinian militia that claimed responsibility for the bomb attack, as a foreign terrorist organization.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, traveling with President Bush aboard Air Force One to El Paso on the way to an economic summit meeting in Mexico, telephoned Mr. Arafat from the plane, demanding a public statement, in person and in English and Arabic, condemning the bombing, officials said.

"It was as tough a message as we've ever sent to Arafat, about the urgency of the situation, what we expect, and frankly, the limits of our ability to help if this keeps up," an official said. "Part of the message was: Look, you control your fate here. Help us to help you. But until you do that, we're not going to be able to help you."

Thursday's attack returned the antagonists to the brink of all-out conflict. Israeli officials have suggested that if the truce talks break down completely, they will see little alternative to attacking Mr. Arafat's governing Palestinian Authority directly.

But such a surge of violence here would undermine the Bush administration's efforts to build Arab support for a possible strike on Iraq.

In a sign that Mr. Arafat had not exhausted his chances, Israel's leadership indicated early today that it would not strike back immediately in reprisal for the latest attack, which also wounded more than 40 people. The explosion, of a nail-packed bomb, resounded across Jerusalem and spattered blood three stories above King George Street, in a once-bustling shopping district that has been struck repeatedly during the 18-month-old conflict.

In a statement released early this morning by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office, Israel held Mr. Arafat "solely responsible" for the bombing. It said that "Israel will be unable - for long - to persist in a unilateral effort" to achieve a cease-fire.

Although a suicide bombing on Wednesday, carried out by the Islamic Jihad, elicited only a tepid rebuke from the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Arafat was clearer on Thursday. After Secretary Powell's call from Air Force One, the Palestinian leader said in a statement: "We strongly condemn this military operation that took place in West Jerusalem today, especially since it was against innocent Israeli civilians. We will take immediate and required steps to put an end to these actions and those who stand behind them."

The Islamic Jihad is not directly linked to the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian security chiefs argued to Israel and the Bush administration after the Wednesday bombing that they could not control every militant from that organization.

But Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades is connected to Fatah. Members insist that they respect Mr. Arafat but do not take their orders regarding attacks from him. But Israeli officials say Mr. Arafat controls the organization and has encouraged its violence.

Al Aksa Brigades, a group of loosely affiliated militias most active in the West Bank, has increased the number and deadliness of its attacks against Israeli soldiers and settlers since Jan. 14, when Israel killed a popular Aksa leader in the West Bank city of Tulkarm. As the group has eclipsed Islamic organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it has rebuilt Fatah's popularity, raising questions about Mr. Arafat's power to restrain it.

The bomber was identified as Muhammad Hashaika, 22, from a village near the West Bank city of Nablus. He had been held for a month recently in a Palestinian prison in Ramallah, on suspicion that he was about to carry out such an attack. But after Israeli ground forces attacked Ramallah this month, he was released, Palestinian officials said.

Israel said that after he was arrested, Mr. Hashaika had admitted under Palestinian interrogation that he intended to blow himself up in an Israeli mall, and that he even turned over the explosive belt he had planned to use.

Officials said Secretary Powell had taken the first step to list Al Aksa on the department's formal roster of some 30 terrorist organizations on Tuesday, and had notified Congress on Wednesday. The designation will become official on its publication in the Federal Register next week. Last week, more than 200 members of Congress wrote Mr. Bush urging that the brigades be added to the list.

"The designation of the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade as a foreign terrorist organization is welcome if long overdue," said Representative Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, the ranking member on the House International Relations Committee.

An Israeli diplomat in Washington also praised the move, which Israel had long sought in routine and high-level meetings. "It took them a long time to do this, and the reasons are clear," the diplomat said. "There's no clear wall separating Al Aksa and Fatah, and everyone knows that; it's all very fluid. The minute you say Al Aksa is on the list, the question becomes where does it start and where does it stop. This is a direct message to Arafat."

The group is named after the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem, which has become the rallying point for the revolt, called by the Palestinians the Aksa intifada.

General Zinni has been here for a week, in a renewed bid for a truce after two previous failures. And Israeli officials have been quick to point out that since his arrival, Palestinian militants have killed at least 11 Israelis with at least five suicidal attacks. Security officers say they have stopped several more such attacks.

But some Palestinian leaders complain that General Zinni is neglecting their political grievances while emphasizing Israelis' demands for an end to violence. After the suicide bombing on Thursday, Marwan Barghouti, the West Bank leader of Fatah, said, "The mission of General Zinni was expected to fail, because he came in order to impose the Israeli position, ignoring that the Palestinians are under occupation."

Speaking on the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, Mr. Barghouti said that a truce was in the interest only of Mr. Sharon's troubled government, and that continued fighting was the Palestinians' surest path to statehood.

"We refuse to throw the rope of survival to the government of terror that is sinking in the sea of resistance," he said. "Our resistance is the shortest road to end the occupation."

Under pressure from Arab nations to address the conflict and ease Mr. Arafat's isolation, the Bush administration has made the Palestinian leader's acceptance of a formal truce plan its condition for the proposed meeting next week between him and Mr. Cheney.

The Israeli government has imposed the same requirement as a condition for permitting Mr. Arafat to travel next week to an Arab League summit meeting in Beirut, Lebanon.

Israeli officials involved in the talks have insisted on strictly addressing security concerns, demanding an immediate and durable cease-fire, while Palestinian officials seek rapid progress to substantive political negotiations over their demands for territory and statehood. "One side wants a more narrow definition, the other wants a political horizon," a diplomat here said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

At least rhetorically, the Bush administration has been seeking to emphasize the political benefits to Palestinians of a cease-fire, but it is not clear if it has sought to offer them anything tangible in the negotiations. General Zinni has been seeking to carry out the so-called Tenet working plan, which both sides agreed upon nine months ago but never put into action. The plan - named for George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, envisions a series of reciprocal measures to restore the status quo before the current conflict and permit an eventual return to negotiations.

Under the plan, Mr. Arafat and his security chiefs would be obliged to arrest militants and seize illegal weapons. Israel would be obliged to pull back its forces from what by treaty is Palestinian-controlled territory, to the positions they occupied on Sept. 28, 2000, before the conflict began.

Palestinian officials argue that the whole process should take about 10 days or two weeks, while Israeli officials are arguing for at least four weeks.

-------- landmines

Land mines have no place in modern militaries

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
March 22, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020322-29360156.htm#2

Commentary contributor Ernest W. Lefever states that anti-personnel land mines are not the problem and "their impact depends on how they are used" ("Land mine myopia," March 15). He furthermore contends that the United States should not join the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty because the agreement cannot have "a significant impact on the states that sign" it. Mr. Lefever is wrong. For the 15,000 to 20,000 people each year, mostly civilians, who are maimed or killed by land mines, the tragic flaw of the weapon is inherent in its design as much as in its use. Anti-personnel mines cannot tell the difference between a combatant and a child, let alone friend or foe. Because of their low cost and the relative ease with which they are deployed, these outmoded weapons remain in the ground of more than 80 countries for decades after cease-fires are signed.

Because 142 of the world's nations have joined the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, use of the weapon has decreased significantly and the number of mine-producing nations has shrunk from 54 to 14. Trade of the weapon has virtually evaporated. Most promising, global rates of mine casualties have decreased significantly since the Mine Ban Treaty entered into force.

The humanitarian benefit of this treaty is undeniable. However, it also protects U.S. troops. I have seen firsthand what our own land mines do to our servicemen. For this reason, I was one of eight senior retired U.S. commanders who wrote last year to President Bush in support of the mine ban. Our troops already have alternative technologies, training and tactics that suitably replace this militarily failed device. In the final analysis, mine use has no place in modern militaries, especially our own.

DAVE PALMER
Belton, Texas

Retired Lt. Gen. Dave Palmer is former superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and author of "Summons of the Trumpet."

----

U.S. Troops Surrounded by Minefields

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
March 22, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-Base-Mines.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3435-2002Mar22?language=printer

BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) -- Just off the airstrip and main roads traveled by American soldiers and vehicles lie tens of thousands of silent killers waiting for a single misstep.

The U.S. base at Bagram, just north of Kabul, is home to some 6,000 coalition soldiers, who eat, work and sleep in the muddy fields around the runway and bombed out hangars. It is also one of the most heavily mined areas in the world.

Nearly a quarter-century of fighting has left Bagram littered with mines and unexploded ordnance, from the tiny, flesh-shredding toe-popper land mines to rusting 500-pound Soviet bombs sticking out of the fields just beyond the runway.

``Every inch of this ground is a potentially hazardous area,'' said Marine reservist Maj. Charles C. Lozano, the officer in charge of mine clearing operations. ``It's not just mines, it's also the unexploded bombs, missiles, mortars, hand grenades, and all of it has to be dealt with. All of it poses a danger.''

Two minesweepers -- an American and a Briton -- and an Afghan guard have been injured and two Afghans killed by mines since the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division took over Bagram in November, said Dr. Gerard P. Curran, an army emergency medicine specialist from Kings Park, N.Y.

Other cases have probably gone unreported because Afghan civilians usually are treated off the base, Lozano said.

``I wouldn't go off the roads, I'll say that,'' said Curran of the 261st Medical Support Battalion, 44th Medical Brigade out of Fort Bragg, N.C. ``The whole place is extremely dangerous ... I'm not going to be bringing my family back here with the kids to vacation at Bagram.''

Lozano, a barrel-chested 42-year-old who is a corporate lawyer from St. Louis, has been in the Marines for 20 years and a mine clearing expert for six. He estimated the number of mines and unexploded ordnance on base in the tens of thousands.

In some areas, his teams have found two to three mines per square yard, and Lozano said it would take two years to clear the entire base, though the Army has no plans to even attempt that.

Lozano and his men concentrate on clearing the areas that American and coalition forces need to operate.

``We would never put our soldiers in a situation that would intentionally be dangerous,'' he said. ``Because of that, nothing gets done on this base until we have reduced the mine threat.''

Specially trained American, Norwegian, Bosnian and Polish soldiers and civilians are clearing the mines, but no amount of training can make the work routine.

``My friends think I'm crazy,'' said Pvt. Ole, a Norwegian mine clearer who spoke on condition his last name not be used. ``But I think with experience you get a different perspective. You know it is dangerous, but you know how to handle it.''

The mines at Bagram and in the surrounding countryside were decades in the making. The Soviets left acres of mines around the base when they withdrew from the country in 1989. And the base was on the front lines of fighting between the northern alliance and Taliban, with each side laying their own mines.

More recently, the area was heavily bombed by the Americans targeting Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Unexploded cluster bombs litter many of the fields.

``This is the most challenging thing I've ever done because this is the real deal, and if we don't do our job out here people will die,'' said Lozano, stepping confidently through a cleared field. ``Failure is not an option.''

He said the first step is intelligence. He spends many of his days talking to Afghan commanders to learn which areas are most heavily mined. But the information is not always reliable.

``We have found mines even in the living areas in places we were told were not mined,'' Lozano said.

There's more than one way to clear a minefield, he said, but often the first pass is made by the Norwegian soldiers. They gingerly examine the area wearing weight dispersion boots -- giant rectangular air shoes that theoretically won't set off a mine.

When the Norwegians find particularly volatile explosives, they take them out using high-caliber guns or with a small robot.

Next, an armored bulldozer flails the ground with metal chains to detonate any remaining mines. Finally, bomb-sniffing dogs go over the turf.

``The dogs are my most accurate means of proofing a mine field,'' Lozano said. ``They provide an incredible capability because they can do what humans and machines can't. They can smell explosives.''

The mine clearers also help educate soldiers.

``It's always on my mind,'' said Lance Cpl. Jeremy Johnson, 19, from Springfield, Ill., a member of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit. ``Everywhere you walk, I mean, you never know. Anything can jump out and get you.''

Lozano says he likes hearing that kind of talk, because it means the soldiers are paying attention.

``If I can keep one less kid from blowing off a leg or dying than I feel great,'' he said.

-------- peru

We didn't do it: Peru's Shining Path, Tupac Amaru rebels

Friday March 22
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020321/1/2mqqi.html

Both the Shining Path, the hardline Maoist rebel group that waged a bloody war against Peru's government in the 1980s, and the smaller rival Tupac Amaru insurgency denied responsibility for the bombing near the US embassy in Lima.

Two Shining Path spokesmen currently behind bars told AFP by phone that survivors have been seeking a political solution to their issues since 1993.

Moreover, hundreds of Shining Path rebels doing time in Peruvian prisons recently held a hunger strike, demanding new trials and better prison conditions.

"This attack does not benefit us; on the contrary, prison conditions will be even tougher now," said a rebel spokesman identified as "Comrade Arturo," speaking from the Castro Castro maximum security prison.

Likewise, an MRTA spokesman also in Castro Castro not only denied responsibility, but condemmed the late Wednesday bombing, which killed nine and injured 30.

The MRTA always acknowledges its attacks, said the spokesman, who gave the name of "Alvaro," adding that his group "has never had civilians as targets."

"One cannot carry out an attack at a time that we are looking to get the democratic government (of President Alejandro Toledo) to accept new trials and improve prison conditions," he said.

Both the Shining Path and the MRTA guerrillas used car bombs as weapons in their war on the Peruvian state.

The single worst incident was a Shining Path car bombing that killed 20 and injured more than 250 in July 1992, in the Lima suburb of Miraflores.

The Shining Path, which at its height had some 10,000 followers, was virtually crushed just two months later when police arrested its elusive leader, Abimael Guzman, and six senior group leaders.

Over the next years then-president Alberto Fujimori approved draconian security measures and carried out a major crackdown on both guerrilla groups, rounding up hundreds of rebels and rebel sympathizers.

Shining Path spokesman "Comrade Hugo" noted that when his group set off car bombs they always had clear targets, often used remote controlled vehicles, and they would spread out in the area acknowledging the attack.

"Hugo" said that if police looked at the attack closely they would clearly see the differences with their car bomb attacks.

Guzman is serving a life sentence at a maximum security prison at a naval base outside Lima, along with a handful of the highest Shining Path and MRTA leaders.

Also at the prison: Vladimiro Montesinos, head of intelligence and top Fujimori advisor, awaiting trial on charges that include corruption and human rights abuses.

One government security official in Washington said that the attack "appears consistent with Shining Path actions."

However US State Department officials in Washington were more wary of linking the group to the blast, noting that the investigation was only in its preliminary stages.

"The link (with the Shining Path) is very speculative at this point as far as I know," one department official said.

-------- spy agencies

Japanese Accuse Former Russian Envoy

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Japan-Spying.html

TOKYO (AP) -- Japanese police asked prosecutors Friday to indict a former Russian envoy they suspect tried to buy U.S. military secrets from a former Japanese air force officer in the late 1990s. The Russian Embassy denied the allegations.

Tokyo Metropolitan Police suspect that Alexei Shchelkonogov, a Russian trade official, asked the ex-officer for secret information on U.S. guided missile systems for fighter jets and paid him for it, a police official said on condition of anonymity.

The United States supplied the missile systems to Japan under a joint security pact, the official said. He did not identify the former Japanese officer and declined to say whether Shchelkonogov obtained any weapons data or whether he was still in Japan.

Japanese media reports, however, said Shchelkonogov did not obtain secret information and that he returned to Russia in 2000.

The police official said prosecutors are expected to decide in the coming days whether there is enough evidence to indict the Russian on espionage charges.

Shchelkonogov, 43, would face up to 10 years in prison if charged, tried and convicted of espionage in Japan, but he is unlikely to be tried because diplomats have immunity from prosecution.

The Russian Embassy in Tokyo issued a statement Friday calling the allegations ``a fabrication'' and an ``unhealthy campaign by powers who still live in the Cold War period and do not wish for a bilateral peace treaty.''

``Although we do not desire a setback in the progress of building bilateral relations, if such a case occurs it will all be Japan's responsibility,'' the Russian statement said.

A dispute over a chain of islands seized by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II and claimed by Japan has prevented Russia and Japan from formally ending the hostilities with a peace treaty.

In Moscow, Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service stuck to its policy of refraining from comment on spying accusation.

The Tokyo police official said the former Japanese Air Self-Defense Force officer was working as an executive at a Japanese weapons contractor at the time of his alleged contact with Shchelkonogov.

Japan's largest newspaper, Yomiuri, reported Friday that Shchelkonogov began meeting the ex-officer in 1997. It said prosecutors claim that two years later Shchelkonogov asked for secret documents on U.S.-developed missiles including the Sidewinder air-to-air missile.

The newspaper, which did not cite sources, said the executive did not hand over any secret information and that Shchelkonogov returned to Russia in March 2000.

A Japanese naval officer arrested in September 2000 was later convicted of giving a Russian Embassy official classified military documents. The Russian official returned to Moscow.

--------

FBI Moves to Prevent Espionage

March 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-FBI-Security.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Since capturing a spy in its ranks, the FBI has reduced the number of agents with access to sensitive intelligence and conducted hundreds of polygraphs that have identified possible problems with about 10 employees, officials said.

Senior FBI officials said the intensified focus on preventing espionage also has increased the number of disciplinary cases in the last six months involving employees.

No new espionage suspects have been identified, officials said. Most matters have been referred to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates internal wrongdoing, the officials said.

``Our goal is to bring the culture along to the point where security is considered part of the daily operations,'' said Ken Senser, a CIA employee who was brought over to the FBI in 1999 to improve internal security. He now oversees the FBI's new security division.

Over the last six months, the FBI has reduced by hundreds the number of employees who have access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), which is even more sensitive than top secret intelligence.

Roughly half of the FBI's 28,000 employees held SCI clearance at times before the number was reduced. Officials said the new, lower figure is classified, but only employees with a need to know such information for their immediate jobs now hold the high-level clearance.

``We focused on the numbers of people who had access to SCI and actually we were able to reduce that number noticeably,'' Senser said.

Former CIA and FBI Director William Webster is wrapping up a massive review of the FBI's internal security in the aftermath of the Robert Hanssen spy case. The senior agent spied for Russia for more than a decade without U.S. detection.

While awaiting Webster's recommendations, the FBI agreed to answer questions earlier this week from The Associated Press about some of the changes and findings already made.

FBI officials said they have conducted more than 700 polygraphs of FBI agents and workers with access to the most sensitive information and have identified a small number whose tests raised flags, such as possible deception, that warranted additional scrutiny.

Officials said the number was just over 1 percent of those tested -- just under 10 workers. They declined to be more specific, citing ongoing investigations and personnel privacy.

Officials said that some workers whose polygraphs raise initial concerns about deception may eventually be cleared because things like medical conditions can cause anomalies on the tests. But they described a broad effort to remake the FBI's internal security procedures.

Assistant FBI Director John Collingwood said internal security for too long was not given the priority and emphasis it needed inside an agency whose primary focus was catching criminals and which relied on a family oriented system of trust.

``We have failed to do those basic things, as mundane as they may seem, that are vital, and that are becoming increasingly vital, in today's world,'' Collingwood said.

In March 2001 as the bureau was still reeling from the breadth of Hanssen's espionage, then-Director Louis Freeh announced several changes that included increased use of polygraphs.

New Director Robert Mueller has gone even further, reorganizing the entire structure of the FBI to put added emphasis on terrorism prevention and improved internal security.

FBI officials said a key focus will be on a multiyear project to craft new computer systems that will detect suspicious activity as it is occurring rather than years later.

The goal eventually is to provide FBI supervisors with regular reports ``that says these are 10 things that happened last night that you ought to look into that are causes of some concern,'' Senser said.

In the interim, every FBI field office has created a security council to routinely review issues of security and sensitive intelligence in day-to-day operations.

The sharper focus on security isn't limited to the FBI.

The Justice Department this month enacted tighter restrictions against foreigners working on computer systems at the department.

Officials indicated they may allow foreigners to continue working on some current projects if they determine there is ``an acceptable level of risk,'' according to an internal memo.

``Waivers will be granted only in exceptional and unique circumstances,'' but foreigners would never be allowed to work on classified technology systems at Justice, the memo said.

-------- un

Norway Pushing for Tight Arms Embargo on Somalia

By REUTERS
March 22, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-somalia-un-arms.html

UNITED NATIONS - Fearful that Somalia could deteriorate into a terrorist haven, Norway wants the U.N. Security Council to enforce its arms embargo by setting up a monitoring system to name and shame weapons procurers.

In draft proposals that Security Council members are reviewing Friday and next week, Norway advocates that the United Nations set up a panel of experts, as it did when sanctions were imposed on Angola and Liberia, to analyze violations of a 1992 arms ban that rarely has been observed.

The monitoring group would study violations ``by land, air and sea'' and identify practical steps that could be taken to enforce the embargo, according to a Norwegian document.

The United States has not yet agreed to the proposals and is still studying them, diplomats said.

Panels that have been set up for some other nations that are under sanctions have issued reports naming countries and individuals who violate embargoes.

Enforcing the weapons sanctions was first proposed by the country's fledgling transitional government, which was set up in 2000 at a Djibouti-sponsored conference of Somali elders and is backed by Arab nations.

The conference was the most serious attempt in years to restore central authority since the northeast African country broke into rival warlord fiefdoms after former dictator Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991.

But the new rulers control only part of Somalia's capital Mogadishu and small areas elsewhere.

Several militia chiefs have close relations with neighboring Ethiopia and accuse Saudi Arabia, Libya and other Arab nations of funneling arms or money for arms to their opponents. The new government says weapons come from Ethiopia.

Norway, in a draft document, also wants the United Nations to establish a political presence in Somalia, which U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan so far has refused to do because of the insecure situation.

The statement prepared the staff of Norwegian Ambassador Ole Peter Kolby, this month's Security Council president, would ask Annan ``to keep the security situation under review'' through regular assessment missions.

But it also asks him ``as a matter of urgency'' to establish offices in Mogadishu, Baidoa and Hargeisa for a pilot ''peace-building'' program.

The Somali faction and government leaders are scheduled to meet in Kenya next month, with officials from Ethiopia, Uganda and Eritrea in another attempt to end the chaos.

The United Nations was heavily involved in Somalia from 1993 to 1995, when it took over from a U.S.-led multinational force to protect relief aid for the famine-stricken country and help restore order.

But Somalia remained mired in factional fighting. U.S. and Pakistani soldiers were attacked by mobs and suffered gruesome deaths.

In recent months, the Pentagon has voiced concern that al Qaeda fighters might have left current fighting in Afghanistan for lawless parts of Somalia. Saudi-born extremist Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network is accused by the United States of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks on Washington and New York.

---

Poor countries welcome UN anti-poverty drive but want to see action

Friday March 22
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020321/1/2ms78.html

Leaders from poor countries welcomed a new UN anti-poverty drive under debate at a development summit but insisted that good intentions must now be backed by concrete deeds.

"We mustn't stop at words, we have to act," Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the opening session of the two-day gathering. Chavez, who said he was speaking "for the poor of the earth," is the current head of the Group of 77, a forum comprising 133 developing countries.

Many of their representatives are here to endorse the Monterrey Consensus, a pre-agreed framework that envisages more assistance from the industrialized world in exchange for commitments from developing countries to sound government and open markets.

But the 16-page document, due to be adopted on Friday, carries no firm financial pledges and sets out no timetable for implementation.

"I am surprised that so many leaders from less advanced countries are here and have subscribed to so weak a declaration," said one European source.

Nigerian President Olusegun Obassanjo recalled that world leaders in September 2000 had adopted the Millennium Development Goals, one of which calls for the proportion of people living in abject poverty to be halved by 2015.

"After almost two years we detect no progress (on the Millennium goals) and express our profound concern that, according to a World Bank report, Africa in particular is unlikely to come close to those goals if present trends continue."

He was referring to declining levels of official assistance from the industrialized world. But Obassanjo was also clearly exasperated by the slow pace of debt relief for developing countries, saying he had been unable "to obtain a single cent" of relief that could then be applied to Nigeria's social needs.

It was a theme taken up by Togolese Prime Minister Agbeyome Kodjo.

"Concerning the debt, its cancellation pure and simple would not weigh on our consciences as loyal partners because its persistence and its burden on our economies result in part from the appreciation of the dollar and the devaluation of certain currencies," he said.

The demand for words to be followed by actions appeared to resonate with certain European leaders and international institutions.

"We must move beyond ritual, convenient texts and sweet words," said Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt.

"The implementation of the Monterrey Consensus should be the next chapter in our efforts to create a better world," added International Monetary Fund Managing Director Horst Koehler.

-------- us

USD Aldridge Media Roundtable on Acquisition Program Updates

United States Department of Defense News Transcript On the web: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/t03222002_t0322apu.html

Media contact: media@defenselink.mil or +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact: public@defenselink.mil or +1 (703) 428-0711

Presenter: Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, Jr., USD ATL
Friday, March 22, 2002

(Media roundtable on Acquisition Program Updates)

Aldridge: Well, I'm Pete Aldridge, and I'm the undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. It's a pretty broad portfolio, more so than I thought when I first accepted the job. We deal a lot with certainly the weapon systems; we deal with all the technology efforts and all the logistics support. And I also have responsibility for the chemical and biological defense activities through an assistant to the secretary for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs. So our activities these days have been quite busy.

I thought I'd just talk -- a couple of things that are on my mind, and then I'll open it up for questions.

Okay, first of all, we've been very pleased with the response from the international partners on the Joint Strike Fighter. We now have -- as you know, several people have already signed up to be partners on the Joint Strike Fighter. We have what we call three levels of participation. Level one is a highly active participation where -- such as the United Kingdom is a level-one partner. They have contributed $2 billion to the Joint Strike Fighter program development, and they are -- were involved with the source selection process and have people in the Project Office.

The level-two partners are in the levels of like $800 million to a billion dollars, and we have two countries which are in the final processes now of making the approval. Their cabinets have approved joining, and now they've taken it to their parliament, and we expect their parliament to make a decision by the first week -- second week in April. And that's the Italian and Netherlands. Both of those have got their processes in place to make that happen.

Then we have level-three partners, which are in the $150 million range. They get to participate in the programs and their industries can participate in the development of the aircraft, and so forth. Canada has already signed up as a level-three partner. We have Denmark, Norway and Turkey have all announced their intent to sign up with us. They have to go through their parliamentary process as well.

But the program looks in pretty good shape from an international perspective, and we would expect many some more countries would come on board. We're in discussions, in formal discussions, with other countries on that activity.

Missile defense. As you know, the secretary signed out in January an organizational change for missile defense. That is now being implemented. We're streamlining the process to give General Kadish an ability to make very tough decisions in what is -- what would be called as a system-of-systems approach to missile defense. We have various layers, intercept layers, from boost phase, mid- course, terminal. And we're looking at various ranges of rockets, from short, medium and long range. So we've kind of got a matrix. And the system-of-systems approach is being addressed there to look at solving that very difficult problem. He needs a streamlined decision process to do that, and we've implemented that for him.

There's been some criticism that we're not providing sufficient oversight of the missile defense activity. That is not true. We formed a Missile Defense Support Group, which is 13 individuals representing all the equities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments, including the Joint Staff, OT&E (Office of Test and Evaluation) -- all those people are -- there's individuals named so that they can access the Missile Defense Agency and get information. They are supported by a working group consisting of analysts that will handle the day-to-day details. There's two people per organization assigned to that slot. So we have 39 individuals from the department who will be providing oversight for the Missile Defense Organization. They will be given access to the -- all the data on missile defense. They have independent -- ability to do independent analyses. They report to me, as the undersecretary. They provide advice to the director of the Missile Defense Agency for whatever activities they feel they want to provide him advice.

And they also provide advice to the Senior Executive Council. The Senior Executive Council will be the board of directors that will oversee the Missile Defense Agency and make the major decisions regarding if we're going to deploy or not and those activities. Senior Executive Council is -- was formed by the secretary, which is the deputy secretaries and the chairman. The three service secretaries are on the board, and I serve as -- also as a member of the Senior Executive Council. So that will be the oversight -- that is the board of directors for missile defense, and then the Missile Defense Support Group provides advice both to the director, as well as to the SEC in advising these decisions.

The last thing I'll talk about today is V-22. I did a review of the V-22 program plans just a few days ago. We plan to start flight- testing the end of next month. And activities are underway to make that happen -- getting prepared. The secretary of the Navy and I will have a final return-to-flight review before it actually starts flight testing, to make sure everything's in place to do what we expected to be done. It'll be an event-driven test program. It will not be driven by schedule. And all the activities that we've outlined -- they need to be performed to make sure the airplane is reliable, safe and operationally suitable. We'll be done, and those plans will be put in place before we will accept the flight-test program, and we'll monitor that during the period, to make sure it's working okay.

So with that, I think that's enough. I'll just turn it over to questions.

Yeah.

Q: Can you tell us where you're at on the anthrax-vaccination program?

Aldridge: Yes. As you know, the -- my favorite topic -- (chuckles) -- the bioport facility was, in fact, approved by FDA for production. It is now producing vaccine. We're trying to get the contract in place to -- because we actually had a stop-work contract -- a contract which we actually stopped work on. It is now being renegotiated to get back on the contract. We're now looking, and the secretary of Defense is looking at the anthrax-vaccination policy now that we have production. He has not made his decision on that as yet. But we are now producing the anthrax vaccine that -- (inaudible) -- in fact, been approved by the FDA.

Q: Do you expect to start giving shots at some point?

Aldridge: That's being reviewed by the secretary, in fact, almost as we speak. It will be decided within the next week or so as to how to proceed at this point in time.

Yes.

Q: With respect to missile defense, in the last administration, with the issue of deployment, there were certain activities that were actually planned if deployment took place. At this point, what would a deployment decision do for the activities that you aren't doing now?

Aldridge: The -- well, as you know, the president has announced that we will withdraw from the ABM Treaty. As of June the 14th, we will not be restricted by the treaty constraints. We could do whatever the president decides he wants to do in regard to deployment.

I'm not sure if I understand your question. The -- we were preparing for deployment, but we could not do anything because of the treaty. Now when the treaty gets removed this coming June, we will -- we can do whatever we believe is feasible to do with regard to deployment.

Q: And what activities fall under that, then, would you say?

Aldridge: We have a plan to use -- we have a test program set up in which part of the test activities were a series of silos in Alaska that could be -- that were going to be used for test activities. They could in fact be used as an emergency missile defense capability -- use the test assets for missile defense, with the radars and the interceptors that would be deployed --

Q: So we're not building a full X-band radar?

Aldridge: All of that is -- we have made no decision to deploy past --

Q: That would be a deployment decision.

Aldridge: That would be a deployment decision. We could use the test assets as a limited capability. That's all that has been decided -- that we could use that if we so select to do so. But we have not made any deployment decision at this point.

Yes?

Q: Also on the missile defense issue, you said the process is being streamlined, but you have 39 officials doing oversight. Can you explain specifically how it's being streamlined and how it's saving anything from the current process?

Aldridge: Okay. The -- as you know, when you talk about a given weapons system, there is a defense acquisition process that's in place, that goes through a series of meetings and reviews. For one weapons system, that is pretty comprehensive. Missile defense has several weapons systems. They have the ground-based midcourse system. They have the Navy's midcourse capability. They have the PAC-3. We're looking at space-based technologies for -- that could be applied -- the SBIRS-Low (Space-Based Infrared System), for example. All of those are weapons systems in their own case.

What we've done is told the Missile Defense Agency they are combining all those into essentially a system of systems. So he has the decision authorities to trade off among all of those things, with only reviews by the Missile Defense Support Group. So his decision process is much like what we would describe as the National Reconnaissance Office. It was kind of a centralized office in which the director has a lot of the decision-making authority within his review, rather than having to go through all the OSD staff reviews prior to making those decisions.

So the OSD staff now looks at what he's doing, provides inputs to him, but not as individual offices. If you thought about all 13 offices going to the Missile Defense Agency at different times, getting different information, that could be terribly disruptive to an organization like they have. So we're saying: Let's have one group go simultaneously. They all hear the information at one time. They're preplanned, predetermined, and it's a much quicker way to make decisions that way.

Q: So can the director make funding decisions, like shift funding from midcourse to sea-based, or --

Aldridge: Yes, he can.

Q: He can.

Aldridge: He can do that -- within limits, obviously. I mean, there has to be -- he's not going to make a decision to cancel a program in favor of another one. But if he's finding a program within the midcourse area, it needs some funding transfer, he can do so within the limits provided by the Congress, of course. They have to be involved. There's reprogramming limits in there, in what you can do within a program element. But he has the authority to do that. It won't be done in isolation of the reviews that are ongoing, but he has the ability to do that.

Yeah? Right here.

Q: There have been some reports about the Navy and the Marine Corps weighing a proposal to really seriously cut back on the Joint Strike Fighters and F-18 purchases coming down the pike, by 30 percent. I understand that proposal hasn't been, you know, presented in a final form to you folks yet, but can you talk about what your feeling is on that and whether any significant cut would have serious implications for the per-unit cost?

Aldridge: Well, the details of that are going to have to be done by the Navy and Marine Corps.

But let me just say that in the department we do studies all the time, and in this particular case, this study was asked for by the secretary of Defense last year -- or -- and as part of the Defense Planning Guidance. The Defense Planning Guidance asked the secretary of the Navy to take a look at the Marine/Navy TACAIR (tactical air). They've done that study. The study has been brought back into the Pentagon. It's now being evaluated as to what to do about it, and there are lots of questions being raised about the various assumptions being made in the study and the impact of unit cost and the impact it might have on the Air Force and the impact it might on the international partners. If the unit -- if the number of aircrafts drops, unit cost goes up, well, how can you mitigate unit cost? What's the mix of the various kinds of airplane -- you know, question after question, and we're -- now we're going through all those questions. And so when the Navy's -- and the Marine Corps are prepared to address those, I think they plan to come and talk to you about it. But at this point in time, it's very premature. Okay?

Yeah?

Q: Now that you've got more international partners almost signed up, when you figure the U.S. cost for Joint Strike Fighter, are you assuming a certain number of foreign partners, or is it a bonus when --

Aldridge: No. Our assumption was the unit -- number of aircraft procured was the U.S. plus the U.K., which was a signed-up partner. And that was roughly 3,000 airplanes. We made no assumptions about how many international partners. So whatever reduction, if it's accepted that we'll take a fewer number of aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, if we buy X -- that same number (inaudible) international, it's offset. So we are anticipating that the international buy will be in the thousands. So I -- it's -- I'm not worried so much about the unit cost, but -- and certainly it has no effect whatsoever on the development program or the initial production. It's what you do way at the end of the program; it's what they're talking about.

Q: But wasn't the --

Aldridge: Yes. (inaudible) -- right here. Yeah. Were you -- ?

Q: Your office has directed that defense -- (inaudible) -- agencies fully fund their programs to OSD CAIG estimates. Can you talk about how that has affected, I guess, your relationship with these services' program managers --

Aldridge: (chuckles)

Q: -- and also how it's affected their budgets?

Aldridge: The first reaction was not very favorable; I'll put it that way. But the -- it is fortunate that the service secretaries that we have are businessmen. They come from -- they understand this problem. And so they have accepted the fact that this is going to be -- to use the CAIG (cost analysis improvement group) estimate most of the time. There are certain conditions in which we look at it and we make a conscious decision. The CAIG was good for that part. It was maybe not quite so good for another part. Maybe the services have a better way to do that.

Of course, I use an example: the F-22. We did -- we took the Air Force estimate for the F-22, and when there was a disagreement -- but we said we were going to buy the number of airplanes that the CAIG says you could buy at that number. So we took the CAIG procurement rate or procurement totals with the Air Force estimate.

Now the incentive is in the right direction. It's with the contractor and the Air Force to buy, to make the cost go down so they can buy more airplanes. If the cost doesn't go down, they can buy less airplanes. So it's -- the incentive is right. And I think from this point on -- it's a combination of two things at work here. It's the combination of a spiral development, to put my favorite topic in the conversation. To get things in the field quicker, with less risk, with technology that's matured and properly pricing the program provides stability, which is the biggest culprit of all the problems we have in the Department of Defense -- is the instability in the procurement cost, as the cost -- the funding is inadequate to fund the program, it slipped. So delays and every dollar you take out of a program this year, you put three or $4 back into it later.

So properly pricing programs with spiral development is a way to enhance stability. And as a matter of fact, I'd call properly pricing programs as a cost-savings measure, because you don't have to do that multiplication of $3 or $4 to one out in the out years.

Yeah, way in the back.

Q: What prompted this review of the Joint Strike Fighter plans for the Marines and the Navy? Is it budget-driven, or is there something about, you know, the need for so much tactical aircraft?

Aldridge: Well, it's -- you know, it's -- it was decided in the Defense Planning Guidance. That's what the directive was. The Defense Planning Guidance for the last year, 2001, asked for it to be done. It was done under the assumption of: We are transforming the force. We have a new technology called Joint Strike Fighter, which has a very good v-stall capability, different than the Harrier. And we looked at the QDR and the DPG together, talked about anti- access capabilities. It was a viewpoint that says let's look at the Navy-Marine Corps from an overall point of view, from a strategy, from a technology, and see if it's right. And that's what -- I can't say it any closer than that. It's always money at the back. I mean, the taxpayer has to pay, but it is primarily focused on strategy and technology and what could it do for you for the future.

Q: And the conclusion was that you didn't need as many as you thought you initially would.

Aldridge: No conclusion yet. They've basically provided the study, they've come forth, we're reviewing it. The study has made some recommendations in regard, but the secretary of Defense has not signed off on this, we in the department have not signed off, and still a lot of questions to be asked about it.

Q: Can you say how long a decision may -- you know, when do you expect to come to some kind of decision about this study? Aldridge: We'll come to a conclusion when we have to. But, you know, there's no -- this study will not have any impact upon the force structure of the Navy-Marine Corps until the year 2020. It has no effect upon the development program for the next four or five years. It has no effect upon the production program until the year 2012. It's really at the end of the production when these force- structure things will be seen. You know, when do you stop the production? And I'll tell you, I have no idea how many planes you're going to buy in the year 2020, and neither does anybody else.

Yeah, right here, second row.

Q: During the concept demonstration phase of JSF, Israel and Singapore participated as FMS (Foreign Military Sales} players, Has an invitation been extended to these guys to play in (inaudible)? And are you engaged in talks with these two countries?

Aldridge: Yes. I was at Singapore, at Singapore air show just a couple weeks ago. I talked to Peter Ho, who is my counterpart in Singapore, as well as the minister of defense. They are interested. They talked about how might they participate in the program. I don't know if they've made a decision as to whether they will be an industrial partner or whether they'll just be a participant in some type of study, and they don't know at this point. But we've invited them to come. We've given them briefings on the program. And if they would like to join us, I think Singapore is such an ally at this point that we would be delighted to have them with us.

Q: And Israel was the other FMS participant.

Aldridge: Israel is being -- we've been talking with Israel, but it hasn't gone past more than just some discussions at this point.

Yes, way in the back?

Q: A question. There was a report recently, about a month ago, that we used so many precision-guided munitions in Afghanistan that the Defense Department has asked the manufacturer of those kits to work essentially around the clock to bring the stores -- you know, the stocks back up, and that could potentially delay a move against Iraq or some other country by some months; six months, I think, was what the story said. Can you comment on that?

Aldridge: I'll comment on the thing that I know something about, and that's production of the munitions.

Q: Okay.

Aldridge: We have, in fact, accelerated the production rate for both the JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition} bombs and the GBU (guided bomb unit) laser-guided bombs. It was very clear that the utilization rate that we had in Afghanistan was certainly above what our peacetime stockpile would support, so we've had to go back and readjust the production rates. We have funding in the emergency supplemental to make that happen. We did accelerate also the laser-guided bombs. I'm looking at that again to see if we -- if that production rate is sufficient to provide it so the stockpile can handle any contingency for the future that might be anticipated. That's anybody's guess as to what that might be and where it might be.

Q: I think the report was that literally we've asked the company to go sort of 'round the clock, three shifts, 24 hours a day to crank these things out.

Aldridge: I know it's multiple shifts. I don't know if it's three per day, because sometimes that's very difficult to do. You need a maintenance period to kind of clean things up. But we're trying to -- we're facilitizing to build -- get the rates up to a sufficient level to meet our requirements.

Q: Is there a time goal for that; you know, we want to have them back up to what we need by X months?

Aldridge: No, we're basically looking at what we can actually do, because there are some long poles in the tent here about the components can only be produced at a certain rate. We're trying to do that to just about the maximum rate, and we'll fill it up as quickly as we can. That's as quickly as we can and what we can afford to do and what the facilities will permit us to do with the components that are available.

Q: Is there a suggestion that you would increase the number of facilities?

Aldridge: I'm sorry?

Q: Would you increase the number of manufacturing facilities?

Aldridge: Not increase the number of them, but probably tool up within the facilities we currently have.

Yes?

Q: May I take you back one more time to JSF five?

Aldridge: No, you -- (inaudible) -- topic. (laughs)

Q: Well, you know, so many of these big aircraft programs, we see the numbers death spiral. We saw it on B-2, we've seen it in F-22. You know, this has always been something that's been decried at the Pentagon as not a healthy thing. And, you know, this looks like just the first step in yet another TACAIR program going down the drain. I mean, you have a fundamental problem with your flashy numbers.

Aldridge: Let's see. This is not a program that's going down the drain, I'll guarantee you that. It is a program that -- in fact, if anything can be said about the study that the Navy did, it validated the absolute necessity of the Joint Strike Fighter. They have to have it, both in the Navy and Marine Corps, just without a doubt. It is difficult to predict the future, in the year 2020 what one needs. We can't even predict what one needs two or three years in advance. And part of the QDR process was we must anticipate uncertainty and surprise.

So I don't -- you're right, the study appears, if it's accepted -- we may not accept it at all -- would imply that we could get by with fewer fighters because of the performance of the aircraft we're developing. It's the sortie rate and the reliability and availability that's so phenomenal with the aircraft which results in saying --

Q: No matter, I mean, you can't put one fighter in two theaters.

Aldridge: You can't. That's why we have still 2,600 that are being planned, assuming the study's agreed to, but 2,600 to 3,000 still appears to be our requirement. The world can change in the next two years and that requirement could change. And that's kind of what happened with the B-2 and other -- and the bomber forces when they were predicted. We found that we could have equal effectiveness with some of the munitions that we carry on board; it doesn't have to be the platform that carries them, it's the ability to destroy the target they're after, and that is the munition, not the carrier. That's important.

Yes, right here.

Q: There are a number of programs that have major cost overruns, such as the AAAV (Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle), the UH-1 upgrade, as well as the Chinook upgrade. Could you talk to us about how you view programs that have major cost overruns, and specifically whether or not you are considering terminating any major programs in the near future?

Aldridge: Yes, those things I consider a lot. Just a classic example of that is the Navy Area Defense System. We have this thing, this law called Nunn-McCurdy, which we notify Congress when we have a 15 percent cost overrun, we notify them -- or we notify them when we have a 25 percent. Then I have to recertify to the Congress that -- the recertification progress has been delegated to me from the secretary of Defense -- that says if a program exceeds its cost estimate by 25 percent, then I must certify that this program is in the national interest, it must be had for national security, there is no other alternative, the costs are under control and the management is in place to keep it under control.

These programs you mention are those which have a potential Nunn-McCurdy breach, therefore, I must address those four issues to Congress, and I will address them. And if I can't answer those questions, I will not certify. And if I do not certify, the program, by law, stops funding immediately.

So these programs have to come to me and tell me that they believe this is in the national interest, there's no alternative, cost-effective alternative, costs are under control, and the management is in place to keep it under control. And I will not sign a document unless I am convinced that will happen. And I didn't on Navy Area. And I think that message is pretty clear now.

Q: So do you think it may be necessary to do that again to make the message louder?

Aldridge: No, if the services who have those programs -- and I think there's something around eight or 10 that might have this kind of problem coming up, they must convince me, and if they can convince me, I will sign the certification.

We have one that's getting close to certification, one called SBIRS-High -- it's the high-altitude, early-warning capability. It had a Nunn-McCurdy breach. I must certify to Congress by May the 5th of those four criteria. And the Air Force is under process right now to convince me that those four criteria can in fact be met, and if I agree with them, I'll sign the certification, and if I don't agree with them, I will not. And that's -- I'm not going to sign my name on the bottom of a line that I do not absolutely believe I can validate, and appear before Congress to justify. So that's the way it's going to be.

Q: Can I just clarify? When you say you're getting close to certification, are you saying close to having you convinced or you're just close to getting to the date of having to decide?

Aldridge: We have a series of meetings planned to bring me up to speed on how the Air Force is going to convince me that they are doing the right things for recertification. I have to certify by May the 5th. We have meetings on April 26th. There's a last meeting and another status report on April the 2nd to give me where they stand in their process to convince me to recertify. I didn't want to wait till the very last minute and have them come in on May the 4th to try to convince me, when in fact I may have a question or two. So we want to do it a little bit more logically.

Yeah, right here.

Q: Mr. Aldridge, why does OSD want the Navy to buy a ninth LHD (landing, helicopter, dock) ship? I thought the plan was to buy eight and then go to the next -- the successor model.

Aldridge: I'm not sure I would put it in the category "OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) wants the Navy to buy." (laughs)

Q: (off mike)

Aldridge: I think probably that came from the Congress, if I'm not mistaken.

Let me put it in a broader context. The Navy shipbuilding program is insufficient to sustain the Navy at this point in time. That's a concern. It was acceptable. The president's budget in FY '03 accepted that risk, because we had the trade-off between near-term risk and far-term risk, and we tried to balance that. And the president's budget really did that. They -- the Navy accepted the fact that it was better for them to buy fewer ships in FY '03 -- the number was five -- in order to begin the process of upgrading capabilities for the future. The DDX -- they wanted to proceed with R&D (research and development) on the DDX program. They wanted to proceed with other upgrades in their systems, and they certainly wanted to proceed with some fighter aircraft. They feel strongly they don't have enough modern tactical air. So they've made that judgment.

That was for this year. If we look out into the future, their judgment is, they want to try to get the shipbuilding back up. And if -- whatever -- whether this is an auxiliary ship, an amphibious ship, or a -- it's up -- kind of up to the Navy which one they want to buy. But they -- we really need combat capability.

And I think I've -- the other day I've -- somebody was interviewing me on the -- in fact, it may be the guy in the front row here -- on the submarines, and I thought that we need to get our -- certainly get our submarine rate back up from one ship per year to something higher than that. And the DDX is going to allow us to get the surface combatants up. And I would -- my leaning would be toward the combat capability versus the amphibious kind of ships.

Yeah?

Q: Can I follow?

Aldridge: Yeah.

Q: As far as the LHD ships, is it your hope that this ninth one will be the last of this series and then you go to its successor?

Aldridge: Let me not answer that. That's really a question for the Navy, rather than me. I like to see their proposal and see where that goes.

Yes?

Q: There was an interesting report on the radio this morning that the Pentagon, through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), is not renewing the contract with JASON Group of scientists that's been around for, I think, five decades. Can you explain why that is and if you're planning some kind of follow-on scientific advisory group?

Aldridge: There was some questions -- I don't think a decision has been made on that as yet. There was a question whether DARPA was the right organization to be the sponsor of JASONS. And what's happened -- and I've been talking to my director of Defense Research Engineering, Dr. Ron Sega, and I believe our plan is to have Dr. Sega, who has a broader view of the technology base than just DARPA, take over their sponsorship of JASONS. That's the -- that was a plan that was in place. It was not a question of the role of JASONS, it was where its sponsorship should be in this broader context. We'd like to get them opening up some more activities, such as in the chem-bio area, for example. And Dr. Sega probably is a better place for that to happen.

Q: Are they amenable to that -- opening up, broadening their mission?

Aldridge: Oh, absolutely. Oh, absolutely.

Let me go to somebody who hasn't answered (sic) one yet. Way -- yeah, way in the back. The blue shirt. Right here.

Q: With regard to the Army's transformation efforts, the recent award of the Lead Systems Integrator contract for future combat systems, there were some concerns expressed on the Hill right away that the transformation, future combat systems, projected force -- there's not enough funding, and that they're going to have trouble meeting their aggressive time line, as far as fielding it by the end of the decade. Are these things that you've talked about with the service or are these concerns that you share?

Aldridge: Yeah, I do -- I share them. They're on a very aggressive schedule. As you know, they did award the System Integrator contract. They want to make a Milestone B decision, then, in 2003 -- that's a very rapid schedule to be on -- and to get kind of the first units starting to be deployed in the 2008 period. They have funded that program, as best we know what it is today. The System Integrator obviously we'll start defining with more detail about what are the components, how do they interact, what are the command and control systems, and such, which are questions we don't really know the answers to at this point.

We have talked to the Army about this. There will be very clear criteria developed on how you -- what are the criteria for entering into the Milestone B decision process. Milestone B is where you start the engineering development. We call that SDD, System Development and Demonstration program, now. And there will be criteria by -- which must be solved and achieved by that time in order to go into that point at that early period.

So the Army's fully committed to it. That is the future of the Army. That is the transformation in the Army's vision. And they're making every attempt to get there as quickly as they possibly can. So I think -- I know it's high on the priority list in the Army. If they were going to fund anything, it's going to be future combat system first. So -- yeah?

Q: Aldridge: It was only for the missile defense activities. What we're trying to do is the -- there's a -- when you have a major defense acquisition program, you have to write a selected acquisition report. We don't know, in the Missile Defense Agency, what is going to be a program to completion, whether the Navy midcourse system or whether the ground-based interceptor is going to be a system which we are going to deploy. So we've tried to redefine it as to things which are really -- that we have a plan to develop, produce, and deploy them. And that's part of the SAR process.

We've combined those -- all those into a single Missile Defense and -- Agency report. So the Missile Defense Agency is going to write a single, selected acquisition report on the entire R&D program that they have under way. As you know, when we make a decision to deploy a system, such as we did for PAC-3, we will move it out of the Missile Defense Agency and give it to a service for the actual production and deployment and operation. And so the Missile Defense Agency has no deployment program. It is all R&D.

And so, to make 'em write -- select the acquisition reports on things that they may never go past R&D on -- in fact, some may be terminated, as we did for Navy area -- so why write a selected acquisition report on something which is so ill-defined at this point? And it was the definition of what they were doing versus what was required by Congress. We said "Well, these are not major defense acquisition programs in the missile defense, because they're just looking at R&D." So we've redefined it. Senator Reed was not too happy with that definition, but I think the idea is that we're going to give the Congress just as much oversight as they've always had; it will be just packaged in a slightly different way.

Q: So when that SAR (Selected Acquisition Reports) comes up, would there be an explanation of what used to be Navy-theater-wide? Now it's sea-based midcourse -- would be an explanation like ground-based, or would it just be one SAR that covers the whole thing? You wouldn't know what the money is for the sea-based --

Aldridge: No, you would. You would know what every element would be. There would be funding for -- and as they do in their congressional inputs now. They know down to the very last dollar where every program element -- what they're funding for each item they've got. It's a document like, this thick that Missile Defense Agency provides to the Congress. There will be a different SAR for PAC-3 as -- because it did move out, it's now a deployment program, and it does have production and deployment and O&M cost. The R&D -- they will just be a different one. And when a decision is made to move for those out to deployment, we'll write a different report.

Q: I'm sorry. Which could possibly happen if you decide on a contingency capability for the Ft. Greely site?

Aldridge: To be defined. That's a -- because we're using essentially residual test assets for a limited deployment. If you augmented it, maybe with another radar or more interceptors, you might think about a different report. But I think that would be kind of a different -- I think the Congress would be -- would be informed, obviously, with all the information they'd ever need on what this capability would be, but maybe not a different report.

Yeah, way in the back, in the white shirt.

Aldridge: Sir, tagging onto the missile-defense side of things, as well as air warfare and the Navy in general: There's a lot of development going on with center networking systems in the Navy now - CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability), Naval Fires Network (NFN); a lot of these things are starting to mature. Can you provide a snapshot of where you are in supporting the acquisition of these technologies, particularly CEC and NFN and things like that?

Aldridge: The whole network-centric concept is very, very good. It provides a force multiplier to the -- to all of our weapon systems -- the Army, the Navy working together, the Navy working with multiple sensors. Being able to fuse the data is a very important thing to do. And let me just go on and answer a question you didn't ask, but I would like to answer anyway, and that is: Part of the transformation in this year's budget is for something which is relatively new, and it provides a backbone for the future. And that is a much wider -- very large-bandwidth communications capabilities. Everywhere you go and you talk to any communications guy, they will tell you they're bandwidth-limited. We have put something in this year's budget to begin the process of eliminating the barrier, that constraint.

We have fiber optics in the ground that transmit gigabits of data. We are moving into the direction of putting what is the equivalent of fiber optics in space, some new concepts called laser communications. They're, again, gigabit types of capability. And the communication satellites that will transmit -- gather and transmit this kind of information.

So we're beginning that process. Again, it's just beginning. It's going to take years for us to get there. But the end point, the vision we want to accomplish is unlimited bandwidth with global access. Now, we're not going to get exactly there, but that's the concept that we're thinking about: The ability to communicate as much information as we need, we can fly as many UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) orbits as we like basically to try to allow the warfighter to be able to process information, pull information, push information through the system that will be -- that is not restricted to the bandwidth that we have available in our communication system. That's the ultimate objective, and if we get there, if we can get that backbone -- now, I know what's going to happen, we're going to still fill it up, but the fact is we're going to provide a much larger bandwidth into the hundreds of gigabits of bandwidth kind of capacity is what we'd like to achieve.

Q: Are you ready today to support full rate production for CEC in the Navy?

Aldridge: I believe so. I haven't gotten quite up to speed on all of the ramifications of that, but the testing process that I have seen so far says it's doing quite well and --

Q: Is competition part of that sense that you have that it's ready to go?

Aldridge: I'm always in favor of competition, but I'm not sure exactly how it fits in with that at this point in time. I just -- I haven't seen that recently.

Yeah, right here.

Q: On the V-22, you had such shaky confidence in it this fall that you actually ordered a review of alternatives to it. Are you satisfied with the way the testing program has gone? Has the V-22 performed for all the criteria that was laid out by the blue ribbon panel? What's your --

Aldridge: Well, since the crashes, it hasn't been in a testing program at all, it's been grounded. So we stopped the flight test program. We've limited the production to the minimum sustaining level.

We will start the flight test program in -- I think it's going to be April 29th, around that date. There will be a review right before that to make sure the flight test program meets the criteria we want. It will be about a two-year flight test program. Again, not on schedule but on event. If it takes three years, it will take three years. But we have a two-year flight test program in place, and if that proceeds well, then we'll start the production back up, starting turning it over into an operational capability.

I will not approve the flight test program start unless I'm pleased that the flight test plan meets all the criteria that I believe need to be met and are satisfying all the recommendations that both the blue ribbon panel did, which was an early one, and then another panel that is run by NASA (National Air and Space Administration). They have a series of recommendations that need to be performed in the flight test program. They need to do those as well as a couple of others we've added. And we will not approve to start the flight test until that plan is in place. And then we will review the progress. If we find out that there are some test points that need to be repeated, we will repeat them if we see things going wrong.

Q: Are you still looking at alternatives to the V-22?

Aldridge: Yes. Yes. Definitely.

Q: Does the flight test program include operational testing, operational suitability testing?

Aldridge: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Yeah?

Q: Sir, can you give us a status report on the restructuring of the Comanche program?

Aldridge: I'll leave that -- you probably ought to ask the details. The Comanche program has been restructured to be more spiral. It was too concurrent. It was too risky. They had some technologies that were not mature enough to enter into the program as soon as they would like to have seen it. The risk was very high. And so the Army has restructured the program to include now spiral development, in effect introducing the technology when they believe it's mature enough to be introduced. They've stretched the program a year to make that happen. And it's, I believe, what I've seen of the program as the first cut through the restructuring, is it looks like they've got a program that's doable now and I'm much more confident in it.

Yeah, right here?

Q: Can you say anything about how much stress the logistics system is under? I know, for example, that the Air Force has said that it doesn't have the airlift capacity that it needs. So I'm just wondering if anything --

Aldridge: It's under stress, that's clear, because the people are working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to try to support it. I just, in fact, had a briefing yesterday from Admiral Lippert of the Defense Logistics Agency. And they have been on a 24- hour, seven-day-a-week shift since September the 11th to make sure that the people are getting the supplies they need. On the other hand, if you talk to the customer, they'll say they are delighted. They are getting everything they need when they need it. It is stressful, there's no doubt about it. We're flying the wings off airplanes and trying to haul fuel into the Afghanistan area and Pakistan, and it's not -- we're basically hauling it by airlift, which is a terrible way to do it.

Q Is there any capacity for expanded operations at all, or are you maxed out?

Aldridge: The logistics systems meets the job they are asked to do and it's always been done. And how they do it, it's magic, but they always do it, because you never hear a complaint.

Yeah?

Q: Could you expand a little bit on what alternatives to the V-22 you are looking at?

Aldridge: There are several. There's -- let me just talk about a few of them. There's a CH-53X, an upgraded version of the CH- 53. There's the EH-101, an Agusta helicopter. There's an -- I guess it's called S-92, it's built by Sikorsky. There are some upgrades of the Huey, the H-60. And I know the commandant may have some other alternatives. He is -- I just talked to him a few minutes ago and he is serious about reviewing alternatives. He believes that's the right approach to making sure that the Marines have what they need.

They absolutely have got to replace their helicopters with something. And under the -- and we all assume and hope that the V-22 is going to be successful so that will be a replacement. But in case it does not, he has to have something in place to replace their aging helicopters and he's looking at these. He may be looking at others; those are the ones that come to bear that we've looked at already.

Q: Are you going to wait to make a decision on alternatives for the full V-22 testing program to be completed, or is it possible --

Aldridge: We can make that decision at any point. If we see some problems occurring early in the flight test program, we may not continue it, and we could stop and head off in another direction.

But I know the commandant has insisted that he have alternatives in front of him if we find that we have a problem. And he will share those with me at the time.

Yeah, right here.

Q: There are quite a few rotary wing delays, hitches, snags affecting industry at the moment. Is there a concern that this is going to impact on the helicopter industrial base, that you can sustain the manufacturers you have at the moment, given the number of delays?

Aldridge: You mean for the V-22?

Q: Well, V-22, Comanche, the Huey upgrade program. I mean Bell, for instance, is potentially seriously impacted by this.

Aldridge: I think the helicopter industrial base has some problems right now. I have a study underway, which so happens I'll be briefed next week on, on the helicopter industrial base. I think -- we believe there are problems there. It is not being sustained at the right rate, and it may be that we may have to make some type of adjustment. It's a little premature to tell at this point.

Yeah?

Q: Sir, in recent weeks there has been some criticism that's arisen about the fact that in response to a Government Reform Committee inquiry about alternatives to Halon 1301 your office didn't include information about a report that the Air Force had written. Is that true? And if so, why wasn't it included in your July 6th response back to Representative Burton?

Aldridge: I have not the slightest idea. (laughs) I'm sorry! I just vaguely remember the problem -- there's some problem with the F-16 and replacing it, and the Air Force made a decision not to replace it on the F-16 for operation reasons. And at that point, I lost the bubble. I don't recall -- sorry, I can't answer all of that.

Yeah, right here.

Q: Speaking of the defense industrial base, you were talking about the shipbuilding questions earlier and the fiscal year '03 funding, you're talking about five ships with six major shipbuilders in the United States. How much of a concern is it in the administration that that can impact negatively on the shipbuilding industrial base?

Aldridge: We're very worried about it. It's the combination of one, the number of ships aren't enough to sustain the Navy at the level we think is necessary, and we're concerned about the industrial base because we're not building ships at a rate that we need.

It's always a trade-off between the dollars that are available and the needs of the future. And right now the Navy has made a judgment, and I support it, that that rate is okay. But I don't believe we can sustain that type of rate for very long. And I know the Navy is worried about it. They're looking at their budget. We're now just starting the FY '04 budget review process. The secretary is now going through the defense planning guidance for fiscal '04, as we did last summer. We're doing it at a much more -- a different time now because we can do it earlier. But that is a concern and it's something we're going to have to address.

Q: You spoke at a conference last month about your desire to establish some kind of standardized oversight of DOD service contracts, similar to what you have on the hardware side. Can you give us an update on that?

Aldridge: Yeah. That's still being worked. The issue here is that we find that the amount of money we're using for purchase of services, base maintenance and things of that nature, are now equal to what we buy in equipment. So we've had this very rigorous process in the acquisition of weapons systems equipment and we have no such process in the acquisition of services.

We're working with the various service departments -- "services" versus services -- military departments -- we're working with them to put in place a series of processes that allow them to do their own review below a certain threshold, and that it will be brazed to kind of a major defense acquisition program or acquisition category one, if it exceeds some other threshold. All of that process is now being worked and negotiated within the building.

Q: When would you like to have that in place?

Aldridge: I'd like to have it in place last year. It's not going fast enough, in my view. But it's a process that has to take place, so -- yeah?

Q: If I can go back for a second to what we were talking about before, the SAR reports for missile defense, the idea of having one consolidated SAR report. So, for example, if there is a new Navy terminal program or a terminal sea-based program and it's under the consolidated programs that are reported to Congress through MDA, how would you know if there are the cost increases that led to the Nunn-McCurdy breach for the program that was just cancelled if it's consolidated?

Aldridge: Well, you don't because Nunn-McCurdy really was associated with weapons systems that are kind of in deployment in the R&D plus production period. In the -- if you're just going to leave the program in R&D, then it's going to -- we'd still see the cost increases, but Nunn-McCurdy would not apply to programs just in the R&D phase.

Q: But wasn't that the problem with Navy area -- that the cost didn't really go up until it hit production? I mean, without -- (inaudible) -- the R&D --

Aldridge: It was the plans of both the R&D and the production cost that caused the thing to go up. It was a plan to deploy something, because, see, in that particular case, that program belonged to the Navy, and they had a plan in place for how it was going to -- where they were going to take it in terms of its production. So that was the combination of all that. It wasn't just the R&D cost, although that was a big factor.

Let me try some -- yeah? Right here. Yeah?

Q: Yes, I wanted to ask about the recent problems with purchase cards. There was a GAO report about some problems with two Navy units. That was just the tip of the iceberg, supposedly. I was wondering if you're looking at those problems and rethinking the idea of using purchase cards at all.

Aldridge: Yeah, the idea of purchase cards was a great idea because it eliminated a huge amount of bureaucracy in bill-paying and so forth. And the purchase card idea is still good.

The problem is discipline, a process of how you avoid people doing things with the purchase cards that are not appropriate.

There are two types of cards, by the way, that people can mix.

Q: Right.

Aldridge: One's a travel card, we all have to go -- pay our hotel bills and so forth. We all -- that bill comes to me. I mean, I have to pay it just like it's in my credit card. The other one is the purchase cards that allow people to buy equipment for their offices.

And in these cases, somebody violated the rules. And I believe perhaps in this case the violation of the rules were not monitored properly. There are clearly rules in place of how -- what are the -- how you can use these cards, for what purpose, and it's very well laid out. We could write more rules, make it more restrictive, and we -- maybe put a couple of auditors around to monitor them, and then you've defeated the purpose of the card in the first place.

So I think you just have to make sure that there's a disciplined process in place to make sure that they don't use them in the improper way. And we've got now -- we're looking at that and how do you do that. And Dov Zakheim and I both -- he has the travel card, I have the purchase card under my repressibility, so we're getting together to see if we can write some better rules and regulations without violating the purpose of this thing.

So -- yes?

Q: Do you think that the OMB will lift its A-76 quotas on DOD once it finds out the recommendations of the GAO panel? Is that a possibility?

Aldridge: I don't think so. We've signed up to those quotas. We finally got OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and ourselves to agree on the rate which we can make these A-76 competitions. We want to go beyond A-76, which is -- that was the debate that was around. We think there are some other ways to do this job better. We think there are some ways to divest of some non-core/core functions that we don't need to do and do this competition a little better.

As you know, there's another -- there's a panel that was set up by the Congress called the Commercial Activities Panel -- it's chaired by David Walker at GAO -- to go look into the old A-76 issues. OMB is on that panel. I am the member of the Department of Defense. We are in the final process of writing the report from the panel. It should be out the first of May. Can't go into the report because it's private at this point in time, but there will be some recommendations on how to improve the process for A-76 to make it more efficient.

Yeah, Bernie?

Q: But that's about international arms cooperation, armaments cooperation. Beyond JSF, what are the near-term goals that you have for industrial cooperation in Europe and Asia-Pacific region?

Aldridge: Let me focus on Europe first. We have -- as a matter of fact, the next month I'm hosting what's called the five- power conference. This is my counterparts in the UK (United Kingdom), France, Germany and Italy. We're hosting it here in the United States. This is my turn to host. We rotate every year. And we meet to talk about essentially international cooperation. Joint Strike Fighter is obviously going to be high on the list of everybody, but there are some other things we have working for us.

We have an International Cooperation Opportunities Group -- we call it the ICOG -- that works for us that looks for things that are meaningful in the international arena that we can cooperate on. We have some other things already in place. The MEADS, Medium Extended Air Defense System, with Germany and Italy. We're working already on things such as the Alliance Ground Surveillance Systems, AGS, for NATO. It will be a NATO-owned and -operated system.

But we're looking for other opportunities, and those opportunities center around things like UAVs, air-to-air refueling, combat ID, littoral ships. We found that our allies tend -- are quite good at building smaller, more mobile ships because they have smaller waters to defend against, and we have some interest in that and we believe there's some cooperation. In fact, we're leasing a Norwegian ship and an Australian ship to do some experimentation with. But things like that that we're looking for, opportunities that would make a difference. And we can in fact do things together without getting into all this export control hassle. Clearly, we can share these -- air-to-air refueling, for example, is something that's not going to get into the export control.

Q: And what about Asia?

Aldridge: And Asia, let's see. Obviously -- well, Australia, certainly. Let's go around this way. Singapore, we've talked about Joint Strike Fighter. We have -- I have 33 initiatives working with Singapore, for example, on the cooperative activities. Certainly in Japan we've got the patrol aircraft, we've got the fighter aircraft, Korea, obviously F-15 is involved there. It's just a whole series of things in that regard.

I've really got one more question I can take. Who do I take? You! (laughter)

Q: Now that the department has decided not to convert any more air-launched cruise missiles to CALCMs (conventional air-launched cruise missile), does that have any impact on your thoughts about JASSM (joint air to surface standoff missile) and some of the other cruise-missile options that are available to you?

Aldridge: Oh, yeah. The JASSM is doing great. It's one of the most successful programs we have. It's coming in under its cost estimate, and it's achieving its objectives quite well. So yeah, the cruise-missile capabilities we see for the future look quite attractive, and the costs are well under what we would've expected it to cost. I shouldn't tell the contractors, that, though; they'll probably come back and ask for more money. But it's doing very well.

Okay, thank you very much.

THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. FOR OTHER DEFENSE RELATED TRANSCRIPTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE, CONTACT FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE AT (202) 347-1400.

----

Hellfire shot

March 22, 2002
Inside the Ring
by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020322-22077586.htm

The more people who view the video of the Hellfire missile strike on Feb. 4 in Zhara Kili, Afghanistan, the more people there are who say the Predator hunted and killed a senior al Qaeda member. They reject out of hand assertions by local Afghans that the CIA-operated Predator killed three innocent scavengers.

One person with direct knowledge of the tape says a tall man in a robe seems to realize at some point that he is being watched by the pilotless drone. He and two other men scurry into a wooded area and stand under a tree. But the maneuver fails to evade the Predator's electronic eyes. A CIA operations team aims the warhead at the robed man's chest and the Hellfire missile scores a direct hit.

Terror training

The U.S. military has embarked on a number of training missions worldwide to help indigenous armies fight Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network. Now, ex-military personnel are finding a need for the private sector to offer anti-terror training to our own government.

Protac Global, a firearms training company in Texas, has teamed with American Express Financial Advisers to plan a huge anti-terror complex in Ellis County, Texas. The 200-acre site was developed by the Energy Department's superconducting supercollider project and then abandoned in 1993.

The facility will be named the Counter Terrorism Training Center. Two-ex Marines who own Protac Global will seek contracts from all government entities involved in the war on terrorism.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) will host a briefing Monday on the ex-Marines' plans. Said retired Army Col. William Taylor, who is advising the group, "It's all there in a complex of 18 miles of underground tunnels, 450,000 square feet under roof, a landing strip, a large pond and training opportunities that can challenge the minds of those responsible for the many aspects of counterterrorism, offense and defense."

The group's mission statement reads: "Deliver the physical facilities to carry out a range of training scenarios to the counter terrorism training missions of various organizations to include operations initiated from land, air and water environments into surroundings which can include warehouses, prison facility, drug lab, trains, bus, aircraft, tunnel complex and urban area. Additionally, these operations can be conducted both night and day."

----

'Q' comes to anti-terror war

By Richard Tomkins
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
March 22, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/22032002-055516-7086r.htm

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, March 22 (UPI) -- In James Bond action movies, Agent 007 always visits the laconic "Q" and his lab of white-coated scientists for the latest whiz-bang gizmos.

In the war against terrorism, "Q" comes in the person of Lt. Col. Bill Bass, a loquacious drum-beater and distributor of the latest inventions from DARPA, the government agency that produced the first Internet and gave the military unmanned aerial vehicles through its contractors.

In Kandahar after a stop at Bagram, the main U.S. military camp outside Kabul, Bass is distributing two goodies to the troops -- a fourth-generation, task-specific voice input and audio output language translator and a mini-flashlight-sized water purification unit that is 99.9 percent effective in completely debugging fluids for drinking.

"This MIOX (micro oxidation) pen does everything but desalinate -- that comes next," Bass told United Press International. "You can fill a canteen with even your urine and it will come out tasting like pure water."

DARPA's -- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- Rapid Multilingual Support unit, called the phraselator, is produced by Marine Acoustics Inc. and is unlike any language translator on the commercial market today. First, it is task specific -- in Operation Enduring Freedom's case, the phrasing categories are force protection/law enforcement, refugee processing and reunification and medical triage.

Its language programs -- speech synthesis programs developed through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- come in Afghanistan's various dialects: Pashto, Dari, Arabic and Urdu. Tajik and Uzbek are in the works. There are nine other language programs available, including Mandarin. Each language has about 1,000 phrases the speaker normally would use in specific tasks.

Baseline phrases, for example, include greetings, date-and-time questions and answers and numbers. Force protection and law enforcement phrases include "be quiet," "drop the gun" and "hands up."

A new program is coming on line geared to military police guarding detainees in Afghanistan and it will include instructions in case of emergency.

The neatest thing, though, is it is audio. Although the operator can tap stored, written phrases in English with a wand for instant translation and voicing, he or she also can speak them into the unit, which then produces a human voice, which projects the phrase in the language needed through the unit's loudspeaker, which also can be hooked up to larger external speakers for better projection.

No HAL-speak, as in the movie "2001," for this unit -- since the voice is human, it is fluid, full of inflection, rhythm and accent.

"It makes sense; I can understand it," said Abdul, an Afghan videographer with an international TV service, when asked to listen to it. "It's understandable, but it has a northern Pashto accent."

Bass said he also tried it out on an Afghan work unit on the base, telling them to "drop their weapons."

"They understood," he said. "They got all excited and started saying they didn't have any weapons."

The phraselator weighs just 20 ounces with batteries. It's a bit larger than two Palm Pilots or a hand-held video game. It's also fully Windows Pocket PC compliant and can be used to log onto the manufacturer's Web site for adding additional phrases and words the operator may need.

The phraselator earlier in the week was given to guards at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, and to special U.S. military units in the area.

In Kandahar, Bass is distributing the units to military police and other special groups.

Bass said the Federal Aviation Administration also is interested in the phraselator, and since they are produced by contractors, they eventually will make their way to the commercial market. Berlitz also has expressed interest in the gizmo.

Cost? To recoup research and development expenses, on a 5,000-unit production run, the units would be sold for about $1,800 each. With a 10,000-unit run, $1,000 per.

In six months, a "one-plus-one" unit will be available. With that, the phraselator will pick up responses, based on key words, and relay them back to the operator. In a year's time, a full two-way unit will be available, featuring the ability to interpret the semantic meaning of words and phrases voiced by the responder.

For Army Scouts, Bass is handing out the MIOX pen units, which have been certified by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. To avoid getting sick from contaminated water, the user simply pours a sample of the fluid into the unit, which within 30 to 120 seconds analyzes its content and then produces the proper chemicals to neutralize bacteria and other dangerous content.

The agent then is poured into the canteen with the fluid, and within 15 minutes it's potable. Each pen, with a single analyzation unit and chemical mix, is good for about 300 canteens of water.

----

Tribunal Rules Aim To Shield Witnesses
Judges, Prosecutors May Be Anonymous

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A430-2002Mar21?language=printer

Special military tribunals unveiled by the Bush administration yesterday will feature unprecedented security precautions to guard against retribution, including the possibility that some witnesses will testify from remote locations or with electronically altered voices, officials said.

Judges and prosecutors at the tribunals, which will be reserved for a small number of high-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban suspects, may remain anonymous throughout the trials, officials said as they formally released regulations they have been developing for the past four months.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who announced the guidelines yesterday at a Pentagon news conference, said the rules achieve a balance between the need to be fair to terror suspects and the need to protect U.S. security.

"We have made every reasonable effort to establish a process that is just, one that protects both the rights of the defendant to a fair trial but also protects the rights of the American people to live as they were meant to live, in freedom and without fear of terrorists," Rumsfeld said.

Officials said there are no candidates for trial before a tribunal yet. The vast majority of captives, they said, will be released if they are found innocent, sent to their home countries for trial or detained indefinitely without charges if the United States considers them too dangerous to release but lacks enough evidence to prosecute them.

The security arrangements were among the few new details of the tribunal plan -- one of the most closely scrutinized parts of the U.S. anti-terror effort -- to emerge at Rumsfeld's briefing yesterday. Earlier this week, officials outlined a complex set of regulations based on both the military and civilian legal systems.

Specifically, defendants will have the right to see evidence against them, unless it is classified, and will be provided military counsel. A two-thirds majority of judges will be required for conviction, but a unanimous vote will be necessary to impose the death penalty.

Yesterday's announcement reignited protests from human rights groups that the procedures are unfair. The activists focused on the indefinite detentions and the fact that appeals of convictions would be made to panels named by the secretary of defense, not to federal courts.

Human rights groups said it is a stretch to assert captives can be held without trial for the possibly endless duration of the U.S. war on terrorism. "We're concerned about this," said Vienna Colucci, a spokesman for the human rights group Amnesty International. "Those in custody should be charged or released."

But Pentagon officials said international law gives them the right to hold some captives indefinitely.

"When somebody's trying to kill you or your people, and you capture them, you can hold them," said William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, who led the four-month, interagency effort to draft the procedures. "We are within our rights, and I don't think anyone disputes it, that we may hold enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict. And the conflict is still going and we don't see an end in sight right now."

Michael H. Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the appeals process is flawed.

"History tells us there is value in having an independent branch of government reviewing the actions of the executive branch," he said. "They're saying, 'Trust us, we'll be so fair there won't be any problem.' But it's too much to expect there will never be a case that should be overturned."

But the tribunal guidelines were praised by congressional leaders of both political parties as a much improved version of the executive order establishing the tribunals that President Bush issued in November.

The public should not be concerned that the procedures to be used in the tribunals differ in some respects from the rules in ordinary U.S. criminal trials and in military courts-martial, Rumsfeld said. "The commissions are intended to be different," he said.

Security is one major difference. Rumsfeld said protecting courtroom personnel will be a paramount concern from the beginning. He noted that federal judges who have presided over major terrorist cases in New York are still under 24-hour-a-day protection by U.S. marshals years after the trials ended.

"That is unacceptable," Rumsfeld said. The identities of the jurors in those cases were not revealed.

The new guidelines also allow for closing portions of the proceedings to the public, and to the defendant, if classified information is to be divulged or if it is necessary to protect court personnel.

Rumsfeld said the administration has not yet decided where the tribunals will be held. But sources said the likely location is the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 300 captured al Qaeda and Taliban combatants are imprisoned. Among the reasons for that decision, the sources said, is the base's secure and remote location, which allows the U.S. military to restrict access to a courtroom.

Pentagon officials said it may be a long time before detainees are taken before tribunals, partly because of the difficulty in gathering sufficient information to construct criminal cases. The great majority of the prisoners are being "singularly uncooperative" in interrogations, Haynes said.

Haynes also said the Pentagon will guard against top commanders exercising any influence on judges.

"I can assure you that is something we will continue to be vigilant about," he said. "I'm not concerned at all that the commissions will do anything other than do what the president has also instructed them to do, and that is a produce a full and fair trial."

----

Pentagon's Tribunal Plan

Friday, March 22, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A108-2002Mar21?language=printer

Some rules for military tribunals, as outlined by the Pentagon:

• A defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

• A defendant has the right to a lawyer. He will be given a military lawyer for free and can hire outside civilian counsel.

• A tribunal can find someone guilty only if the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt.

• A defendant has the right to see the evidence against him, unless it is classified. His military defense attorney can see classified evidence.

• Juries are made up of three to seven military officers appointed by the military.

• A defendant can present evidence at his trial and cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution.

• A defendant is not required to testify or incriminate himself.

• A two-thirds majority is necessary for a guilty verdict. Most civilian trials require an unanimous verdict.

• A death sentence requires a unanimous vote of a seven-member panel.

-------- propaganda wars

Taiwanese Officials Confiscate Copies of Magazine in Raid

New York Times
March 22, 2002
By MARK LANDLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/international/asia/22TAIW.html

HONG KONG, March 21 - Taiwan's government has stunned its freewheeling news media by seeking to ban a weekly magazine that was about to publish an article potentially damaging to the island's president, Chen Shui-bian.

Declaring that the article contained information that would jeopardize Taiwan's national security, the police and prosecutors confiscated 160,000 copies of Next magazine, after searching its offices and the home of one of its reporters.

Despite the raid, Next has been able to distribute 220,000 copies of the magazine, which reports on a secret $100 million fund reportedly used by the former president, Lee Teng-hui, and officials in the current government for diplomatic missions and policy initiatives.

Tsai Chao-ming, the head of Taiwan's intelligence agency, the National Security Bureau, said on Wednesday that the article contained information that "reveals international cooperation networks and threatens the security of our employees."

Journalists dismissed that claim, and accused the government of trying to suppress an article it knew would embarrass Mr. Chen. The crackdown has alarmed the news media in Taiwan, which has become a boisterous symbol of the island's evolution from a police state to one of Asia's most vibrant democracies.

"It's pure intimidation," said Sun Yang-ming, a senior reporter at The United Daily News, a leading newspaper in Taipei. "The government is trying to intimidate the media because they know they are in a dilemma with this case."

Taiwan's move is the latest gust in an ill wind that is blowing on journalists across Asia. Thailand recently threatened to expel two foreign correspondents for writing about tension between the country's king and the prime minister. It also investigated the bank accounts of Thai editors deemed to be critical of the prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.

Indonesia refused to renew the visa of an Australian journalist who has written about human rights abuses there. Malaysia has curtailed the distribution of foreign magazines like Newsweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review.

Next qualifies as foreign in Taiwan. Although written in Chinese, it is owned by a Hong Kong media tycoon, Jimmy Lai. Mr. Lai has shaken up the island's news media with sensational, some say salacious, coverage of sex scandals.

But he article that offended Taiwan officials was purely political.

The magazine's 14-page report describes how former President Lee supposedly authorized the National Security Bureau to set up two secret funds to finance diplomatic overtures to other countries, sometimes involving cash payments to their governments.

The money was also reportedly used to formulate policies like Mr. Lee's infamous proposal that China and Taiwan should negotiate on a state-to-state basis, a proposal that drew a sulfurous response from the Chinese government.

Investigators had known about these funds since the chief cashier of the National Security Bureau, Col. Liu Kuan-chun, fled the island two years ago with $5.5 million. But the Next article contained fresh details on how the money was collected and disbursed.

The most damaging aspect of the article is the allegation that the secret funds continued to exist even after Mr. Chen, a longtime opposition leader, pushed the Nationalists out of the presidency in March 2000. Mr. Chen ran on a platform of clean government.

Next's publisher, Mr. Lai, played down the long-term effect of the raid.

He noted he was able to distribute the magazine anyway, thanks to Taiwan's independent-minded distributors. He expects to sell 320,000 copies, the largest printing of his magazine yet.

"I think the government knows they did something stupid," Mr. Lai said. "If they keep prosecuting us, it will be more stupid."


-------- POLICE / PRISONERS

U.S. rules for military terror trials draw criticism

By Charles Aldinger
Friday March 22
Reuters
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-96216.html

WASHINGTON - The United States unveiled rules for expected military trials of some al Qaeda and Taliban captives in the war on terror and quickly blew up a storm of criticism over defendant rights on Thursday.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "commissions" would be different from traditional military courts-martial, but critics assailed rules that did not provide for defendants to appeal convictions to civilian courts.

Few of the 500-plus al Qaeda guerrillas and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and now held by the U.S. military are expected to face military trials.

Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference that President George W. Bush had not selected any captives for trial. The secretary did not say where such trials might be held.

Those facing trial would be presumed innocent, would have the right to avoid self incrimination and would be provided military counsel, he said.

The juries, which could impose the death penalty for certain crimes, would include up to seven members of the military. Rumsfeld would name a three-member military panel to review decisions and Bush could appoint civilians to briefly join the armed forces and serve on review panels.

Two-thirds of a jury would be enough to convict, but a unanimous vote would be required for the death penalty.

Bush, who authorized the military trials after the September 11 attacks on America, would have to give final approval to any death sentences.

"Most people will find that, taken together, (the rules) are fair and balanced and justice will be served in their application," Rumsfeld said.

PROBLEMS OVER DEATH PENALTY, APPEALS

The military trials have caused concern among some countries, especially in Europe where European Union nations oppose capital punishment. Amnesty International and other civil rights groups raised objections on Thursday because convictions would go only to the military review board and not to civilian courts.

"We fear that in the proceedings undertaken by military commissions, justice may neither be done, nor seen to be done," said William Shulz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA.

Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith stressed the rules, while different from both civilian and traditional military trials, were extremely fair at a time when America was fighting those bent on killing civilians.

"We are ... fighting a war that is going to last for a long time and we want to try to bring justice to some of these individuals while the war is still under way," he said.

Despite insistence by Rumsfeld and Bush that the procedure would be fair, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in New York demanded to know how the government would "guarantee an independent appeal process."

"Secretary Rumsfeld highlighted that the regulations are consistent with U.S. traditions of fairness and justice," said Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in New York.

"These traditions include independent judicial review by an independent judiciary -- and that's absent here. Defendants cannot appeal to the civilian courts," added Posner.

OPEN TO PRESS COVERAGE

Addressing journalists' fears the trials might be closed to coverage, Defense Department General Counsel Jim Haynes said reporters would be given access in most cases except when top-secret material was being discussed.

He also suggested that while the rules did not provide for appeal to civilian courts, lawyers for convicted defendants might file such appeals.

Asked how similar the trials might be to Nuremberg war crimes trials of Nazis after World War Two, Haynes said there were some similarities but "these procedures frankly are much more detailed and in many respects are more generous (in their defendants rights) than what was done at Nuremberg."

Bush and other administration officials insisted the rules were less stringent than some critics had feared, but the American Civil Liberties Union argued the prisoners captured in the war in Afghanistan could be denied due process rights.

The new rules sparked different reactions in Congress, where House Armed Services Committee Chairman Bob Stump, an Arizona Republican, and ranking Democratic member Ike Skelton of Missouri praised the commissions.

"They support the fundamental values of fairness and due process," they said in a statement.

But Democrat John Conyers of Michigan countered: "They (the Pentagon and White House) just want to get easier convictions."

Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who criticised initial plans for the military trials several months ago, praised the Pentagon on Thursday for moving away from the strict Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs military court martials.

"I am pleased that the administration is moving forward with rules on military tribunals which provide a balance to convict the guilty and to protect the rights of defendants," said Specter, a former district attorney.

----

U.S. Imposes New Curbs on Weapons Data
Secrecy Watchdogs Warn Of Rule's Broader Uses

Associated Press
Friday, March 22, 2002; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A400-2002Mar21?language=printer

The White House has placed new controls on government information about weapons of mass destruction and is telling agencies to clear Web sites of even unclassified data that could help terrorists.

"The wonder of the Web is that it makes it so easy to access information from remote areas of the world," said Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary. "If you're sitting in Afghanistan, you can access this. Our enemies are those who would use our technology against us. Look at September 11."

Advocates of government openness agree that information about nuclear, biological, radiological and chemical weapons should be kept out of the hands of would-be attackers. They worry, however, that the guidelines released yesterday could be used to withhold an array of other material.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project, said cookbook-type material about weapons of mass destruction should be classified, or reclassified if it has been released before. But the technology used in weapons of mass destruction also can be used to advance medical treatment, develop vaccines, facilitate cleanups and aid other emergency preparedness, he said.

"It's important to distinguish carefully," he said.

In a memo, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. ordered federal agencies and departments to review their record management procedures and public documents and report within 90 days to the Office of Homeland Security.

An accompanying memo from the Information Security Oversight Office directed agencies to classify or reclassify information that could help someone develop or use weapons of mass destruction. The memo also told agencies to control data that is not classified but contains sensitive information.

It is this loosely written category -- sensitive but unclassified information -- that raises concerns among advocates for government openness.

"It's going to prompt a far-reaching review, a scrubbing, of not just Web sites, but public reading rooms, as well as place a new layer of scrutiny on the Freedom of Information Act," Aftergood said.

----

Panel ties funding to Ridge testimony

By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 22, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020322-23286722.htm

The Republican chairman of a House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the White House says he won't move a $329 million appropriation for the Executive Office of the President if the administration continues to block congressional testimony by homeland security czar Tom Ridge.

Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma delivered the ultimatum last week in a sharp warning to Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., who appeared in front of the subcommittee on behalf of OMB's own $70.8 million request for fiscal year 2003, which starts Oct. 1.

"In all good conscience, I cannot recommend drawing taxpayer money from the Treasury for programs that are not understood, for operations that have not been fully explained to me and others in Congress, and for activities that commit us to future funding in unknown amounts that we have not taken the time to fully calculate," the chairman of the House Appropriations Treasury, Postal Service and general government subcommittee said.

Yesterday, OMB spokeswoman Amy Call said Mr. Daniels had no intention of commenting on Mr. Istook's position.

The White House has asked Congress for a $53.6 million increase in funding next year, including $30.5 million for Mr. Ridge's Office of Homeland Security, which runs a counterterrorism directorate out of the West Wing of the White House.

Mr. Istook and the panel's ranking Democrat, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, emphasized that a delay in the White House funding bill would not hinder counterterrorism or homeland security efforts, because Congress would take steps to provide necessary funding elsewhere and require the administration to run the programs out of other federal departments instead of the White House.

The administration has said that because Mr. Ridge is a presidential adviser and not a Cabinet official, he is not required to testify before Congress. But Mr. Ridge's refusal to testify has angered many on Capitol Hill.

"This is a serious constitutional issue, it's not just a disagreement over whether a presidential adviser should testify," Mr. Istook said in an interview.

Chances for the White House's appropriation request to pass as submitted are "slim to none" unless the administration allows Mr. Ridge to testify, he said.

"The debate is missing the point. The point is whether the president's executive order [creating Mr. Ridge´s position] gave him other duties that require him to be fully accountable to the Congress," Mr. Istook said.

He said the president's six-page executive order last October granted the homeland security director a wide range of responsibilities such as broad authority overseeing foreign intelligence relating to terrorism; ensuring that intelligence and law enforcement information is shared among federal, state, and local government agencies; the coordinated deployment of federal response teams; and protection of U.S. borders and transportation systems.

Mr. Istook said that such broad authority demands closer congressional scrutiny.

"Only once in a six-page, single-spaced, detailed order is [Mr. Ridge´s] mission declared to be that of simply giving advice," Mr. Istook told Mr. Daniels at an appropriations hearing last week. "That is when he is charged with reviewing and giving advice regarding budget matters. The remainder of the executive order is devoted to grants of actual authority to his office."

Mr. Hoyer said Mr. Ridge's testimony is essential because, so far, no White House officials have been able to explain to House appropriators how most of the requested $53.6 million increase for White House operations would be spent. He also said Congress needs to know how Mr. Ridge's office would control the administration's requested $38 billion for homeland-security purposes throughout the federal government.

"We had the White House director of administration, Phil Larsen, before the subcommittee last week, and he said he can't explain the increase," Mr. Hoyer said. "I think this White House has taken, frankly, the most obstinate view of explaining what they are doing with public money and what they are doing to form public policy."

Mr. Ridge's spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said the homeland security director met privately Wednesday with Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, to discuss the issue of testifying before Congress.

Mr. Johndroe said the meeting was cordial, but Mr. Ridge reaffirmed the administration's position against his formal testimony.

When asked Wednesday about Mr. Ridge's decision not to testify, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the long-standing tradition of executive privilege requires that presidential advisers not be called before Congress. He said testimony is reserved for Cabinet secretaries and other presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.

"What the president feels very strongly about, that will not change, is Congress' attempt to compel testimony, in a dramatic break from a long-standing tradition that Congress has previously upheld vis-a-vis the executive branch," Mr. Fleischer said.

Mr. Johndroe said Mr. Ridge has no actual decision-making power over expenditure of federal money.

"Governor Ridge is an adviser to the president. He does not have operational nor does he have budget authority," Mr. Johndroe said. "That authority lies with the Cabinet secretaries and agency heads who can spend the money appropriated by Congress."

But most congressional leaders have rejected the White House argument, saying Mr. Ridge's position was structured to give him broad control over spending billions of dollars for homeland security far into the future, and over federal and state policies affecting millions of people.

"There's no question - he claims to be a simple adviser - and yet he's administering the whole war on terror; the homeland security effort is under his command," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat. "So it's more than just an advisory role to the president. ... I think it's important for him to come [before congressional committees]."

----

Simulation trains area hazmat teams

By Jabeen Bhatti
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20020322-18980878.htm

A police officer wearing something resembling a spacesuit bursts through the doorway of the charred chasm that is an Alexandria apartment. Carrying an M-16 rifle, he glaces around warily as his fire department colleagues move to secure a large gas tank, vials of powder and other noxious substances that simulate a narcotics lab.

Smokes fills the room. It smells like cotton candy, giving away the simulation.

"Under a real situation, hazmat teams would be working through smoke," said Battalion Chief Joe Hoffmaster, who added that the smoke flavor du jour is pina colada. "We are hoping to get them used to working in an environment like this."

Northern Virginia emergency personnel yesterday simulated a hazardous-materials operation, climaxing a class on how to handle these situations. The 24 student police officers and firefighters from Alexandria, Arlington, Prince William and the Washington Airport Authority have undergone two weeks of training in an effort to improve response teams since September 11. They put what they learned to practice in the vacant apartment building lent for their use.

"We are training them to deal with chemical, biological and nuclear hazardous material," said Capt. John North of Alexandria Fire Department. "We tried to make it as real as we could. Typically, drug labs are found after a fire or explosion."

The genesis of the program came after an incident last fall in which a man brandished a chemical at a Maryland Metro station. The hazardous-materials team couldn't act because it was a criminal matter, fire officials said. Police officers had a difficult time because they were not trained to deal with hazardous materials. Officials from different emergency-response agencies decided it was time to put together a team that could act quickly throughout the region.

Yesterday was the beginning.

The students donned green or orange suits with oxygen tanks underneath. Some mapped out routes and safe havens in the building, while others set up a "decontamination corridor" where emerging teams would be "cleaned." One group entered at a time, going up the stairs to the third-floor apartment. Inside, charred furniture and peeling black walls greeted the team members. They sealed off a large drum that usually would be filled with chemicals to make crystal methamphetamine, a narcotic. They scooped up powder in jars and liquid in a vial for analysis.

This time it is only flour and syrup. A firefighter takes a picture of the scene while a police officer secures it.

Kurt Heindricks, 31, a firefighter with Prince William Fire and Rescue, said the county decided to increase its capability to deal with hazardous materials. "We had a situation at a high school science lab and weren't trained to deal with it," he said. "We had to call Arlington and Alexandria. This will increase our awareness of hazmat and how to deal with it."

Washington Airport Authority technician Paul Roxenberg said, "We get quite a bit of hazmat passing through [Washington Dulles International] Airport. What everyone has gone through since September 11 has changed lives and the way we work."

Police officer Steve Carr with Alexandria's Special Operations Team described the training as difficult. "It is very technical with tests every day and studying every night," he said. "The suit is a new experience - it's hot and heavy and feels claustrophobic."

He said the training is important to create a heightened awareness to hazardous materials and international and domestic terrorism.

"We need to be vigilant on the streets," he said. "Beat officers know what doesn't look right in their area. It may be a broken down car and it may not."

----

'Delayed, Defiled and Demeaned'

By Al Kamen
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A340-2002Mar21?language=printer

Many folks who supported Dubya in 2000 were hoping, quite reasonably, to see a smaller, less intrusive government. But in the wake of 9-11, conservatives have increasingly worried as the administration advocates more government regulation and less privacy.

That was a theme of National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's recent speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference as he blasted time-consuming airport security measures.

"As a result, our airports have become a place where you can see physically what's happening to us psychologically," said LaPierre, who's known for his strong defense of gun ownership. "You see red-faced, teary-eyed, 15-year-old girls enduring security wands orbiting their breasts while electronic squeals detect the metal in their underwire bras.

"You see grandmothers shaken down and stripped of their cuticle clippers and knitting needles," he said. "You see grandfathers, men who likely fought or lost loved ones for this country, in various stages of undress. You see women cringe as security men let their wands linger between their legs."

LaPierre recounted the famous airport drop-trou by NRA-member Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) because of his artificial hip. And the hassling of 86-year-old former NRA president and South Dakota governor Joe Foss (R) when carrying his Medal of Honor.

"No one is any safer and we know it," he said. "But everyone is delayed, defiled and demeaned. And when it doesn't work, where will it stop? When we're all naked? Boarding planes in airline-issued hospital smocks?

"I guess it's okay to wand-rape someone's daughter in public, but no profiling," LaPierre said. "No, we don't want to risk offending an Islamic ex-con with two aliases and no job, paying cash for a one-way airline ticket with no luggage, whose shoes are packed with plastic explosives. Who're we fooling? Terrorists fit into fairly narrow categories of gender, age, nationality and religion."

And what about those people in the country illegally? he asked. "I say, if anyone's going to lose freedoms, make it the illegal aliens. Not my mother, your daughter, our pilots or war heroes. If anyone deserves a little extra scrutiny after September 11th, it ought to be a few million illegal aliens."

LaPierre, whose group once anticipated practically having an office in the White House, said, "I have great respect for this administration. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with confiscating nail clippers from grandmothers and poking magnetic wands up skirts."

Not to mention those Supreme Court-approved, Customs Service body-cavity searches (see now William H. Rehnquist's July 1, 1985, opinion for the court in U.S v. De Hernandez.)

LaPierre's speech is available at http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/index.asp.


-------- ENERGY AND OTHER

-------- alternative energy

Senate Approves Weakened Renewable Standard

By Cat Lazaroff
March 22, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2002/2002L-03-22-06.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to require utilities to generate more of their electricity from renewable sources including wind and solar power. However, the standard adopted by the Senate disappointed many conservation groups, who say the measure excludes so many electricity providers that it will have little or no effect on the nation's use of renewable energy.

The renewable standard would provide support for facilities like the McNeil Generating Station in Burlington, Vermont, which turns wood waste into power. (Photo courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab)

On a voice vote Thursday, the Senate adopted an amendment introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, that will require many utilities to produce at least 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020.

However, the measure excludes all public power companies, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration, along with rural electric cooperatives and other smaller retailers. Conservation groups say those exclusions mean that the bill now requires only about four to five percent of the nation's electricity to come from new renewable sources by 2020.

The Bingaman amendment overrides language in the underlying energy bill, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, that would have mandated the 10 percent renewable standard with fewer exclusions, offering a true increase in renewable energy of about seven percent.

Less than two percent of the nation's electricity supply is now produced from renewable sources other than hydropower.

Conservation groups say the Senate vote is disappointing because it falls far short of what the nation is capable of achieving in switching to renewable power sources. Recent studies by the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and other groups indicate that the United States could be producing up to 20 percent of its electricity from new renewable sources by 2020, using existing technology and with little cost to consumers.

Senator Jeff Bingaman's amendment weakens the Senate's proposed renewable energy standard by about 40 percent. (Photo courtesy Office of the Senator)

The Senate bill in its current form would require most utilities to produce at least one percent of their electricity by 2005, with that standard increase by 0.6 percent each year until it reaches 10 percent in 2020.

"We are extremely disappointed that the Senate voted to weaken the renewable energy standard in its energy bill," said Katherine Morrison, staff attorney for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). "A strong renewable energy standard is achievable, reasonable and will help the economy, consumers and the environment."

Last week, the Senate rejected a proposal authored by Senator Jim Jeffords, a Vermont Independent, to require that 20 percent of the nation's electricity come from renewable sources by 2020.

Supporters of an increased reliance on renewables say that renewable energy use would boost national security by decentralizing power sources. While a power plant or nuclear reactor offers a site specific target, a wind farm or solar panels on the roofs of buildings throughout a city reduce that risk, says the national conservation group Sierra Club.

Wind turbines, like these at the Buffalo Ridge wind farm in southwest Minnesota, provide a decentralized power source that would be a difficult target for terrorists, supporters say. (Photos by Warren Gretz courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab)

"We need a cleaner, safer, and more secure energy plan that keeps our air and environment clean and healthy and improves America's national security," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "We are disappointed that our Senators did not show far reaching vision, but instead voted to keep America dependent on dirty coal fired power plants and risky nuclear reactors. Relying on fossil fuels, dirty power plants and risky reactors sticks families with pollution, health problems and security concerns."

Last week, Pope noted, the Senate also rejected mandating higher fuel economy standards for cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other light trucks, which could have saved millions of barrels of oil.

"It's time for Congress to scrap this do nothing energy plan and go back to the drawing board," Pope added.

Critics also warn that the Senate energy bill now includes too broad a definition of renewable power sources. Under the Bingaman amendment passed Thursday, trees less than 12 inches in diameter would qualify as biomass fuel for power plants, a provision that could provide incentives for logging up to 15 percent of national forests.

Bingaman's language would also allow incineration of municipal solid waste, a leading source of toxic dioxin, mercury and lead emissions, to qualify as renewable.

"This dangerous and expensive source of energy should not count towards a renewable energy standard and certainly should not be encouraged through taxpayer funded subsidies," said U.S. PIRG's Morrison. "Only truly clean renewable sources, such as solar and wind, should qualify as renewable energy."

Senator Jon Kyl introduced an amendment that would have thrown decisions about renewable energy standards to the states. (Photo courtesy Office of the Senator)

In a small victory for cleaner power on Thursday, the Senate voted 58 to 40 to reject an amendment by Republican Senator Jon Kyl that would have deleted all language pertaining to a national renewable standard.

Kyl's alternative would have allowed states to decide whether to require additional renewable energy production, "to the extent it is available." Kyl had argued that his measure was aimed at "keeping the federal government out of the business of telling Americans what they have to do" regarding electricity sources.

In April 2000, Arizona became the first state to require all utilities to produce a percent of their electricity using solar power. The Arizona Public Service Company is testing this high concentration solar system at its Solar Test and Research (STAR) Center in Tempe. (Photo by Bill Timmerman, courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab)

Fourteen states, including Kyl's home state of Arizona, already have laws requiring utilities to produce some of their energy from renewable sources, Kyl pointed out.

"The Kyl amendment was a do nothing, status quo approach," said Jaime Steve, legislative director for the American Wind Energy Association. "The vote opposing the amendment demonstrated bipartisan support for slowly but surely increasing the role that renewable energy will play in meeting America's electricity needs."

----

Senate backs more electricity from renewable sources

Friday, March 22, 2002
By Tom Doggett and Chris Baltimore,
Reuters
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/03/03222002/reu_46744.asp

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate Thursday voted to require utilities to generate more of their electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar, and landfill gas, rejecting a plan for companies to voluntarily supply cleaner power to their customers.

Renewable energy sources currently account for a scant 2.3 percent of total U.S. electricity generation.

The Senate defeated a move by Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona to delete a provision from a pending energy bill that requires utilities to produce at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Instead, lawmakers agreed to have by 2005 a 1 percent renewable generation standard, which would then increase 0.6 percentage points yearly until reaching 10 percent in 2020.

Kyl's amendment, which failed 40-to-58, would have allowed states to pursue their own efforts to promote renewable energy and permit utilities to promote renewable energy "to the extent it is available." Kyl said his measure was aimed at "keeping the federal government out of the business of telling Americans what they have to do" regarding their electricity buying habits. "Let's leave it up to the states" to make such decisions, Kyl said, pointing to 14 states that currently have laws mandating renewable production, including his home state.

Most electricity is generated from plants fueled by coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

The Senate also rejected two other amendments to exempt states from a federal renewable standard if they have their own renewable programs in place and, separately, allow states to pull out of the federal program if consumers were suffering from high electricity prices caused by the renewable requirement. Both amendments failed after opponents successfully argued the 10 percent federal standard would be gutted if states would be able to easily ignore it.

While lawmakers support some level of renewable energy production, they believe there are limits on how much the United States can realistically depend on renewable sources. Last week, the Senate rejected an amendment to the energy bill from Vermont Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords to raise utilities' generation from renewables to 20 percent by 2020, starting at 5 percent in 2005.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said he wants the Senate to finish the energy bill during the week of April 8, when lawmakers come back from their two-week spring recess.

Republican Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska said he would offer an amendment to the energy bill after the spring recess that would stop U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. Iraq is the sixth biggest U.S. oil supplier. Murkowski said that under his amendment, Iraqi oil shipments to the United States could resume once President George W. Bush certifies that weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq and that Iraq stops smuggling its oil to avoid the United Nations oil-for-food program.

The Senate must also still vote on $16 billion in energy tax breaks and the contentious issue of whether to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). A Reuters survey of senators released Thursday found that drilling in ANWR is basically doomed, as 50 lawmakers said they would vote against opening the refuge. Forty senators said they would support drilling, and 10 lawmakers were undecided.

If approved, the Senate energy bill would still have to be worked out with much different energy legislation cleared by the House of Representatives last year.

---

Senate Defeats GOP Effort to Kill Alternative Power Clause

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A83-2002Mar21?language=printer

Senate Democrats yesterday beat back a Republican effort to scuttle a provision of their energy bill that would require utilities to produce significantly more electricity from wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable sources of power.

The 58 to 40 vote came as Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) expressed frustration at the slow pace of action on the bill, echoing charges that Republicans had made about him before he brought the bill to the floor a month ago.

Later in the day, Daschle tried to force a showdown soon over whether to permit drilling for oil and gas in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but he was blocked by Republicans.

Democratic leaders plan to invoke Senate rules under which Republicans and several pro-drilling Democrats would have to produce 60 votes to force the controversial issue to a final vote. Those who favor drilling in the refuge do not appear to have 60 votes.

In his request to the Senate last night, Daschle proposed that it vote on refuge drilling issue April 9, after Congress returns from its two-week spring break, and then move on to other issues in the energy bill if drilling advocates do not get 60 votes. Republicans object to the 60-vote test and want the issue decided by a simple majority.

Although several other proposals dealing with renewable energy are pending, yesterday's vote was a significant victory for Democrats, who last week suffered a defeat on another of their high-priority proposals. Republicans and auto-state Democrats killed a provision in the bill that would have forced a big increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles.

So Democrats have lost one major fight and Republicans appear likely to lose another, elevating the importance of issues such as renewable energy in determining the political balance of the bill.

In yesterday's action, nine Republicans joined all but two Democrats in turning back a move by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to strip from the Democratic-drafted bill a requirement that investor-owned utilities generate at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. But municipal utilities and electric cooperatives would be exempt, lowering overall energy savings.

About 2 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources, according to Senate figures.

The Senate earlier rejected a proposal from Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) to require a 20 percent renewable component by 2020.

In arguing that electricity sources should be left up to states, Kyl said the proposal runs counter to the movement toward electric power deregulation and contended that it would cost $88 billion over 15 years and $12 billion a year thereafter. He also argued that wind and solar power are not as reliable as coal, gas and nuclear energy.

Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and other supporters of the proposal contended it would spur economic development and create jobs while diversifying sources for electricity generation and reducing reliance on any one source.

Last night the Senate also defeated, 57 to 39, a proposal by Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) to exempt states that have renewable energy programs.

----

United Tech sells fuel cell plants to Verizon

REUTERS USA:
March 22, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/15148/story.htm

SOUTH WINDSOR, Conn. - Diversified manufacturer United Technologies Corp. yesterday said its fuel cell unit sold seven power plants to Verizon Communications to power a call-routing center on Long Island that will be the world's largest fuel cell installation.

United Technologies Fuel Cells declined to disclose terms of the deal. Normally, the fuel cells - electrochemical devices that combine hydrogen, or hydrogen-rich fuel and oxygen to produce electricity, heat and water - price at about $900,000 each, said company spokesman Peter Dalpe.

The seven PC25 units, which each produce 200 kilowatts of electricity and 900,000 Btus of usable heat, will form the largest fuel cell installation in the world, the company said, noting it surpasses the PC25 installation at the Connecticut Juvenile Training Center in Middletown.

The units will be installed at a facility in Garden City, New York that delivers local phone service to about 40,000 Verizon customers.

Fuel cells operate without combustion, minimizing pollution. As a traditional generating system produces as much as 25 pounds of pollutants to generate 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, the PC25 power plant produces less than an ounce.

-------- environment

UN Warns of Severe Water Shortages

By William J. Kole
Associated Press Writer
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1668-2002Mar22?language=printer

VIENNA, Austria -- More than 2.7 billion people will face severe shortages of fresh water by 2025 if the world keeps consuming water at today's rates, the United Nations warned Friday in a report marking World Water Day.

Worldwide, about 5 billion people will be living in areas where it will be difficult or impossible to meet all their needs for fresh water, creating "a looming crisis that overshadows nearly two-thirds of the Earth's population," the report said.

It was released in Vienna by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a nuclear watchdog organization leading the United Nations' effort to draw attention to the world's water crisis and urge the launching of a "blue revolution" to conserve supplies and develop new ones.

"The simple fact is that there is a limited amount of water on the planet, and we cannot afford to be negligent in its use," said the agency's director, Mohamed ElBaradei. "We can't keep treating it as if it will never run out."

Already, an estimated 1.1 billion people have no access to safe drinking water, 2.5 billion lack proper sanitation and more than 5 million people die from waterborne diseases each year - 10 times the number of casualties killed in wars around the globe, the report said.

Less than 3 percent of the world's water is fresh, and most of it is trapped in polar ice or buried underground in springs too deep to reach, it said. Freshwater lakes, rivers and reservoirs may seem numerous but provide just a drop in the bucket, the report said.

"Even where supplies are sufficient or plentiful, they are increasingly at risk from pollution and rising demand," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a statement, warning that "fierce national competition over water resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict."

The worst-affected areas are the deserts and semiarid regions of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where fresh drinking water is extremely scarce, in part because of the region's wildly variable climate and unfettered population growth, the World Meteorological Organization said.

Water ministers from 22 African countries have called for a regional and global alliance, backed by international funding, to tackle water and sanitation problems. Among the solutions, they say, are the development of desalination facilities that can turn salt water into drinking water.

Millions of women trudge long distances every day in search of water or send their children to look for it, meaning they miss opportunities to work, grow crops and attend school, the U.N. report said.

"Without adequate clean water, there can be no escape from poverty," said Klaus Toepfer, director of the U.N. Environment Program. "Water is the basis for good health and food production. Mankind is always at its mercy."

----

Energy Dept. Says It Tried To Engage Green Groups

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64826-2002Mar21?language=printer

For months, environmental groups have complained that the White House gave them little opportunity to influence President Bush's energy policy, which was heavily weighted to the preferences of oil and coal companies.

On Monday, the Energy Department plans to claim in a huge court filing that administration officials tried doggedly to get the views of green groups, but the environmentalists were uncooperative.

"Several did not return our phone calls and messages," an Energy Department official wrote in an Aug. 10 memo that will be part of that filing. The official added that some of the groups rebuffed invitations by saying, "Check our Web site."

The Energy Department plans to file 7,000 to 14,000 documents in federal court Monday, offering the first detailed look at the inner workings of the energy task force led by Vice President Cheney. The White House has refused to provide the documents to Congress, prompting one of the biggest legal struggles between the executive and legislative branches since Watergate.

Environmental groups scoffed at the Energy Department's claim that invitations for their views had been ignored. Several of the groups said they unsuccessfully tried to meet with administration officials while the report was being written, and received hasty calls from the Energy Department only after Bush was criticized for soliciting only industry's opinions.

"Every environmental group used every tool and contact we could think of to get a meeting with them," said Elizabeth Thompson, legislative director of Environmental Defense. "My voice-mail wasn't full of a lot of requests from the administration."

The U.S. District Court in Washington ordered the records' release last month, charging that the government had been "woefully tardy" and was "working at a glacial pace" in answering a Freedom of Information Act request by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

An administration source said the Energy Department will argue in the filing that environmental groups' input "was sought, considered and included" in the energy plan, despite claims by the groups that energy companies and Republican donors had more access to officials who wrote the policy. The administration asserts that it held "at least one substantive discussion" with 10 environmental groups in late March, prior to the release of the policy in May.

"In general, we encountered a lack of responsiveness to the offer to submit ideas," an Energy Department official wrote in the Aug. 10 letter to the General Accounting Office. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, has filed a separate lawsuit for records of Cheney's task force.

To try to bolster its contention that environmentalists' views were considered, the Energy Department will include in the filing a 36-page energy-policy proposal from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Also included will be a seven-page printout about energy policy from the Web site of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and a 20-page report from the House Democratic Caucus Energy Task Force, called "Principles for Energy Prosperity."

Jill Schroeder, a department spokeswoman, said Bush's goal had always been to develop a balanced energy policy.

"Industry groups of course were not lobbying for more conservation measures, and so we sought the expertise of the environmental groups," Schroeder said.

She said the department has no record of requests for meetings with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham from either NRDC or the Sierra Club.

A coalition of 30 environmental groups, including the NRDC and the Sierra Club, supplied copies of requests for meetings that the coalition said were sent to Cheney on Feb. 16 and Abraham on Feb. 20. The coalition said Abraham's office declined, citing his "busy schedule."

Instead, the environmental groups met with Andrew D. Lundquist, executive director of the energy task force, and other staff members. Cheney did not meet with environmental groups until a month after Bush had released the report.


-------- ACTIVISTS

Activists stop Sellafield nuclear fuel train

REUTERS GERMANY:
March 22, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/15153/story.htm

HAMBURG - German anti-nuclear activists have held up a train carrying spent nuclear fuel rods bound for a British reprocessing centre for four hours before authorities cleared the track, police said.

Environmental activists from the Robin Wood group said the cargo from the northern German power plant in Kruemmel, destined for the Sellafield reprocessing plant, had been stopped between the towns of Escheburg and Bergedorf.

Four activists chained themselves to the track. The organisation said 250 protesters had taken part in the demonstration.

A spokeswoman for the federal border police said the blockade had been ended after four hours. She said six demonstrators had been detained and the convoy resumed its journey without further disturbances.

The train carrying three containers will collect further nuclear waste at the Brokdorf, Grohnde and Neckarwestheim power plants before crossing into France. From there the material will be taken to Britain.

In recent years, tens of thousands of German anti-nuclear activists have tried to stop a number of transports of nuclear waste heading to reprocessing plants in France and Britain as well as thwart the return of the reprocessed fuel rods.

----

With Carrots and Sticks, China Quiets Protesters

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, March 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64897-2002Mar21?language=printer

LIAOYANG, China -- For more than a week, Li Xuebing had been a participant in an unprecedented series of protests that sprang up in this heavily industrial city in northern China. He was among tens of thousands of laid-off workers from as many as 20 factories who joined to protest against corruption and cutthroat restructuring in what appeared to be the beginnings of an independent labor movement in a country where unions, like nearly everything else, are tightly controlled.

Obviously proud of his involvement, Li flashed a gap-toothed smile on Thursday and said: "We're the working class."

But like many of the thousands of demonstrators who have rocked Liaoyang since March 11, Li decided to stop his protest today.

The government recently coughed up 50 percent of the back salary and an installment on the severance pay it owed him and many of his colleagues, and pledged to help him find a new job. It promised to investigate workers' claims of corruption. And, at the same time, the government displayed its dissuasive power by formally arresting four leaders of the nascent workers movement.

"That means they are going to jail," Li said. "If they arrest you in China, you're going to jail. That means I could go to jail, too, if I go back out there."

Li's quandary -- he wants to protest against the arrests and secure the freedom of the workers' leaders, but he also wants to be around for his 12-year-old daughter's upcoming birthday and support his family -- is like those faced by thousands of workers in this city and throughout China. Angered at what they perceive to be unfairness in economic reforms and the corruption surrounding them, the working class is more restive than at any time in China's 52-year-old history as a communist country. Worker protests are at an all-time high, Chinese economists and officials monitoring labor disputes say.

But the disputes have yet to translate into something broader and more political than struggles over the fate of a single factory or the makeup of the government of a single town. One reason is that the Communist Party and the Chinese security apparatus have effectively employed divide-and-conquer techniques to buy off most of the protesters while cracking down on leaders and die-hards.

This carrot-and-stick approach to China's urban problems -- unemployment, dislocation and corruption -- has on one hand emboldened the working class to demand, as never before, certain rights. But it has also stopped the workers from asking for fundamental changes in the way China is governed.

"We know we can only go so far," said Li, a 38-year-old machinist who worked at the Liaoyang Ferro-Alloy Factory for 12 years. "All of us want real change. But the government and party are still too strong."

Indeed, the Ferro-Alloy workers halted their protest today. "The government is trying to solve our problems," said a relative of one of the arrested protest leaders. "We will give them some time to see if they release our men."

Located in the flat plains 350 miles northeast of Beijing, Liaoyang has been a center for working men and women for centuries. Some of China's first mines were dug here in past dynasties. A towering stone pagoda in the city center is famed for the bronze bells that ring lightly in the wind.

The city encapsulates changes that have revolutionized this country during 23 years of reforms. Some areas, like the Ferro-Alloy plant, inhabit a post-Communist purgatory -- miles of low-slung empty brick workshops with busted windows. In ramshackle housing estates, there are older people strung out on alcohol and youths using heroin or Ecstasy.

Other areas, just next door, jump with the frenzy of the new China. Upstart businessmen cruise around in Audis, flashing wads of cash. Leggy girls beckon from the doorways of discotheques. Factories, recently privatized in murky deals, hum with new life. A stripped-down labor force, with few benefits, struggles to keep up.

Most of the town's major state-owned industries have gone bankrupt or are tottering on the brink. But for each one that has collapsed, enterprising businessmen, many of them the same men who ran the state-owned businesses into the ground, have resurrected the firms, this time as private ones.

"It's really survival of the fittest here," said a mathematics instructor at a small Liaoyang college who has doubled his income running a small fleet of taxis. "If you have a cutthroat heart, you can make it. If you are a good person, I don't think you can."

Liaoyang's protests were touched off by a television interview given by Gong Shangwu, who for the past seven years has run this city of nearly 1.8 million. Gong, who has served as Liaoyang's mayor and head of the local Communist Party branch, now is chief of the local legislature.

In Beijing earlier this month for the annual meeting of China's national legislature, to which Gong also belongs, the rotund politician told a Liaoyang TV reporter that in his city "there were no unemployed" and that the city had handled the economic transition swimmingly.

Workers at Ferro-Alloy, which had gone bankrupt in November 2001 and which had not paid its employees in two years, were not amused. Meetings began in a small blue public phone shop along the railroad tracks outside Ferro-Alloy's front gate. The shop belonged to the wife of one of the factory's workers. People called for demonstrations.

On bicycles and on foot, workers from Ferro-Alloy fanned out across the city to interest others in the protests. Some of the leaders at Ferro-Alloy had met other worker representatives before in meetings over similar issues with the government. They had kept in touch.

Among workers at other factories, things were tough, too. Many had not been paid in months. The government, which had guaranteed laid-off workers a welfare check of $22 a month, had failed to pay thousands of people. Other workers, who had opted for a one-time severance package but only received a portion of their pay, were also ripe for protest.

"In China right now, if the money the government owes you is not in your hand, you really don't know where it's going next," said a laid-off textile worker, a 43-year-old mother of one. "All of us have totally lost faith in the government. Of course, when people saw Gong lie on TV, we were ready to explode."

With flimsy homemade banners and fortified by pungent grain alcohol, the protests began on March 11 from the gates of Ferro-Alloy down Democracy Boulevard to city hall. "Hooligan government!" they shouted. "Remove Gong Shangwu!"

At the height of the protests last week, more than 20,000 workers took part.

By then the government began to respond -- first with carrots. According to Thursday's edition of the Liaoyang Daily, the local Communist Party committee organ, the government released 50 percent of the money owed Ferro-Alloy's workers. It paid 1,421 workers about $1,250 each. It promised 670 other workers that their unemployment benefits would begin shortly. And it pledged to another 814 workers that they would start receiving pensions by mid-April.

It was also announced in Thursday's paper that there would be a job fair Monday for unemployed Ferro-Alloy workers, sponsored by the city's labor and social security departments.

Finally, a government spokesman told the paper that any corruption allegations would be investigated and revealed that a probe into Ferro-Alloy's past had exposed corrupt activities involving 13 managers of the firm. It said at least $640,000 had been stolen from the company.

At the same time, the party moved quickly to cut the head off the movement.

On Sunday, plainclothes policeman bundled Yao Fuxin, a leader of the Ferro-Alloy workers, into a van. On Wednesday, riot and undercover police stormed into a crowd protecting three other leaders and dragged them away. On Thursday, the families of the arrested men were informed that they had been formally arrested and would be charged with leading an illegal protest, among other crimes. During a smaller protest Thursday, two more workers were detained.

At the Get Rich Restaurant, the tensions running through Liaoyang were on display. Businessmen, several of whom rent workshops in the bankrupt Ferro-Alloy plant, were being served by waitresses who had once worked there. One waitress, Duan Yan, a 38-year-old former cook at the factory's canteen, said she feared for her future.

"Here I have no job security at all," she said. "In a snap they could fire me. My husband, too."

His old employer, a paper mill, went out of business two years ago. Now he works in a recently privatized workshop at the mill. In the past, three men did his job; now he does it alone. In the past, he was generally paid a fixed wage. Now it is piecework, with no social benefits.

At Ferro-Alloy's ramshackle gate, which yawns into a courtyard of crumbling red-brick buildings, doorman Wang Bing waxed philosophical: "They say the country is heading in the right direction. Maybe. But for the average guy here, things are definitely getting worse. The workers used to be the masters of this country. What are we the masters of now?"

----

China Protest Suspended in Hope Leaders Freed

By REUTERS
March 22, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-china-protests.html

BEIJING - Angry Chinese workers suspended protests in one northeastern ``rust belt'' city on Friday in the hope authorities would deliver on promises to free four detained labor leaders if the demonstrations stopped.

``One detainee told his family that the police and government officials promised to release them soon if the workers stop their demonstration,'' said a relative of one of four leaders snatched by police in two swoops this week.

``We did not take to the streets this morning, with all the hope for them to be free soon. But he did not say how long'' it might be before the four were freed, she said.

But mass protests by laid-off workers demanding retirement benefits in another northeastern city, Daqing, stretched into a third week, although crowds had dwindled and the atmosphere appeared to have calmed, local sources said.

The labor protests, some of the largest of the Communist era, highlight the pressure on the Communist Party from millions of workers laid off under wrenching state-sector reforms as China moves toward a market-oriented economy.

Armed police have been deployed in large numbers in both cities, but they appear to have taken a restrained approach and there has been little violence.

An official in Liaoyang confirmed there had been no protests there Friday morning by workers demanding back pay.

``There's no disturbance today. We're back to normal,'' he told Reuters without elaborating.

The Liaoyang leaders were being held in Tieling, some 75 miles to the north, and there was no news on how they had been treated by the police, the relative said.

Li Qiang, a spokesman for the U.S.-based rights group China Labor Watch, said he had similar information from a relative of a detained leader.

HEAVY SECURITY

Police have cordoned off the protest zones in both cities, but their tactics appeared to have differed.

Police in Liaoyang isolated and snatched four protest leaders laid off from the city-owned Ferroalloy Factory. Labor leaders in Daqing, China's leading oil producing city, appear to have remained untouched.

Daqing is richer than Liaoyang, where local people estimate as many as 60 to 80 percent of the city's workers are ``xiagang'' -- kept on the company books but sent home on a minimum welfare allowance which some allege has not been paid.

In contrast, people in prosperous Daqing say about five percent of workers, largely from Chinese oil giant China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) and subsidiary PetroChina, have been laid off on relatively good terms.

Liaoyang city government payments last week of 50 percent of pay owed to protesters did little to appease angry workers, many of whom had not been paid salaries for up to two years before their factory went bankrupt, local people said.

In Daqing, officials from PetroChina have been distributing leaflets and appearing on television to tell protesters that misunderstandings were to blame for the discontent.

Former employees of the oil giants say they want the companies to carry through on promises to grant adequate retirement benefits on top of one-off compensation fees paid when many were laid off in the last two years.

Daqing people told Reuters protesters, who have been involved in minor clashes with police, were fewer in number on Friday because the oil companies were promising more welfare benefits if demonstrators calmed down.

A PetroChina spokesman said the company was doing its best to explain its policies on laid-off workers who vow to carry on protesting until they get guarantees of adequate retirement benefits.

``We are actively explaining our policy and calming down the protesters,'' said the spokesman, who declined to be identified.

``Our crude production has not been affected at all. Actually, crude output was 4,000 tonnes above the planned production every day,'' he said.

--------

Nongovernmental Organizations Show Their Growing Power

New York Times
March 22, 2002
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/22/international/africa/22NGO.html

ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast, March 20 - Since the end of the cold war, private aid organizations have mushroomed across Africa, addressing every conceivable need in seemingly every corner of the world's poorest continent.

To supporters, the groups - better known in the diplomatic world as N.G.O.'s, or nongovernmental organizations - are essential to Africa's burgeoning democracy, giving communities the money and power to take part in their own development and circumvent ineffective or corrupt governments.

To critics, they are new colonialists who instill dependency among Africans, and their contributions to Africa's development are hard to measure.

Whatever the reality, the central role played in foreign aid by these organizations is acknowledged by their prominent place this week at the poverty and development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. An estimated 25,000 such organizations operate around the world.

"Five years ago, 50 percent of World Bank projects had N.G.O. involvement," said William Reuben, coordinator of the bank's N.G.O. and civil society section. "Now that figure is 70 percent."

Since last year, the organizations have assumed an important policy-making role in 32 developing countries that have qualified for debt reduction. Those countries have agreed to consult with private aid groups on how to use money freed up from the debt reduction.

Most of the organizations involved in those efforts are local, not branches of international ones, Mr. Reuben said. Increasingly, he said, Western donors are financing local groups directly, instead of going through international structures.

"It's becoming a trend and that has made the international N.G.O. community think about their role," Mr. Reuben said.

The first rethinking about aid to Africa took place with the end of the Cold War. Until then, rich nations gave money directly to African governments and mostly financed the buildup of infrastructure.

But in the early 1990's, as the West tied aid to democratization, the independent organizations began flourishing. Foreign N.G.O.'s were respected for their skills in carrying out development projects that would actually benefit ordinary Africans; the local groups, meanwhile, were the foundation of a civil society necessary for democracy.

"That shift was much more beneficial and had more impact," said Chris Conrad, the programs director for southern and western Africa for CARE, one of the biggest independent aid groups.

Mr. Conrad, who has worked in Africa for 25 years and is now based in Johannesburg, pointed to community-sponsored schools in Mali. With the Malian government unable or unwilling to build schools, many communities have started their own, with the help of private aid groups.

Some critics say the organizations have created dependency among Africans and their governments, which rely increasingly on them to provide services that would ordinarily be filled by the state. At one extreme, relief groups are providing so many services in places like Angola and southern Sudan that the authorities there can use their resources for long-running wars.

But even in a peaceful country like Mali, does helping a village build a school absolve the government of its real responsibility?

Bruce Wilkinson, a senior vice president for World Vision in Washington who spent 15 years in West Africa, rejects that criticism.

"Creating dependency is a problem," he said. "But what's the alternative? If vaccination coverage is 5 to 10 percent in a specific area and there is no N.G.O., that vaccination coverage will continue at those levels for the next generation. How many children will die?"

Careful decisions, however, can limit dependency, Mr. Wilkinson said. After a drought in Mali, he said, food was supplied to herders.

"We saved many lives," he said. "But we stayed too long, and they didn't return as quickly as they should have to their herding or other income-generating activities."

Critics of the groups say they have so much power that the good they do is undermined by the side effects of their presence. The groups are a new way for Western governments to perpetuate their influence in Africa, these critics say, and are in reality not accountable to Africans. The groups that provide relief are a big business that thrives on disasters. Often, they hire away the most-talented Africans, lured by salaries that African governments or businesses cannot match, experts say.

Many organizations that do not focus on development, but are advocates for human rights and other causes, are simply businesses that collect grants from Western donors, critics say. In Nigeria, some of these organizations participated fully in the fight against past military regimes, but others appear to do little except to insert their names occasionally in a newspaper article.

"In Africa, a $10,000 grant buys you an N.G.O., so these groups have multiplied exponentially," said Marina Ottaway, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"One of their main characteristics is that they have three people: a director, a secretary and a driver. They do not have members. Their usefulness in promoting democracy is very limited."

----

Bangladesh police battle opposition protesters

By Anis Ahmed
Friday March 22, 2002
Reuters
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-96214.html

DHAKA - Bangladesh police fought running battles with hundreds of opposition activists in the capital on Thursday evening during a protest against a law that makes it optional to display portraits of an independence leader.

Parliament passed the new law to replace earlier legislation that said portraits of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, must be hung in all government and autonomous offices as a mark of respect to him.

Mujib who led Bangladesh to independence from Pakistan in 1971 was killed in a 1975 army coup. His daughter Hasina, chief of Bangladesh's Awami League, became prime minister in 1996 and was the first to serve a full five-year term in office in the country's more than 30-year history.

Hasina lost power to Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) in an election last October.

Witnesses said police used teargas and batons to disperse the Awami demonstrators who pelted stones and set a car ablaze, but there was no immediate word of serious injuries.

Awami League General-Secretary Zillur Rahman warned the government of "dire consequences for showing shameful disrespect" to Mujib.

Khaleda said in a statement in parliament that she always respected Mujib as a leader in the country's independence struggle, but differed with Awami League supporters who say Mujib had formally declared Bangladesh's independence.

"It was (then army major and Khaleda's husband) Ziaur Rahman who proclaimed the independence but Awami League never acknowledged this historic truth," Khaleda said.

She proposed that henceforth portraits of Mujib and Zia can be hung along with that of the country's head of the government in all government and public premises.

Earlier on Thursday, about 20 people were hurt in Dhaka when police used teargas and batons to push back Awami activists protesting against alleged government persecution.

Witnesses said the League supporters were protesting against arrests of party leaders and corruption cases against them.

The government has opened a number of corruption cases against Hasina and other party officials. It has denied launching a crackdown on political opponents, but says wrongdoers of the past will be brought to book.

----

Student Protesters Foul U.S. - S.Korea Landing Drill

March 22, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-korea-usa.html

POHANG, South Korea - A bold seaside protest by fewer than a dozen South Korean college students ruined U.S.-Korean military landing drills on Friday, witnesses said.

``No War. No Nuclear,'' read one banner in English carried by the students who advocated reunification with North Korea.

Amphibious landing craft carry U.S. and South Korean marines were forced to suspend drills near the southeastern coastal city of Pohang to avoid hitting the students from the leftist Hanchongryun student union, a Reuters photographer said.

South Korean marines, who seized the placards, scuffled with the protesters, the photographer said.

The surprise protest took place on the second day of a weeklong U.S.-South Korean combined command post and field training exercises that communist North Korea has denounced as preparations for an invasion.

``There were eight to 10 young people on the beach all of a sudden,'' said a U.S. military spokeswoman.

``Landings by the huge landing crafts which unload big vehicles were postponed, because they cannot maneuver quickly,'' she said, adding the troops feared injuring the students.

NORTH KOREA SEES THREAT

Students from the same union occupied the American Chamber of Commerce office in Seoul last month on the eve of a visit to South Korea by President Bush. The sit-in caused $100,000 in damage to furniture and windows in the office.

The students were angry at Bush's remarks labeling North Korea part of an ``axis of evil.''

Bush also unsettled North Korea during his Seoul visit by criticizing the North's political system and saying its people were starving at the expense of a huge military.

On Thursday, North Korea accused the United States and South Korea of plotting ``total war'' to topple the communist government.

The same day, both South Korea and the United States launched their annual Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration (ROSI) command drills and Foal Eagle counter-infiltration war games.

The exercises involve coordinated field drills and computer simulations between the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea and Seoul's 600,000-strong military.

North and South Korea technically remain in a state of war because the 1950-53 Korean conflict ended in an armistice that has never been replaced with a peace treaty.


-------

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

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