Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
New Solvents May Clean up Radioactive Waste
China Issues Rules On Missile Exports
China Issues Rules on Export of Missile Gear
U.S. Welcomes Chinese Missile Rules
Serbia ships out nuclear rods amid heavy security
India: Pakistan Disrupts Elections
N. Korea frustrates nuclear inspectors
N. Korea Arms Proliferation Worries United States
Gov't Offers Radiation Equipment
MISSOURI OFFICIALS FIND HOLES IN PLAN TO MANAGE RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE
PIKETON NUCLEAR-PLANT WORKER AIDED BY PROGRAM THAT HE FOUGHT TO CREATE
MILITARY
F.B.I. to Re-examine Anthrax Case in Florida
US cash row poisons Russian chemical weapon cuts
U.S. Issues Warning to Europeans in Dispute Over New Court
Czech plant leaked hundreds of kilos of deadly gas
Pentagon briefs allies, lawmakers on Iraq
Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote
Senators back forced checks of Iraqi arsenal
Cheney Presses for Action on Iraq
Iraq Said to Plan Tangling the U.S. in Street Fighting
Palestinian agriculture losses reach $1B
Georgia Sends 1,000 Troops To Gorge Area
$4.5 Billion Helps Link Civilian, Military Satellites
Military analyst's terror warning fell on deaf ears
Roundup of UPI Earth Summit coverage
POLICE / PRISONERS
Terror-war wiretaps get tangled in new scrutiny of FBI
Controversial Police Database Lists 'Future Criminals'
Corrections Population Hits 6.6M
Scientist raps Ashcroft for anthrax probe
Court Approves Open Hearing on 9/11-Related Charges
Confession Had His Signature; DNA Did Not
Military analyst's terror warning fell on deaf ears
ENERGY AND OTHER
Under the Influence of Ethanol
Brazil seeks green car deal in Johannesburg
Summit: OECD Energy Agency Urges Radical Changes
Growing pains of stem cell research
Hong Kong Flu's Deadly Gene
ACTIVISTS
Chemist Whistleblower Wins $1.5 Million Judgment Against Army
Families seek justice for Venezuelan protesters
Police Vow Tough Security at Summit
Summit: Protesters Face Police Brutality
Protesters breach security at South Africa N-plant
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
New Solvents May Clean up Radioactive Waste
August 26, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-26-09.asp#anchor5
BROOKHAVEN, New York, Ionic liquids might be useful for cleaning up radioactive wastes, say scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Scientists at the Energy Department's Brookhaven Lab are investigating new solvents made of positive and negative ions, just like sodium chloride and other common salts that form ordered crystalline solids. But these new solvents are liquid at room temperature because the ions are chosen so that they pack very poorly to form weak crystals.
Ionic liquids offer many benefits over traditional solvents, said Brookhaven chemist James Wishart, because they do not evaporate or burn and may be usable over and over again. Another reason they might be useful in breaking down nuclear waste is that they often contain boron and/or chlorine, two elements that block neutrons from starting unwanted nuclear chain reactions.
But before ionic liquids are put to the test cleaning up spent fuel and other nuclear waste, the scientists need to know if these liquids can withstand the radiation. To find out, Wishart and his colleagues are bombarding samples of various ionic liquids with a beam of high energy electrons generated by Brookhaven's Laser Electron Accelerator Facility (LEAF).
The pulses and resolution at LEAF allow the scientists to follow chemical changes over trillionths of a second, and observe the reactions of the short lived primary radicals produced by the radiation.
"Accumulation of radiation damage depends on the yields and reactivity of the primary species," Wishart said. "Looking at these fast reactions will allow us to determine which ionic liquids can tolerate radiation and how they can be made even more stable."
-------- china
China Issues Rules On Missile Exports
By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 26, 2002; Page A11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60846-2002Aug25?language=printer
BEIJING, Aug. 25 -- China issued new regulations today to control the export of missile technology, meeting a longstanding demand by the United States in a move apparently aimed at improving relations with Washington before President Jiang Zemin visits President Bush in Texas in October.
The publication of the export rules seemed a significant concession in arms control talks that have been stalled for months, with China denying U.S. charges that it sells missile technology to countries such as Pakistan and Iran and condemning the United States for its own weapons sales to Taiwan.
Chinese diplomats had previously said they would not publish the regulations until the United States lifted sanctions barring U.S. companies from launching satellites on Chinese rockets. The Chinese government had also objected to sanctions imposed on specific companies accused of exporting missile-related technology.
But the Bush administration has expressed little flexibility on these issues, at least in public, and last month, the State Department announced new sanctions against nine Chinese companies that allegedly transferred sensitive equipment to the Middle East.
Beijing's decision to publish the rules appeared intended to further strengthen ties with the United States that have been improving since China backed the U.S.-led war on terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks. U.S. officials have made it clear that weapons proliferation is a "make-or-break issue" in relations with China, and President Bush pushed for new commitments from Jiang during his visit here in February.
The new regulations were announced as Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage arrived in Beijing to discuss Jiang's upcoming visit to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tx., reinforcing the sense that the decision is tied to the summit. The trip could be Jiang's last to the United States as China's president, and he is said to be eager to ensure that it is a success.
The new rules do not explicitly ban any items from export, but they require companies that transfer technologies specified on a "control list" to obtain licenses and seek government approval for each transaction. They also require the companies to obtain guarantees from their customers that the technology will not be misused or resold.
U.S. arms negotiators have urged China to publish the regulations, as well as the list of items subject to the rules, to make it easier to press for stricter controls. When Chinese companies export sensitive equipment, U.S. officials want to be able to say whether the companies are violating China's laws or whether those laws need to be tightened to include other equipment.
The official New China News Agency published the text of the regulations but did not release the list of items subject to the rules. It was unclear whether the control list would be provided to the United States.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the regulations demonstrate that China "stands against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems" and meets its international obligations.
China promised to publish the regulations as part of a deal in November 2000 in which it agreed not to help countries build missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. In return, the Clinton administration lifted sanctions preventing U.S. companies from launching satellites on Chinese rockets. Those sanctions were reimposed after evidence surfaced indicating China had violated the agreement.
--------
China Issues Rules on Export of Missile Gear
New York Times
August 26, 2002
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/international/asia/26MISS.html
BEIJING, Aug. 25 - The Chinese government announced long-awaited regulations today to govern the export of missile technology. The move came as Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage arrived here to discuss the visit to the United States this fall of China's president, Jiang Zemin.
China's military exports, particularly weapons sales to Pakistan and Iran, have been a persistent source of tension in relations between China and the United States. Although China had promised the United States in November 2000 that it would put in place a system to halt such transfers, American diplomats had complained that there had been few concrete results.
The new regulations, which were signed into effect on Thursday, create a system of licensing and registration for companies that export missile-related items or any "dual use" technology that could be used to assist in the launch of such weapons.
Trade involving those items is to be reviewed by the Chinese government, and companies will be required to specify to whom and for what purpose such shipments are being made.
"China will continue to take an active part in the international cooperation in nonproliferation," said Kong Quan, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, in announcing the new regulations.
The announcement's timing seemed a clear effort to improve the atmosphere for Mr. Jiang's meeting with President Bush in Texas in October. Mr. Armitage's discussions in Beijing were to involve plans for the presidential summit meeting.
But it was less clear whether the new regulations would ease Washington's fears, particularly about Chinese exports to Iran and North Korea, two members of Mr. Bush's "axis of evil." While government releases today referred to a list of equipment that is covered by the new regulations, they did not specify what components are included on that list.
In Washington, a White House spokesman, Michael Anton, said: "We have a broad nonproliferation agenda with China. But this is a good sign, and we welcome it."
--------
U.S. Welcomes Chinese Missile Rules
August 26, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-China-US.html
BEIJING (AP) -- A senior U.S. diplomat said Monday that Washington welcomes new Chinese rules on missile exports but isn't ready to respond by dropping its ban on launching American commercial satellites on Chinese rockets.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage also said he assured Chinese leaders that the United States would consult with them as it works out its options toward removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Armitage also made a significant clarification in the U.S. stance on Taiwan, saying that while Washington does not support independence for the island it also does not outright oppose independence.
The Chinese announced restrictions on the missile technology exports -- a major sticking point in U.S.-Chinese relations -- just as Armitage was beginning his two-day visit to Beijing on Sunday.
Washington has long accused Beijing of transferring sensitive technology to Pakistan, Iran and other nations, and Armitage told reporters on Monday that the new regulations were ``a positive step and a positive development.''
But Armitage said Washington was not ready to grant a long-standing demand China has made in return for cooperation on proliferation: that Washington end a ban on launches of U.S. commercial satellites on Chinese rockets.
Armitage said U.S. officials have yet to fully review and understand the Chinese regulations and how they will be enforced. He said that America and China agreed to hold meetings, which have yet to be scheduled, between officials from both sides who will discuss the rules.
``I hope the talks that will be upcoming in the very near future will lead to the undoing of some of those (satellite) licenses that have been held up,'' he said.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said U.S. officials want to see what steps China will take on enforcement and ``actual real reduction'' in missile exports.
``We've always felt we've had commitments from the Chinese... to implement an effective system control on missile exports,'' Boucher said. ``That continues to be our goal.
``Unfortunately, we have not seen that carried out. We have seen activities by Chinese entities that don't respect international standards, and we've looked for action by the Chinese government to stop and curb those activities.''
Armitage said he met with Vice President Hu Jintao, Vice Premier Qian Qichen and Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan, among other leaders.
In a news conference afterward, he commented on the issue of Taiwanese independence, underlining that ``saying we do not support it (independence) is one thing. It's different from saying that we oppose it,'' Armitage told reporters. If China and Taiwan agreed on independence ``then the United States obviously wouldn't inject ourselves.''
China vehemently opposes any intimations of independence for Taiwan, saying the self-ruled island that split when the Communists took over China in 1949 must reuinfy or face war. Tensions have flared recently between Beijing and Taiwan, after the Taiwanese president argued on Aug. 3 that the two were separate countries.
On Iraq, Armitage said he discussed with Chinese leaders the possibility of using military action to remove Saddam. He said he told the Chinese that President Bush has ``made no decision'' but ``we'll consult with them as we move forward.''
Armitage's visit came as Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri arrived in China on Monday for talks.
China's Foreign Ministry said Sabri would meet with his Chinese counterpart, Tang Jiaxuan, on Tuesday in Beijing and attend a banquet at the ministry. The sides will ``exchange views on bilateral relations and issues of common concern,'' the official Xinhua News Agency reported.
China, one of five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, has traditionally been considered friendly to Iraq and has opposed using U.S. force against the country. But Chinese officials have repeatedly urged Iraq to allow inspectors to return as a first step to lifting U.N. sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Armitage also said he discussed President Jiang Zemin's planned Oct. 25 visit to Bush's family home in Crawford, Texas.
Another topic was the tensions between India and Chinese ally Pakistan. On Tuesday, Armitage leaves for Japan before heading on to Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan.
-------- europe
Serbia ships out nuclear rods amid heavy security
REUTERS: YUGOSLAVIA:
August 26, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17433/story.htm
BELGRADE - Serbia said it had flown 6,000 uranium rods - enough to make two atomic bombs - back to Russia in an operation involving special forces and helicopters that alarmed Belgrade residents.
Science Minister Dragan Domazet said the operation was kept top secret to avoid any possible terrorist attacks but it was safe to disclose now that the material had reached the Ulyanovsk Nuclear Processing Plant, around 600 km (373 miles) east of Moscow. "If it were to fall into the hands of trained terrorists it would have been a great threat to world peace and this way we showed clearly we want to assist the international fight against terrorism," Domazet told reporters.
The rods had been kept unused since 1984, when a reactor at the Vinca nuclear research institute near Belgrade was closed.
The shipment back to Russia, where the rods originated, was part of a deal with the United States. Washington has donated $720,000 to the Vinca institute to "go green" and clear up radioactive waste from its compound.
Belgraders alarmed by the unusual activity called into radio stations at around 2 a.m (midnight GMT), saying they had seen special police with gas masks near a highway and heard helicopters flying overhead.
"You always have to foresee everything, like a possible terrorist attempt to seize the fuel. The quantity shipped was enough to make at least two atom bombs," Domazet explained.
With the shipment of the rods containing 80 percent of enriched 235 uranium, Yugoslavia began complying with the rules of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which the country rejoined after the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.
The IAEA said on Thursday it had witnessed the loading of uranium into shipping containers between August 15 and 16 and had sealed them for transit.
"It was about 50 kgs (110 lbs) of highly enriched uranium," an IAEA official told Reuters.
-------- india / pakistan
India: Pakistan Disrupts Elections
August 26, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-India-Pakistan.html
NEW DELHI, India (AP) -- India accused Pakistan Monday of trying to disrupt elections in the Indian-controlled Kashmir, and rejected Islamabad's claims that it was unable to stop all militants from crossing the border of the Himalayan province.
Indian police said at least 11 people were killed Sunday and Monday in Kashmir during the latest in a series of attacks by suspected Islamic militants. The violence comes ahead of a round of voting that is crucial for the troubled region's stability.
India's foreign minister, Yashwant Sinha, said the government is fearful that militants infiltrating from Pakistan could increase as the vote draws near because Islamabad was ``determined to thwart the elections process.''
``It is hard to believe that any cross-border infiltration is possible without help from the Pakistani army,'' Sinha said at a news conference, responding to recent statements from Islamabad that it can't be held responsible for some ``rogue elements'' who still cross the border.
Sinha said that Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, called the upcoming legislative elections by India a sham. Pakistan-based Islamic groups have also asked the people of India's only Muslim-majority state to boycott the polls in September and October.
Cross-border incursions by Islamic rebels are at the core of the current military standoff between India and Pakistan.
The nuclear rivals placed a million troops along their shared border after a series of terror attacks in India, which New Delhi blamed on Islamic militants harbored by Pakistan. Islamabad denied the charge and said it can't control every extremist group.
War fears subsided after U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage extracted assurances from Musharraf in June that he would ``permanently end'' incursions by Islamic rebels into Indian Kashmir.
The number of cross-border infiltrations has fallen, but India claims that Islamic rebels are still crossing the Line of Control that divides Kashmir between it and Pakistan. The two nations have gone to war over the province twice.
During his second visit to the region last week, Armitage agreed that ``there are some infiltrations'' taking place, but he echoed Musharraf's defense that Pakistan is not condoning or supporting them.
More than a dozen Islamic militant groups have been fighting Indian security forces since 1989 to free Kashmir from Indian rule, or merge it with predominantly Muslim Pakistan.
India has accused Pakistan of sponsoring the 12-year insurgency, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 60,000 people. Islamabad has denied the charge, saying it only supports the rebels' cause for freedom, but hasn't given them any aid, tacit or otherwise.
-------- korea
N. Korea frustrates nuclear inspectors
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 26, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-200282644536.htm
VIENNA, Austria - The International Atomic Energy Agency says it is increasingly "frustrated" after a decade of failed attempts to inspect North Korea´s nuclear capabilities and has toughened a previously "softer" approach.
The unusually stern warning from the media-shy IAEA - the world´s only safeguard against the diversion of nuclear energy programs for warfare purposes - comes as North Korea makes intense diplomatic efforts to ease its international isolation.
But the North´s political overtures to South Korea, Japan and the United States have not been accompanied by a willingness to cooperate with the IAEA, a senior official said in an interview at the agency´s Vienna headquarters.
"We´ve been frustrated for 10 years," said Piet de Klerk, the IAEA´s director of external relations and policy coordination. "We´ve continued to talk" since Pyongyang pulled out of the treaty requiring it to cooperate with IAEA inspections in March 1993, "but it has been a roller-coaster," he said.
"We´ve never had a complete picture, so we are unable to give any assurances that there are no nuclear activities in North Korea."
The IAEA, worried that the North could still have plutonium from a suspected nuclear weapons program that it agreed to freeze in 1994, wants a full account of what happened to the smallest amount of the potential bomb-making material.
"In 1994, North Korea unloaded a 5-megawatt reactor very hastily and put the materials in cans, so we need to check the radioactivity levels," Mr. de Klerk said last week.
But the government of Chairman Kim Jong-il has consistently ignored the agency´s demands. While it has allowed IAEA representatives to look at some documents, it did not allow even the copying of the papers, Mr. de Klerk said.
For years, he said, the IAEA remained understanding of how slowly things happen in the reclusive state and held meetings twice a year with the North Koreans. But the North kept avoiding the real issues on the agenda, making the gatherings almost meaningless.
"They have a number of very good people, so we´ve had some articulate discussions, but with very strict confines," Mr. de Klerk said.
Earlier this summer, the IAEA took several North Korean experts to a nuclear site in Britain to show them "exactly what we would do if we went" to the North. But, he said, the gesture was futile.
The IAEA is ready to "welcome them back at any time as members [of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT], because when they left, that limited our dialogue but they have not responded," Mr. de Klerk said.
The agency became so impatient that, when the North Koreans refused to accept some of the topics on the agenda of the last scheduled meeting in June, it canceled the date. That meeting has yet to be rescheduled.
"We can´t spend more of our budget on a nonmember state," Mr. de Klerk said. "A few years ago, we were much softer and agreed to discuss less significant issues like preservation. There is no point in that anymore."
He dismissed as not serious recent North Korean threats to withdraw from the 1994 agreement with the United States, known as the Agreed Framework, which froze Pyongyang´s suspected nuclear weapons program in exchange for the promised construction of two light-water reactors.
"We´ve heard this before," he said. "Pulling out of the agreement will be a very high price for them, so they will sleep on it for another night." During ministerial talks with South Korea earlier this month, officials from the North warned they might have to go their "own way" if the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), the U.S.-led international consortium building the reactors, does not complete the project.
Both U.S. and KEDO officials said at an Aug. 7 concrete-pouring ceremony at the plant´s site in Kumho, on North Korea´s northeastern coast, that if Pyongyang does not allow the IAEA inspectors in by the time the buildings are finished, no nuclear components will be delivered and the project will be suspended.
Undersecretary of State John Bolton went further in a draft of a speech prepared for delivery in Seoul this week, saying the United States would pull out of the agreement if it was proven that Pyongyang had ever diverted plutonium from its nuclear energy program.
The final contents of the speech remain under discussion at the State Department.
The Agreed Framework, negotiated in 1994 by the Clinton administration after North Korea withdrew from the NPT, requires Pyongyang to allow IAEA inspections to resume when a "significant portion of the project is completed and before the nuclear components are delivered."
Asked about the usefulness of the accord, which has some harsh critics in the Bush administration, Mr. de Klerk replied in a quintessentially diplomatic manner.
"The Agreed Framework defused a dangerous situation at the time," he said. "We have accepted it as a fact. One can make the case that it has delayed our work, but whatever its drawbacks, it gives us leverage in dealing with North Korea."
--------
N. Korea Arms Proliferation Worries United States
August 26, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-usa-arms.html
TOKYO (Reuters) - The State Department's top arms-control negotiator said on Monday there had been no noticeable decrease in arms proliferation activities by North Korea.
The comments by U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, who has a reputation as a hawk on arms control, came after the United States said last week it had imposed symbolic sanctions on a North Korean company and the North Korean government for exporting medium or long-range missile components.
``We remain very concerned about North Korea's outward proliferation activities. It is a state of concern in connection with ballistic missiles and possibly with nuclear technologies in particular,'' Bolton told reporters in Tokyo.
``I don't think there's been any diminution in their outward proliferation activities that we can see now,'' he said.
President Bush said in January North Korea was part of an ``axis of evil,'' along with Iran and Iraq, because of its alleged support for ``terrorist'' groups and programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.
U.S. officials have declined to give details of the exports that led to the sanctions against North Korea but the New York Times said the reclusive communist state sold Scud missile components to Yemen before Bush came to office in January 2001.
Bolton was in Tokyo for talks with Japanese officials and was preparing to make what is expected to be a sensitive speech in Seoul.
The Washington Times newspaper reported last week that one draft of the speech planned for this week repeats Bush's ``axis of evil'' line.
The newspaper reported that South Korean officials and some U.S. diplomats oppose the speech, fearing that it could derail months of efforts by both countries to draw communist North Korea out of isolation and back to the negotiating table.
When asked whether he planned to use Bush's ``axis of evil'' line in his speech in Seoul, Bolton said: ``I personally think it's OK for a senior American official to quote the President of the United States.''
Bolton is also scheduled to talk at a meeting in Tokyo on Tuesday about steps to prevent the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons.
-------- terrorism
Gov't Offers Radiation Equipment
August 26, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Radiation-Equipment.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department is making surplus radiation detection equipment available to state and local officials in case it is needed to respond to a nuclear terror attack, the department said Monday.
The equipment will ``help ensure that our law enforcement and emergency personnel have the necessary equipment and training to prepare them to respond effectively and thoroughly to any emergency,'' Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in a statement.
The equipment, most of which is being refurbished after being declared surplus at DOE weapons sites around the country, first will go to states with the largest urban population centers, officials said.
The devices, including hand-held dosimeters, filtering systems, glove boxes and monitoring equipment, is being refurbished at the Energy Department's material recycling center in Oak Ridge, Tenn., before its distribution.
Jointly administered by DOE and the Justice Department's Office of Domestic Preparedness, the program is part of a broader federal effort to better prepare police, fire officials and others who would be the initial responders to a nuclear incident, officials said.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a statement supply of the material ``demonstrates the administration's commitment to equipping those on the domestic front lines -- our state and local emergency first responders -- in the nation's effort to prevent future terrorist attacks.''
The Justice Department office will decide how the equipment will be distributed, and the Energy Department will deliver the devices to the states and communities, officials said. Training police, firefighters and other local officials in how to use the equipment will be conducted by federal agencies and through the private Health Physics Society, an organization of radiation safety professionals.
In an initial test phase of the program, equipment will be made available to states with the nation's 10 largest metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington.
Much of the equipment is classified as surplus at DOE weapons complex facilities because the sites have been cleaned up or closed after being part of the government's nuclear weapons complex, according to a fact sheet provided on an Energy Department web site.
``In the past this equipment would be disposed of as waste at considerable cost to the American taxpayers. ... DOE is now putting the equipment to new uses in defending our nation,'' said the fact sheet.
On The Net: Energy Department: www.oakridge.doe.gov
Justice Department: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- missouri
MISSOURI OFFICIALS FIND HOLES IN PLAN TO MANAGE RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE
St.Louis Post Dispatch --
Monday, August 26, 2002.
by Sara Shipley
http://home.post-dispatch.com/channel/pdweb.nsf/4daa3d989dbce5e885256a0f005ee235/86256a0e0068fe5086256c210033655d?OpenDocument
Missouri environmental officials are unhappy with the federal government's latest plan for long-term management of radioactive waste at Weldon Spring. The Department of Energy's second draft stewardship plan still doesn't address key questions, such as how the agency plans to pay for the work, said James D. Werner, director of air and land protection at the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. "We're very disappointed in this next draft plan," Werner said. "It fails to respond to our earlier comments. Also, it doesn't respond to community concerns." The plan will be debated at a public meeting in St. Charles on Wednesday night. Missouri officials have been wary for years of being saddled with a monumental environmental problem of the federal government's creation. Cold War bomb materials produced at Weldon Spring left behind 1.5 million cubic yards of contamination, which has been capped under a mountain of rock. Now that most of the $900 million cleanup is complete, the Department of Energy is supposed to explain how it will keep Weldon Spring safe as long as the waste is radioactive - a mere 10,000 years or so. An agency office in Grand Junction, Colo., is taking over what it calls the "long-term surveillance and maintenance" of Weldon Spring, the first of dozens of similar bomb-making sites to go into mothball status....
-------- ohio
PIKETON NUCLEAR-PLANT WORKER AIDED BY PROGRAM THAT HE FOUGHT TO CREATE
Monday, August 26, 2002
By Malia Rulon Associated Press
From: "Vina K Colley" vcolley@earthlink.net
A former Ohio nuclear-plant worker has received compensation for his cancer -- nearly a year after applying under the government program he fought to create for his co-workers made ill by their jobs.
Other workers still fighting for their $150,000 checks could share in Sam Ray's victory.
Congress approved the compensation program in 2000.
It provides the one-time payment plus lifetime medical care to workers who were exposed to dangerous radiation, silica or beryllium at four weapons plants, including the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon. Payments also can go to some survivors.
To qualify, the workers must be diagnosed with one of 21 types of cancer.
The National Cancer Institute recently ruled that Ray's particular illness is a type of bone cancer, one of those accepted under the program.
About 200 workers with the same type of cancer as Ray have applied for compensation, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
The Labor Department at first denied Ray's application because his cancer, called chondrosarcoma, wasn't yet on the list. His tumor is in the cartilage in the larynx.
Cartilage is a rubbery tissue similar to bone, found in the nose, ears and most joints.
The department earlier had accepted other types of cartilage cancer as bone cancer, making them eligible.
Other approvals by the Cancer Institute can bring payments for workers with cancer of the ureter and certain types of rectal and colon cancer, said Peter Turcic, the Labor Department official who runs the compensation program.
The institute also will be asked to evaluate rare forms of cancer to determine whether they're in a subset of one the cancers eligible for the program, Turcic said.
"That is a precedent,'' he said. "We expect that there will be more of this kind of thing, and we hope to be as expeditious as possible in resolving the cases.''
Charles Shoemaker, 74, of Chillicothe, who has cancer of the tonsil, is hoping to be among those who benefit from Ray's struggle.
His doctors told him that cancer of the tonsils is a subset of a cancer on the list.
"There is some confusion on that right now,'' said Shoemaker, who has had his saliva gland removed and nearly 40 radiation treatments.
Shoemaker has trouble talking because his mouth gets dry, so he chews gum all the time.
"I haven't had any success with it, and I'm getting frustrated,'' he said. "There are too many parts in our necks.''
Both men worked at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant: Shoemaker, 30 years as an operator and supervisor; Ray, 41 years as an instrument mechanic.
Ray, 69, of Lucasville, who now speaks through a mechanical voice box, said disputed cases should have been sent to the Cancer Institute months ago.
Still, he's pleased to get his payment, which he used to buy annuities for his three adult daughters.
He's even more pleased that his case could open doors for others like Shoemaker.
"That's what made it all the more worthwhile,'' he said.
Caption: Sam Ray, 69, of Lucasville, finally received compensation for his cancer after nearly a year.
-------- MILITARY
-------- biological weapons
F.B.I. to Re-examine Anthrax Case in Florida
August 26, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Anthrax-Florida.html
BOCA RATON, Fla. (AP) -- Saying its original investigations were incomplete, the FBI plans this week to go back inside an anthrax-contaminated building owned by tabloid publisher American Media Inc., where an employee was fatally infected last fall, officials said Monday.
In the first search of the building since it was quarantined and sealed last fall, agents will use newly developed techniques to search for anthrax spores and other evidence throughout the building.
Previous searches inside the building concentrated on a mailroom and workstations used by infected employees.
``We hope this investigation will bring to justice the person or persons responsible for this horrific act,'' said Hector Pesquera, the FBI's special agent in charge of the Miami division.
Pesquera said the two-week operation inside the building should be under way by Wednesday. Investigators moved mobile units into the building's parking lot Monday in preparation, said Boca Raton police commander Maria Maughan.
AMI has had to use other offices in the area to publish its six supermarket tabloids, including The National Enquirer, Globe and Weekly World News.
The building has been under federal quarantine since October, when photo editor Robert Stevens died after becoming infected at his desk. He was the first person and only Floridian to die during the anthrax attacks last fall, which killed five people. Another AMI worker became ill and was hospitalized for more than three weeks.
Spores delivered by mail also hit media outlets in New York and a congressional building in Washington.
While transmission by mail was suspected at AMI, investigators never determined how anthrax spores entered the building. The original investigation did not locate a ``dissemination device'' or large quantities of spores.
Pesquera said workers would collect ``thousands and thousands'' of new samples in the search for the source of the spores and how they were disbursed in the building. He would not elaborate on the new techniques to be used.
``We're looking for a dissemination device such as a letter or letters, again, to generate new leads,'' said Dr. Dwight Adams, assistant director of the FBI's laboratory division.
He said investigators hoped to do a full assessment of any contamination throughout the building and the mailroom and to compare spores with infected letters mailed to Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said last week he would introduce legislation to require the federal government to help decontaminate the building, fearing a hurricane could spread spores. The legislation would allow the federal government to take over the building and use it as a laboratory to study anthrax. AMI executives, who are unable to clean up the building on their own, have offered to give the building to the government.
The fenced, guarded building has stood vacant since employees evacuated one hurried Sunday afternoon in October. David Pecker, the company's CEO, said front pages from the Oct. 4 editions are still plastered to the walls, and coffee cups, fish tanks and family photos are scattered across employees' former desks.
Employees could take nothing from the infested building. But one executive has been allowed to don a moon suit and enter the building at least a dozen times, most recently in March when he tried unsuccessfully to recover the company's database of 500,000 photos.
On the Net:
CDC Anthrax Facts: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/Agent/Anthrax/AnthraxGen.asp
-------- chemical weapons
US cash row poisons Russian chemical weapon cuts
Story by Jon Boyle,
REUTERS RUSSIA:
August 26, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17438/story.htm
GORNY, Russia - Russia proudly showed off its first chemical weapons destruction plant this week, but a row over U.S. funding delays for a vast new facility is poisoning efforts to neutralise the huge Soviet-era arsenal.
Russia has 40,000 tonnes of nerve gas and other toxic agents, a tiny drop of which could prove fatal, but chronic cash shortages have plagued attempts to destroy the world's largest chemical weapons stockpile.
Leading Western states, concerned about the safety of Russia's Soviet-era weapons of mass destruction - and how securely they are stored - pledged in June $20 billion over 10 years to neutralise the weapons.
That could provide a huge fillip to the chemical weapons destruction programme overseen by Zinovy Pak, the ebullient head of the Russian Munitions Agency who on Wednesday unveiled the German and EU-funded Gorny plant in the Volga region of Saratov.
"What is happening today is proof of the world's determination to eliminate the great misfortune that are chemical weapons", he said on an inaugural tour of the plant.
From December, Gorny will destroy 400 tonnes of class one chemical weapons - the most dangerous - in line with the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Though Moscow is certain to miss a 2007 deadline to destroy its entire chemical weapons arsenal, Gorny should allow it to meet a pledge to destroy one percent by April 29, 2003.
But Pak, instrumental in obtaining Russian government funds for CWC compliance, is increasingly frustrated by a U.S. refusal to hand over cash promised for Shchuchye, a plant in Western Siberia which will destroy the bulk of Russia's stockpile.
"As far as I'm concerned there's only one thing that counts," he told Reuters. "Either help, or don't. But if you're not going to help, get off the road and don't get in the way.
"A spoon is good at dinner time, not afterwards," he said, quoting a traditional Russian saying to mean the cash would be pointless if its delay meant Russia failed to make the 2012 CWC deadline for destroying its whole arsenal.
STRINGS ATTACHED
The U.S. Congress has attached six conditions on disbursing millions of dollars to start construction work at Shchuchye, where 32,000 tonnes of organo-phosphate weapons are to be neutralised, despite the urgings of President George W. Bush.
General Thomas Kuenning, director of the U.S. Cooperative Treat Reduction programme, said $148 million was on hold pending Russia's provision of a full and accurate declaration of the Russian stockpile and a "practical plan" to destroy it.
"I wish he wouldn't say things like that", Kuenning said of Pak's criticisms. "Congress's reservations are based on some sound thinking. We in the United States don't want to be in the position of having built a facility that then can't operate."
But Sergei Baranovsky, director of the Green Cross Russia ecology watchdog group, said the release of the funds was crucial. "If (the U.S.) will not release this money, as a scientist I can tell you that it could stop and even destroy the chemical weapons convention as a whole."
Pak pointedly praised U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R, Indiana) and others on Capitol Hill who back disbursement of the cash, and contrasted the U.S. stance to the 40 million euros in condition-free funds provided by Germany for the Gorny plant.
The September 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, and a spate of poisoned letters laced with the deadly anthrax spores, heightened fears that extremists may steal weapons of mass destruction from insecure facilities in post-Soviet states.
The United States is currently boosting security at Russian chemical weapons storage sites, including Shchuchye, installing sensors, fencing and equipment to test staff for drugs.
Vincent Piket, deputy head of the EU delegation in Russia said its role in providing six million euros for Gorny pre-dated September 11, but "last year's events have put everything in a totally new context, a more critical context."
Pak said Gorny and Russia's other chemical weapons facilities were not designed to withstand a September 11-style air attack, although they were under special military cover.
-------- europe
U.S. Issues Warning to Europeans in Dispute Over New Court
New York Times
August 26, 2002
By ELIZABETH BECKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/international/europe/26COUR.html
WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 - The Bush administration has warned European nations that the American role in NATO will change if the European Union refuses the United States' request for agreements to keep Americans out of the reach of the new International Criminal Court.
The foreign ministers of the European Union are scheduled to meet at the end of the week in Copenhagen, where they will begin deliberations on whether to grant the United States such an exemption.
The European nations are strong supporters of the court, which opened last month in The Hague and is the first permanent forum for trying people charged with genocide and other crimes against humanity.
The Bush administration is strongly opposed to the court, citing concerns that Americans would be unfairly singled out for politically motivated prosecutions abroad.
The debate complicates the administration's search for support among its closest allies for possible action against Iraq.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell wrote letters to individual European governments dated Aug. 16, asking them to ignore the European Union's request to wait and make a united stand on the issue. He urged them instead to sign separate agreements with the United States "as soon as possible" under Article 98 of the treaty that created the court, which the United States says allows nations to negotiate for immunity for their forces on a bilateral basis.
"Unfortunately, some voices in the E.U. in recent weeks have suggested that E.U. governments should avoid making Article 98 bilateral arrangements with the United States, pending further consultations toward a common E.U. position," Secretary Powell wrote in the letter.
In a confidential document written by the European Commission, the European Union's executive body, the commission's initial legal assessment is against the United States' request, according to European diplomats who have read the document.
The conclusion states that "the bilateral agreements proposed by the U.S. are not covered by Article 98. A contracting party to the Statute concluding such an agreement with the U.S. acts against the object and purpose of the Statute."
A spokesman for the European Commission refused to comment, saying it is European Union policy to neither confirm nor deny the contents of confidential documents.
"This is too delicate a matter," said a European Union spokesman in Washington. "We should wait in about a week when the ministers have discussed the issues and come to a decision."
Pierre-Richard Prosper, the American ambassador for war crimes issues, said in an interview with the Danish news media last week that if the answer is no, the status quo between the United States and NATO "will obviously not exist, and we will have to see how we can work through this."
He also said that if countries that are candidates to become members of NATO did not sign such an agreement, "it will be an issue that we will have to discuss in the NATO context," according to a State Department transcript of the interview.
While several European nations viewed these remarks as a veiled threat, Philip Reeker, a State Department spokesman, said "there is no connection" between a decision by the United States in favor of a country's membership in NATO and the country's decision on granting an exemption. He said Mr. Prosper's remarks about NATO reflected the administration's deep concerns about the court.
"The Europeans know our concerns about peacekeeping and NATO," Mr. Reeker said. "We are not prepared to speculate on what alternative strategies we might pursue if our current policy falls short of our goal."
Last month, after debate over protection for American peacekeepers from the court's jurisdiction, the United Nations Security Council agreed to exempt United Nations peacekeepers from prosecution for a year.
The Bush administration then started a campaign to persuade most countries to sign agreements not to extradite Americans for trial before the court. It warned foreign diplomats that under a new American law, their nations could lose American military assistance if they became members of the court without pledging to protect Americans serving in their countries from its reach.
Romania and Israel have signed such agreements. Switzerland has said it will refuse to do so.
Human rights groups here worry that the administration's position will eventually undermine the court.
"The level of threats has increased dramatically," said Richard Dicker, director of the international justice program for Human Rights Watch in New York. "And threat inflation is a sign of a policy gone amok."
--------
Czech plant leaked hundreds of kilos of deadly gas
REUTERS CZECH REPUBLIC:
August 26, 2002
PRAGUE - Several hundred kilograms of highly poisonous chlorine gas leaked into the air in Friday's accident at a flooded chemicals plant in the Czech Republic, the company running the factory said on the weekend.
The leak, the second in a week after the worst floods ever recorded swept through the Czech Republic, set off alarms in the town of Neratovice, 20 km (12 miles) north of Prague, and several other towns and villages.
News agency CTK said the accident happened when workers at Spolana, a unit of chemicals group Unipetrol , pumped fluid chlorine gas out of a storage unit which had been damaged in the flood.
There were no casualties in the accident thanks to dispersion of the gas, which is lethal in high concentrations and was used as chemical weapon in World War One.
The Czech Radio reported the gas burned trees and crops in surrounding areas.
Spolana has been the main environmental hazard in the Czech flooding, due to large amounts of lethal chemicals at risk and contamination of ground and buildings on its premises from dozens of years of operation under lax standards during the Communist era which ended in 1989.
The company has taken harsh criticism from environmental groups and also government officials for delays in informing the public about the situation at the plant in the past week. CTK said police were investigating the issue.
Unipetrol Chairman Pavel Svarc has admitted there were certain delays in information flows but said there was no threat to the public.
CTK quoted company officials as saying on the weekend that the first leak a week ago had been much more serious than originally reported, and involved 300-400 kg (661-882 lb) of chlorine instead of the first reported 14 kg.
Additional estimated 80 tonnes of fluid chlorine leaked into the water, the agency said, where it dispersed and posed less risk than in the air.
Company officials were not immediately available for comment.
Days of heavy rains swelled rivers in the Czech Republic to record levels last week. Hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated, many of whom remain barred from entering their homes.
The Spolana plant lies north of Prague on the River Elbe, which flows north into neighbouring Germany.
In the 1960s it produced herbicides that included highly toxic dioxins. Though it is no longer produced, environmental studies show that the plant's buildings have the toxic chemicals in them and that flood waters could release them.
-------- iraq
Pentagon briefs allies, lawmakers on Iraq
August 26, 2002
UPI
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20020826-031505-4981r.htm
WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 -- The Pentagon is circulating a detailed assessment of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, and has privately briefed key allies and lawmakers on the Bush administration's possible war plans, according to a published report Monday.
The military is also working on a document that purportedly will show links between al Qaida and Iraq, its security forces and government-run businesses, the Washington Times reported. Those documents have not yet been widely distributed within the government, officials said.
Bush administration officials told the Times the weapons briefing was "educational" and say it talks of all threats from weapons of mass destruction, not just Iraq's. But they also acknowledge it will help to make the case for invading Iraq should President Bush give the order.
The briefing was headed by J.D. Crouch II, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. He is among the so-called "hard-liners" inside the Pentagon who favor military action to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the newspaper said.
The briefing was presented top NATO allies in Brussels some weeks ago. A group of a dozen or so U.S. senators visited the Pentagon on Aug. 1 to hear the classified briefing.
Officials said the Pentagon briefing makes it clear that Iraq has the ability to use chemical weapons in battle, Sources declined to disclose the latest intelligence estimate on how close Saddam is to owning nuclear weapons.
Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., who attended the Pentagon meeting, declined to discuss the briefing's specifics.
"It dealt with all the threats," Cochran told the Times, adding that the briefing was attendee mostly by Republican senators and lasted about one hour. Cochran said he is not convinced that Iraq's weapons programs justify a U.S. invasion.
"People wring their hands over an invasion of Iraq," he told the Times. "I don't think we're going to invade Iraq. There's no clear and present danger to the United States we know of right now. If there were, we would take action to prevent an attack against out country."
Cochran said the best approach is to confirm through intelligence sources the location of weapons sites that pose a threat to the United States, and then surgically destroy them.
----
Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote
Some See Such Support As Politically Helpful
By Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 26, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer
Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials.
At the same time, some administration officials are arguing internally that the president should seek lawmakers' backing anyway to build public support and to avoid souring congressional relations. If Bush took that course, he still would be likely to assert that congressional consent was not legally necessary, the officials said.
Whatever the White House decides about its obligations under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, some House and Senate leaders appear determined to push resolutions of support for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein when Congress returns after Labor Day because they consider the issue too grave for Congress to be sidestepped. Administration officials say privately that military strikes against Hussein's regime are virtually inevitable, although all the specifics have not been decided and action is not imminent.
Bush has said repeatedly he will consult lawmakers before deciding how to proceed but has pointedly stopped short of saying he will request their approval. The difference between getting legislators' opinions, as opposed to their permission, could lead to a showdown this fall between Congress and the White House.
"We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the president already has that full authority," said a senior administration official involved in setting the strategy. "We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary."
Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, called it shortsighted for the administration to try to avoid a full congressional debate about such an expensive and perilous operation. "The constitutional structure tries to make war hard to get into, so the president has to show leadership and make his case to the elected representatives," Koh said. "This argument may permit them to get us into the war, but it won't give them the political support at home and abroad to sustain that effort."
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Congress "has an important role to play."
"Any decision the president may make on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor," he said. "The president will consider a variety of legal, policy and historical issues if this becomes a relevant matter."
Whether to secure formal congressional support is only one of many questions confronting Bush as he decides on a course of action toward Iraq. The president has strongly signaled his interest in toppling Hussein's regime, in large measure because of what administration officials describe as the country's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. But Bush has not settled on the kind of military attack to pursue, nor has he mounted a full-blown effort to line up support from allies or the U.S. public for an invasion.
Inside the White House, a full-throated debate over some of these issues has been underway for some time. In particular, White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales had his deputy, Timothy E. Flanigan, develop the administration's legal position on questions surrounding a war with Iraq.
Officials said Gonzales told Bush earlier this month that he would not be legally bound to obtain approval for action against Iraq. In making this case, officials point first to the Constitution's designation of the president as commander-in-chief.
Administration officials also cite the 1991 Persian Gulf resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. The resolution allowed the use of force to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions, including demands that Iraq eliminate weapons of mass destruction and open the country to U.N. inspectors.
"No one thinks that Iraq has fulfilled them," an administration official said.
Administration officials said their position was bolstered by a Sept. 14 resolution -- passed 98 to 0 in the Senate and 420 to 1 in the House -- endorsing a military response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That argument would depend on linking Iraq and al Qaeda.
Although the administration has not publicly made this case in detail, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a July 30 news conference, "Are there al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes." Last week, U.S. intelligence officials told The Washington Post that a number of high-ranking al Qaeda members have taken refuge in Iraq.
War-powers disputes have occurred frequently since 1800, when the Supreme Court upheld President John Adams's undeclared war with France. The Constitution grants the president the duties and powers of commander-in-chief of the armed forces. But because of the framers' concern that an unchecked executive might make war because of thirst for glory or personal revenge, they gave Congress the power to declare war. The result is a murky separation of powers that has led to arguments and even litigation between the White House and Congress.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution was intended to bridge the roles by allowing the president to act unilaterally with military force for 60 to 90 days, with congressional approval required for troops to remain engaged in hostilities after that.
Every president since has objected to the resolution, beginning with Richard M. Nixon, who vetoed its creation but was overridden by lawmakers dismayed by the escalation of U.S. deployments in the undeclared war in Vietnam. Vice President Cheney, when he was a member of Congress from Wyoming, called for the repeal of the resolution, which he said was "unworkable and of dubious constitutionality."
Critics of the Bush administration's expansive view of presidential power include some leading conservatives. "George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt never claimed war powers close to what Bush is claiming," said Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar who was associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration.
Michael J. Glennon, an international law professor at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, specifically questioned the administration's reliance on the Gulf War resolution. He said that authority "was narrowly circumscribed and was directed at reversing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait."
Glennon said the authority apparently ended on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formalized a cease-fire with a notification to the U.N. Security Council. "Once extinguished, the authority did not revive when Iraq failed to comply with its obligations," Glennon said.
Administration officials have intensively researched President George H.W. Bush's approach as he began the buildup for Operation Desert Storm, and it appears to track the evolution of their own thinking. The elder Bush initially said the War Powers Resolution did not apply to the buildup in the Persian Gulf, triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1989, because hostilities were not imminent.
Bob Woodward reported in "The Commanders" that Sen. William S. Cohen (R-Maine), later defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, told Bush during a White House meeting in 1990 that the administration should seek a vote of support for the operation "for the sake of unity between the administration and the Congress, for the sake of the troops in the desert who deserved a government unified."
The elder Bush eventually did so. While still insisting that a resolution was not necessary, his administration lobbied hard for it. In January 1991, it passed the Senate by 52 to 47 and the House by 250 to 183.
As consistently as presidents have husbanded their war-making authority, Congress has tried to preserve its role. This time, Senate leaders -- including Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), maintain that the president must come to Congress before making a massive commitment of troops to oust Hussein. Byrd recently asked a dozen constitutional scholars for their views about a president's legal authority to take military action in Iraq.
Although administration officials are adamant that no authorization is required, some have begun to argue internally that it might be desirable as a matter of politics and statesmanship.
"The legal question and the practical question may be very different," one administration official said. "There is a view that while there is not a legal necessity to seek anything further, as a matter of statesmanship and politics and practicality, it's necessary -- or at a minimum, strongly advisable -- to do it."
One compromise would be for Bush's allies in Congress to introduce a resolution of support without having the president ask for it. Administration officials said they are concerned, though, that a war-powers resolution might add conditions, such as specifying that military action in Iraq is acceptable only for the purpose of eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said in a speech in Houston last week that he will "lead the effort to provide President Bush the unified support of the House of Representatives."
----
Senators back forced checks of Iraqi arsenal
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 26, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-20028264367.htm
Key senators yesterday expressed support for a plan to get U.N. approval for forcing weapons inspections on Iraq before taking military action against Saddam Hussein.
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, and Sen. Bob Graham, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, both spoke favorably yesterday on CBS´ "Face the Nation" of seeking the U.N. Security Council´s adoption of a resolution "requiring that Iraq submit to intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere with no exceptions, and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it."
The proposal was offered by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III in an opinion piece published yesterday in the New York Times.
"Seeking new authorization now is necessary, politically and practically, and will help build international support" for an invasion of Iraq if Saddam fails to let the weapons inspectors back in, wrote Mr. Baker, who served in the administration of the first President George Bush and was the current president´s victorious ground commander in the Florida recount wars.
"The beauty about what former Secretary Baker said is this: Saddam Hussein has already committed himself to inspections by the United Nations, and he´s thumbed his nose at the U.N. So that going into the U.N. on that one aspect and saying, 'Provide force to do these inspections,´ if [Saddam] continues to stonewall us, I think is a very sound idea," Mr. Specter said.
Mr. Graham agreed.
"By going to the United Nations, making the request, even if it results in Iraq stonewalling a U.N. proposal for intrusive inspections, it would move us into the high moral ground in appealing to our allies for their collaboration and gaining the support of the world for whatever form of action we end up taking against Iraq," he said.
Asked about the result of an Iraqi rejection, Mr. Graham said, "It would be a significant part of building the case that Iraq must be doing something which is going to be of danger to its neighbors and to the world, or they would not be acting in a way contrary to world opinion."
On NBC´s "Meet the Press," Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, expressed doubts about the benefit of such a resolution and whether Saddam´s earlier evasions have sapped the will of the Security Council to pass such a measure.
"The current resolution, from 1999, orders Iraq to accept inspections. They have not done so, so they are not in compliance. And, it is natural, therefore, that the question is raised whether another resolution should manifest the decision and the determination of the Security Council to have Iraq accept inspections," he said.
Like Mr. Graham, Mr. Specter says he believes the Baker plan would be useful, whether Iraq allows inspections or not.
"If Saddam turns them down, and we really confront our allies, saying, 'Let´s enforce compliance, use the force necessary´ and he still resists, then the common-sense inference is that he has something to hide," Mr. Specter said on CBS.
The White House stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the column´s proposal, but said it contained nothing that contradicted the president´s policy.
"The president welcomes the views of people with experience," Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told The Washington Times, adding that Mr. Baker´s column was not submitted to the White House beforehand.
Mr. McClellan also said that Mr. Baker´s call for consultation among allies is something President Bush has espoused all along.
In his New York Times piece, Mr. Baker said military action against Iraq would be necessary and did not question either the need to overthrow Saddam or eliminate his weapons of mass destruction.
"The issue is not whether to use military force to achieve this, but how to go about it," he wrote.
"The only realistic way to effect regime change in Iraq is through the application of military force, including sufficient ground troops to occupy the country (including Baghdad), depose the current leadership and install a successor government," Mr. Baker wrote.
But he cautioned that "unless we do it the right way, there will be costs to other American foreign policy interests," namely relationships with Arab and European countries, "and perhaps even to our top foreign policy priority, the war on terrorism."
Mr. Baker, as well as the senators who endorsed his plan on talk shows yesterday, says he believes his strategy could help build public support for military action against Iraq.
Early in the year, when Mr. Bush first proposed the option, polls found that 65 percent to 80 percent of Americans would back using military force to topple Saddam.
A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, disclosed yesterday on CNN´s "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," found that 20 percent of Americans would support attacking Iraq if the United States did so without support from any allies. If the United States had to go it alone, 75 percent of respondents said they would oppose an invasion.
"There has to be public support for anything which is done," Mr. Specter said on CBS. "We learned a bitter lesson from Vietnam" that it´s vital to have "the public behind a war effort."
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, who last week offered strong support for a military attack, said he thinks it´s important that Americans who agree with him start letting it be known.
"I hope Americans all over the country will start speaking out in support of President Bush," he said on "Fox News Sunday." Mr. DeLay said he also "hopes to make other members [of Congress] understand how important this is and how important it is to support the president."
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, interviewed on CNN´s "Late Edition," said he does not believe the "evidence is there that Saddam Hussein has these weapons of mass destruction at his fingertips and is ready to use them."
Like Mr. Baker, who he succeeded as secretary of state, he said he doesn´t want to see the United States begin an attack without support. He said Mr. DeLay seemed to be trying to make him and other war skeptics look "wimpish."
Mr. DeLay advised people last week to "disregard the timid counsel of those who would mortgage our security to the false promises of wishful thinking and appeasement."
"Tom DeLay will be one of the first, at some point down the line, screaming about how much this costs and how we´ve gotten ourselves into kind of a semi-Vietnam situation because we didn´t think through all of the problems," Mr. Eagleburger said.
Bill Sammon contributed to this report from Crawford, Texas.
--------
Cheney Presses for Action on Iraq
New York Times
August 26, 2002
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/politics/26CND-IRAQ.html
WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 - Vice President Dick Cheney said today there are compelling reasons for the United States to carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, and that some of those who argue against an attack are guilty of weak and wishful thinking.
In perhaps the Bush administration's strongest assertions yet that a campaign against President Saddam Hussein would be justified, Mr. Cheney told a veterans' group that inaction is more dangerous than action. "What he wants is time," Mr. Cheney said, "and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons programs, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons."
At another point, the vice president said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Mr. Cheney called the arguments against taking action "deeply flawed."
"Many of those who now argue that we should act only if he gets a nuclear weapon would then turn around and say that we cannot act because he has a nuclear weapon," Mr. Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Nashville, Tenn.
"Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with a larger war against terror," the vice president said. "I believe the opposite is true." A war against Iraq would be one not of conquest but of liberation, he said.
The president's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, today reiterated Mr. Bush's commitment to consult widely before taking action. Speaking to reporters in Crawford, Tex., where Mr. Bush is vacationing at his ranch, Mr. Fleischer said Mr. Cheney was not making the case for a pre-emptive attack but rather "for the pre-emptive doctrine."
"It's an important difference," Mr. Fleischer said. Asked whether Mr. Cheney's speech reflected "the official administration position" on Iraq, Mr. Fleischer said, "Of course, he's representing the administration."
Mr. Cheney, too, emphasized that President Bush would consult with friends and allies of the United States, as well as with members of Congress, before initiating any action. "He welcomes the debate that is now being joined here at home," Mr. Cheney said, "and he has made it clear to his national security team that he wants us to participate fully in the hearings that will be held in Congress next month on this vitally important issue."
But there have been reports that White House legal advisers are making a case that the president can move against Iraq without consulting with Congress, should he so choose. Those advisers see this presidential authority as a carryover from the Congressional resolution that authorized the first President Bush to take military action in the Persian Gulf in 1991, The Washington Post reported today.
Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and co-author of a resolution underscoring that Congressional authorization is needed for any new war with Iraq, warned today that "the process of deciding whether to go to war should not be treated like a technicality."
"The Constitution vests the American people through their elected representatives with the power to declare war," Mr. Leahy said. "For the good of the country and for the long-term success of whatever approach we take, President Bush should follow his father's lead and support a vigorous and constructive debate on Iraq."
Mr. Cheney, quoting Mr. Bush in his speech, said, "Time is not on our side."
"The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action," Mr. Cheney said. A moment later, he said, "If the United States could have pre-empted 9/11 we would have, no question. Should we be able to prevent another much more devastating attack, we will. No question. This nation will not live at the mercy of terrorists or terror regimes."
Mr. Fleischer emphasized that Mr. Bush would be "patient and deliberative" in charting the country's course on Iraq. "But there are those who simply think we can wish our problems away," Mr. Fleischer said. "And the president and vice president are much more realistic than that."
Mr. Cheney's forceful remarks, and the White House's wholehearted endorsement of them, come amid a growing debate in Washington on what should be done about Iraq, and when. It has become widely known that the administration is being told by some that this is not the time to move against Iraq, while others opine that it is. Some of the conflicting advice comes from officials and former officials whose thinking is generally in line with the White House's on many other issues.
The vice president invoked history and memories to buttress his message about Iraq.
"There are a lot of World War II veterans in the hall today," he said, recalling how the America of six decades ago was awakened from its slumber by the bombs at Pearl Harbor. "America in the year 2002 must ask careful questions, not merely about our past but also about our future. The elected leaders of this country have a responsibility to consider all of the available options, and we are doing so. What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness."
--------
Iraq Said to Plan Tangling the U.S. in Street Fighting
New York Times
August 26, 2002
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/international/middleeast/26MILI.html
WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 - President Saddam Hussein of Iraq will try to compensate for his armed forces' glaring weaknesses by raising the specter of urban warfare if the Bush administration moves to attack the Iraqi government, according to Pentagon officials and former United States government experts.
In anticipation of an eventual American attack, Iraq has already started military preparations, they say.
Iraqi forces have been digging defensive positions for military equipment around Baghdad. The Iraqi military has also been moving air defense units around the country and dispersing army units in the field to make them less vulnerable to a surprise air attack.
During the Persian Gulf war of 1991, the Iraqi troops who captured Kuwait dug themselves into positions in the open desert. That made them vulnerable to allied air strikes and the fast-paced attacks by the United States' better trained and more maneuverable ground forces.
But this time Mr. Hussein's goal is not so much to hold ground as to hold power. That means that Iraq can be expected to use the threat of urban warfare to try to deter the United States from attacking in the first place and to raise the political costs if Washington decides to press ahead with an invasion. "Iraq has no hope of prevailing in a straight military fight, and after Desert Storm the Iraqis probably realize that," said Kenneth M. Pollack, the director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former C.I.A. analyst of the Iraqi military.
"Their best and most likely strategy will be to try to create the political conditions that would lead the Bush administration to think twice about an attack," Mr. Pollack said. "And one way to do that is to make us believe that we are going to face a Mesopotamian Stalingrad."
Current and former American military officers expressed confidence that the United States would ultimately triumph, but differed about how difficult a military campaign would be, particularly if American forces were compelled to fight in Iraq's cities. Their assessments depend not only on the quality of Iraq's forces but on the more fundamental question of how many Iraqi units would remain loyal to Mr. Hussein.
"I think it is a serious mistake to underestimate the current combat capability of Iraq military to include air defense," said Gen. Joseph P. Hoar of the Marines, who before his retirement led the United States Central Command, which has responsibility for planning and executing American military operations in the Middle East. "The major lesson of the gulf war is that Iraq was no match for U.S. forces in the open desert," he said. "That would lead me to believe that they will use built-up areas and barriers where they can to make up for their lack of mobility and technology. We are going to prevail. The question is risk."
Gen. Barry McCaffrey of the Army, who led the 24th Mechanized Division against Iraqi forces in the gulf war before his retirement, was more sanguine about the course of a American military campaign against Iraq.
"My assessment is that if you put enough pressure on them, they will come apart and won't fight," General McCaffrey said in an interview. "The notion that they will retreat into the built-up areas and turn them into a kind of Stalingrad is laughable."
"I don't think they can handle the synergy of American military power, the violence and speed," he said. "A war could entail a few thousand U.S. casualties. But my honest judgment is that if we are serious about this, it would take 90 days to build up our forces and 21 days for the campaign. I think they will unravel."
Iraq's Weakened Military
There is no question that the Iraqi military is a pale reflection of the Iraqi force that rushed into Kuwait in August 1990. Because of the United Nations embargo, the Iraqis have not been able to buy major new weapons.
Meanwhile, the United States has upgraded its military with more technologically advanced reconnaissance systems and precision weapons. The Iraqis have had difficulty obtaining spare parts, substantially reducing the military's readiness and its ability to move forces around the country.
The Iraqi Army, with a strength of 350,000, is about a third of its size at the start of the gulf war. It is made up of 17 regular army divisions and six divisions of the elite Republican Guard.
American intelligence officials say Iraq's regular army forces are kept far from the capital for fear that they might be involved in a coup against Mr. Hussein. That deployment enables them to contain indigenous threats but means that they can directly contribute little to the defense of Iraq's capital.
Eleven of the regular army divisions are involved in defending northern Iraq, close to the Kurdish-controlled areas. The remaining six divisions are focused on suppressing the resistance of Shiite Muslims in the south. Long stretches of Iraq's border with Iran are virtually undefended, a pattern that suggests that the Iraqi government has concluded that the internal opposition is the greater threat.
There is ample evidence that morale in the regular army is not high and that not all units can be relied on to fight. In 1998, when the Clinton administration mounted its series of air strikes against suspected sites of weapons of mass destruction, many Iraqi soldiers deserted, according to American intelligence officials.
The army's logistical network is also in tatters, analysts say, making it hard to quickly move troops around the country, a decided disadvantage if the army confronts fast-paced American forces. In 2000, when Mr. Hussein ordered four of his army divisions to move west toward the Syrian border, and therefore toward Israel, as a gesture of support for the Palestinians, logistical problems arose and the deployment was never carried out.
In contrast to the regular army, the Republican Guard divisions are more reliable, though even here the loyalty of Republican Guard officers is not assured. Two Republican Guard divisions, the Adnan and the Nebuchadnezzar, are deployed in the north to buttress the regular army deployments there.
But the key Republican Guard deployment is near Baghdad. Three armored Republican Guard divisions - the Hammurabi, Al Nida and Medina - are stationed in a ring around the capital. The capital itself is defended by the Special Republican Guard, the most reliable unit, which numbers around 15,000 and also guards other presidential installations, including Mr. Hussein's compound in his home village, Tikrit.
Even the much-touted Republican Guard has suffered as a result of the sanctions. During the gulf war the Republican Guard was well equipped with T-72 tanks, and even some regular army units had T-72's. Now, however, not all the Republican Guard tank regiments are at full strength and some are outfitted with older T-55's.
The Iraqi Air Force numbers about 300 combat aircraft, about half as many as it had during the gulf war, officials say. Iraqi pilots flew some of their best planes to Iran during the gulf war to protect them from American and allied air strikes, and they have never been returned.
Iraq's best aircraft are the French-made Mirage F-1's and Soviet-made MIG-25's. According to American intelligence, the Iraqi Air Force is flying more often these days thanks to spare parts smuggled from Syria. But Iraq has relatively few pilots, who get relatively little flying time. They could be quickly overwhelmed by American air power.
Iraqi air defenses are capable, American analysts say. That is because Iraq has managed to recreate its network of air defense command centers using fiber-optic cables from China.
During the NATO confrontation with Yugoslavia in 1999, Iraq's air defense commanders were in contact with the Serbs, who are presumed to have shared intelligence on American air tactics.
Furthermore, Iraqi air defense forces get plenty of practice firing at American and British planes patrolling the northern and southern no-flight zones established by the allies after the gulf war. While the Iraqis have shot down some reconnaissance drones, the United States has yet to lose a manned aircraft as a result of any of those patrols.
Iraq has virtually no navy, and it would find it difficult to stop the United States Navy from operating in the Persian Gulf, American intelligence officials say. Iraq does not have any ships capable of laying mines, though the Iraqis can still set mines adrift in the gulf. It does have a handful of ground-based missile-launchers for firing missiles at enemy ships.
Administration officials do not know how many Al Hussein Scud missiles Iraq has. Estimates range from just a few to as many as 40, officials say. In addition to 390-mile-range Husseins, Iraq has made Al Samoud missiles, which have a range of 90 miles.
During the Persian Gulf war, Iraq's basic strategy was to produce a stalemate on the battlefield in the hope that the United States would negotiate over the future of Kuwait.
Baghdad's New Strategy
Iraq's current strategy is somewhat different, analysts say. Overmatched militarily, Iraq now regards its best option to be raising the political and military costs of an attack for the United States and any allies it may be able to attract, in the hope that Iraq's foes will lose their stomach for an invasion, analysts say.
Iraq has also sought to inflame the Arab-Israeli conflict by providing money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Its calculation is that Washington will find it too difficult to assemble a coalition for action against Iraq if the Middle East is in crisis.
If war breaks out, Iraq may also try to draw Israel into the fighting and therefore create problems for any American-Arab coalition, a strategy Iraq tried in the gulf war. Iraq could try to fire Scud missiles at Israel and Persian Gulf states.
Iraq's presumed stocks of chemical and biological weapons are a wild card. Iraq may try to use Scud missiles to deliver weapons of mass destruction. The warheads Iraq had at the time of the 1991 conflict detonated on impact and were not well designed for disseminating biological or chemical agents.
American officials say they do not know if Iraq has developed new warhead designs. Iraq could also try to use its warplanes or helicopters to spray germ agents.
American forces would try to neutralize those threats, officials say, by occupying potential Scud launching areas, seizing command of the skies and probably warning Iraqi troops that any forces that carried out orders to use weapons of mass destruction would held accountable.
Another option is urban warfare. Iraq's basic strategy, an American official said, is to disperse its forces, endure the American airstrikes and then move into urban centers.
"There are some indications that they are going to dig themselves in in population centers," said Walter P. Lang, who was the chief Defense Intelligence Agency analyst on the Middle East during the gulf war.
"It is the only real method that makes any sense for them," he said. "They have to do something to maximize the situation so that their local defenses can wear us down. But the effect will depend on the quality of the units. The military has to fight well for this to be effective."
Iraqi opposition groups say Mr. Hussein has set up a special emergency committee to control security in and around the capital. The committee reportedly is made up of Mr. Hussein's son Qusay; Abed Hamid Mahmud, a top aide to the Iraqi leader; and Kamal Mustafa, the head of the Special Republican Guard.
Soon after Sept. 11, Iraq began dispersing some of its troops, apparently fearing that Washington would blame it for the terrorist attacks in New York and Virginia. But in recent weeks there has been an increase of military activity around Baghdad, United States officials say.
At the same time, the Iraqis have not canceled military leaves or taken other emergency preparations. That indicates that Mr. Hussein has judged correctly that an attack is not yet at hand. The Iraqi government is also concerned with ferreting out possible American intelligence agents and preventing efforts to establish contacts with dissident factions.
The effectiveness of Iraq's military strategy will depend heavily on the extent to which its troops remain loyal and the Iraqi people back their government instead of welcoming their "liberators."
Maintaining the morale of Iraqi forces and the support of the population is expected to be difficult if it becomes clear that most of Iraq's territory outside the capital is under the control of the United States.
"The military machine we face now in Iraq is the same one we faced in 1991, only now it is much smaller and weaker," a Pentagon official said. "They have never been able to make good their losses in the Persian Gulf war, and sanctions have taken a toll.
"The extent to which they will defend in the outer cities, particularly in the Shiite-dominated south, will be less than as you go north. But they do believe that urban warfare is a vulnerability of U.S. and coalition forces, and they are likely to shift the battle to urban terrain."
-------- israel / palestine
Palestinian agriculture losses reach $1B
By Saud Abu Ramadan
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
August 26, 2002
UPI
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20020826-041333-6824r.htm
GAZA, Aug. 26 -- Palestinian Authority Minister of Agriculture Rafiq Natsheh said Monday that Israeli security measures have cost Palestinian farmers thousands of acres of farmland and at least $1 billion.
Natsheh also warned that Israeli policy of tightening closures and incursions into the Palestinian cities and villages "would lead to an agricultural and economic catastrophe in the Palestinian territories."
He told the Ramallah-based Al Ayyam Daily that the Israeli measures had raised the rate of unemployment in the territories to more than 50 percent, and brought the rate of people living under poverty line to 70 percent.
"The Israeli army incursions and reoccupation of cities within the last two years had stopped the implementation of many funded projects in the filed of agriculture," he said.
Natsheh said despite claims by the Israeli government of easing restrictions on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, the new figures show that Palestinian merchants and farmers are facing a crisis.
In Dier El Ballah, near the Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom in the central Gaza Strip, Salah Abu Houli, 42, has seen his land along with hundreds of oranges, grapefruit and olive trees bulldozed by Israeli troops since the intifada began in September 2000.
"My land was the only source of living not only for me and my family, but also for about 35 people, including my brothers, their children and my parents," Abu Houli said. "Now we have no other sources (to make a) living."
He added: "Even if I get financial compensation, the money would never bring me back my beautiful fruit trees that I irrigated with my blood during all my life. The only job I can do is farming, and I can not do anything else."
On Sunday, the Palestinian Authority Agriculture Ministry blamed the Israeli army for the destruction of several thousand acres of farmland in the Gaza Strip in the last two years.
In a statement, the ministry also claimed the Israeli army had destroyed some 113,664 olive and citrus trees in addition to demolishing 100 greenhouses in the Gaza Strip.
The destruction has had a dramatic affect on food prices in the Palestinian territories. Abu Houli explained that before the intifada a liter of olive oil was sold for $3, now that same liter costs $5.
-------- space
$4.5 Billion Helps Link Civilian, Military Satellites
August 26, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-26-09.asp#anchor1
WASHINGTON, DC, A $4.5 billion contract has been awarded to TRW Inc. to build and deploy the nation's future environmental satellite system, using both military and civilian satellites.
The contract is for the acquisition and operations phases of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). NPOESS will combine the nation's military and civilian environmental satellite programs into a single national system that will improve weather forecasting and climate prediction.
"By working together on this advanced satellite system, the three agencies will make the nation's environmental satellite system more efficient, cost effective and more responsive to our country's environmental information needs," said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Dr. Conrad Lautenbacher. "This new system will provide vital information about our weather, environment, climate and oceans. In addition, our integrated effort is expected to result in taxpayers saving approximately $1.6 billion over the NPOESS lifetime."
An artist's rendition of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System or NPOESS. (Photo courtesy NOAA)
TRW will develop, fabricate and deliver the NPOESS satellite and ground systems as well as provide launch support, operations and support services for the system. The federal program office will provide funding, define requirements, participate in instrument development teams and executive reviews.
"This effort ultimately means the war fighter is receiving higher quality data sooner, and we're doing it with very significant cost savings, "said Peter Teets, undersecretary of the Air Force. "This is an example of getting our acquisition programs back on track and saving valuable defense dollars wherever we can."
NOAA has overall responsibility for the converged system, as well as satellite operations and interactions with the civil and international user communities. The Department of Defense has the lead responsibility for major systems acquisitions, including launch support.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has primary responsibility for facilitating the development and incorporation of new cost effective technologies into the converged system.
More information on the NPOESS program is available at: http://www.ipo.noaa.gov/
-------- russia
Georgia Sends 1,000 Troops To Gorge Area
Reuters
Monday, August 26, 2002; Page A11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61207-2002Aug25?language=printer
PICHKHOVANI, Georgia, Aug. 25 -- The former Soviet republic of Georgia sent 1,000 troops today into the Pankisi Gorge, an area that the Russian government says is a base for separatist Chechen rebels fighting Moscow.
The move came hours after the United States sharply rebuked Russia for allegedly "indiscriminately bombing villages in northern Georgia" on Friday, which the White House said could fuel tensions in the turbulent Caucasus region.
Russian military officials today again denied that their planes had been involved in the incident, in which a civilian was reported killed.
Georgia's president, Eduard Shevardnadze, hailed the U.S. statement, telling state television that "the main thing is that the White House has reflected the real barbarity of this act."
He added: "On my orders, the Interior Ministry and forces and special forces of Georgia have entered the Pankisi Gorge. Our aim is to restore stability and clear it of any criminal elements which may remain."
Relations between Russia and Georgia have hit new lows in the past week as Moscow accused Georgia of turning a blind eye to Chechen guerrillas in the gorge and refusing to hand over rebels arrested by Georgian forces.
-------- spy agencies
Military analyst's terror warning fell on deaf ears
By Bill Gertz
First of three parts
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 26, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-20028264297.htm
Kie Fallis arrived at work determined to keep arguing his view that terrorists were about to attack a U.S. target.
For Mr. Fallis, "work" was the headquarters of the Pentagon´s intelligence arm, the Defense Intelligence Agency. He encountered Jay Saunders, chief of the DIA´s Persian Gulf Division, on his way into the agency´s offices at Bolling Air Force Base in suburban Washington. Insiders call the place the Death Star in homage to the Empire´s space station in "Star Wars."
"I´m going to keep pushing this issue today," Mr. Fallis told Mr. Saunders, "until something is done or until I get my ass kicked." Mr. Fallis, a former Army interrogator turned intelligence analyst in the Terrorism Analysis Division, was one of the agency´s top specialists on Iran and fluent in its Farsi tongue.
It was Oct. 12, 2000; the clock was ticking toward a date just under a year away. He already had pieced together the methodology and connections of Osama bin Laden´s al Qaeda terrorist network, using commercial software known as Analyst´s Notebook. The results were alarming: Many of those involved in previous attacks against U.S. interests appeared to be planning new strikes.
Just three weeks earlier, bin Laden had released his latest videotape message, calling for more attacks on the United States. But Mr. Fallis´ repeated warnings to superiors of an imminent terrorist attack in Turkey or the Persian Gulf were dismissed.
Kie Fallis´ story is one of many that expose deep, systemic problems within the Defense Intelligence Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies in tracking and preventing terrorist attacks. It is a story of poor leadership, mismanagement and bad judgment, common to the intelligence failures that led to September 11.
Hours earlier that Oct. 12 and half a world away, two men left an apartment in a two-story, concrete-block building with a panoramic view of the harbor in Aden, Yemen, a desert port on the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula.
The two men, radical Muslims, climbed into a red Nissan SUV a few hours before dawn and drove down the hill to a house where they had stashed a small fiberglass boat on a trailer. Their accents identified them to neighbors as men from Hadhramaut, a remote province 500 miles northeast of Aden and a haven for Islamic terrorists. It is also the ancestral homeland of Osama bin Laden. The two men were part of a terrorist cell that had spent months plotting to blow up a U.S. warship. Now their Nissan strained to pull the boat, in which they had secreted a bomb containing several hundred pounds of the U.S. military explosive C-14.
The bomb was wrapped in a metal case that would intensify the impact on its target: the USS Cole, one of the Navy´s most advanced guided-missile destroyers, then making its way around the Cape of Aden.
The terrorists launched their white fiberglass boat at 10:45 a.m. They motored slowly toward a floating refueling dock a mile away, the Dolphin, where the Cole and other Navy ships put in as a security precaution to keep their distance from the shore. Other skiffs were taking garbage off the Cole and putting aboard equipment and food.
The Cole sailors on security duty, watching the small boat approach, assumed it was from a resupply company. The suicide bombers smiled and waved to the sailors, who waved back.
The bomb detonated as their boat reached the midsection of the ship, directly in line with the mess deck. The blast killed 17 U.S. sailors, blowing most of them apart when it tore a hole in the side of the ship 40 feet by 40 feet. The Cole listed to the side. Only the heroic efforts of her crew saved the ship from sinking. Denying and discrediting
Back at the DIA, Mr. Fallis´ heart sank as he received the first report of the attack on the Cole. Disgusted, he quit in protest that day.
Mr. Fallis had recently finished a year with the FBI, investigating the deadly bombings of the Khobar Towers barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, in 1996 and of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. In tracking bin Laden´s al Qaeda network, he found that the terror group was intimately linked to Iran´s intelligence and security services.
Mr. Fallis´ resignation letter sent to the DIA´s director, Vice Adm. Thomas R. Wilson, cited "significant analytical differences" with supervisors. Worse, he said, at least two more terrorist attacks were coming, likely in Bosnia or Malaysia.
"This was a huge intelligence failure," Mr. Fallis said.
He was treated like an enemy as soon as his resignation was accepted. His access to a computer was immediately cut off, his e-mail account deleted. Supervisors refused to speak to him; they didn´t ask why he was leaving.
One DIA security official told Mr. Fallis during an exit interview that the terror division´s leadership was trying to discredit him. Yet his performance appraisal of July 2000 called his previous year´s service "distinguished," the highest rating possible, as did all previous appraisals. An intelligence medal was "in the pipeline." He never got it.
An agency spokesman, Navy Capt. Mike Stainbrook, acknowledged that "an analyst" quit Oct. 12, but said employees "resign from the DIA every month for personal reasons."
"We categorically deny that any threat information has been suppressed in the case of the USS Cole, Yemen or Aden, nor would we ever suppress such information."
Mr. Fallis, however, never claimed the information was suppressed; he correctly stated that an appropriate official warning based on it never was produced.
He recounted to several investigators how he had made it clear to at least five DIA intelligence officials that al Qaeda and Iranian-backed terrorists were planning deadly attacks. Connecting the dots
As Mr. Fallis saw it, fellow analysts working "the bin Laden account" simply were not reading intelligence reporting on Iran or other Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Specialists focusing on Iranian terrorists were not reading intelligence on bin Laden.
As a result, each "problem set," as the analysts call them, was analyzed in a vacuum. Mr. Fallis, however, asked and was allowed to research both sides of the problem.
"I began finding all these relationships," he said, "between al Qaeda terrorists and the Iranians, specifically those organizations directly controlled by Iran´s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Al Qaeda and Iran were also connected to terrorists who belong to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Egyptian Islamic Group."
By May 2000, Mr. Fallis had written a highly classified report on his findings, most based on information gleaned months earlier.
"I obtained information in January of 2000 that indicated terrorists were planning two or three major attacks against the United States," he said. "The only gaps were where and when."
A red flag pointing to the Cole bombing appeared in mid-September 2000 when bin Laden issued the videotape that aired on Qatari satellite television, an Arabic-language news service. "Every time he put out one of these videotapes, it was a signal that action was coming," Mr. Fallis said.
As September ended, the DIA and the rest of the intelligence community - the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency and the State Department´s Bureau of Intelligence and Research - received extremely solid information, supported by several sources, that an attack was imminent. "I went to my supervisor, and he told me there wasn´t going to be a warning issued," Mr. Fallis said.
But the reason the DIA refused to put out a warning had nothing to do with intelligence. It had everything to do with office politics. Mr. Fallis had previously dated a co-worker in the terrorism division. She was the analyst who produced the report less than a month before the Cole bombing that said an attack by terrorists in a small boat against a U.S. warship was impossible. Some supervisors incorrectly believed Mr. Fallis was trying to spite her by arguing otherwise.
"My methodology was right," Mr. Fallis said. "And it didn´t have anything to do with who I dated." An alarming link
One piece of the puzzle that Mr. Fallis uncovered was an intelligence report about a secret meeting of al Qaeda terrorists in a condominium complex in Malaysia in January 2000.
Information obtained after September 11 identified two of them as Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who would be on American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. They met with a former Malaysian army captain, Yazi Sufaat, described by Malaysian authorities as a key link in Southeast Asia for al Qaeda, who later would be tied to the bombing of the Cole.
What alarmed U.S. intelligence at the time was that Malaysian security officials traced the men to the Iranian Embassy there, where they spent the night.
Sufaat would meet weeks later in Malaysia with Zacarias Moussaoui, the 33-year-old French citizen who is the only one charged so far with involvement in the September 11 attacks. Authorities said Sufaat paid Moussaoui $35,000, which is believed to have helped finance the plot.
For Mr. Fallis, the "eureka point" before the Cole bombing in determining an impending terrorist attack came from a still-classified intelligence report in September 2000, which he will not discuss. But after the bin Laden video surfaced that same month, Mr. Fallis said, he "knew then it would be within a month or two."
In the video, bin Laden, wearing a dagger in his belt, demands the release of Muslim prisoners, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Rahman had drawn a life sentence in prison for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and subsequent plot to bomb bridges and tunnels in New York City.
The video ends with this admonition from Ayman al-Zawahiri, a top aide to bin Laden: "Enough of words, it is time to take action against this iniquitous and faithless force [the United States], which has spread troops through Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia."
A warning from the DIA backed by other intelligence agencies would have put U.S. military forces - especially those in hot spots such as Yemen - on higher alert. And a warning could have led to canceling the Cole´s refueling stop in Aden. 'No evidence´
Kenneth Bacon, the Pentagon´s chief spokesman, put out a statement asserting that an unnamed DIA analyst who had resigned had no information providing "tactical warning" - the specific time and place - of an attack on the warship.
However, issuing previous terrorism warnings or less specific "advisories" had not required such information. Only a few months earlier, the DIA´s terrorism division had published an advisory on possible terrorist attacks against a Group of Eight economic summit without possessing relevant details.
Adm. Wilson, the DIA director, sent a notice via e-mail to the agency´s civilian and military personnel more than four months after the Cole bombing, on Feb. 28, 2001. An investigation by the Defense Department´s Office of the Inspector General, Adm. Wilson wrote, "found no evidence to support the public perception that information warning of an attack on [the] Cole was suppressed, ignored, or even available in DIA." Bill Gertz, defense and national security reporter for The Washington Times, in his new book, "Breakdown" (Regnery Publishing), details pervasive intelligence problems that allowed the United States to be blindsided by Islamist terrorists on September 11.
-------- un
Roundup of UPI Earth Summit coverage
August 26, 2002
UPI
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20020826-112247-2328r.htm
The World Summit on Sustainable Development began Monday in Johannesburg, South Africa. Here is a compilation of UPI articles on the summit and its issues:
Calls for action at ambitious summit By Eric J. Lyman
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, Aug. 26 (UPI) -- The U.N. World Summit on Sustainable Development opened Monday with appeals to the world's richest nations to fight poverty, and protect the global environment, ending what South African President Thabo Mbeki called the "savage principle of the survival of the fittest."
"The peoples of the world expect that this world summit will live up to its promise of being a fitting culmination to a decade of hope," Mbeki told 65,000 delegates in his opening address.
"A global human society based on poverty for many and prosperity for a few, characterized by islands of wealth, surrounded by a sea of poverty, is unsustainable," Mbeki said.
The 10-day meeting -- the largest ever organized by the United Nations -- has set itself what many activists consider the ambitious target of reducing by half the 1 billion people without access to clean water and the more than 2 billion who live without adequate sanitation.
The summit is a follow-up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which produced the wide-ranging Agenda 21 action plan for every area in which humans affect the environment. But activists point to the "implementation gap" between those lofty comments and subsequent government lack of action toward those goals, which could well be repeated in Johannesburg.
"The tragic result of this (ignoring Agenda 21) is the avoidable increase in human misery and ecological degradation, including the growth of the gap between North and South," Mbeki said. "It is as though we are determined to regress to the most primitive condition of existence in the animal world, of the survival of the fittest.
"It is as though we have decided to spurn what the human intellect tells us, that the survival of the fittest only presages the destruction of all humanity."
The conference is divided into five main themes -- biodiversity, energy, farming, health and water. But because environmental issues such as global warming, and such agenda topics as biotechnology, are so divisive and little progress is expected in these areas, the problem of world poverty has emerged as the lead issue as the summit gets under way.
Another reason for the emphasis on the poverty issue is the summit's location. A short drive from the summit in prosperous Sandton is Alexandra, one of South Africa's poorest townships.
Observers pointed out Monday that when Johannesburg was picked to mark the 10th anniversary of the landmark Earth Summit in Rio, activists across the continent applauded, believing that the high-profile meetings would dramatize Africa's desperate plight.
Whatever is achieved in the summit, Africa will be a major beneficiary, observers said.
"This is really the main issue," said Valli Moosa, South Africa's minister of Environment and one of the summit's main organizers. "Without an effective and concrete plan to fight poverty, all the rhetoric about the environment will be hollow."
The South Africans were not the only ones emphasizing the continent's woes. Several of the world leaders planning to come to the meetings will take in several other parts of Africa en route as a way to emphasize the anti-poverty focus: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will visit Angola, for example, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair will make a stop in Mozambique.
Additionally, several leaders are scheduled to tour Alexandra and other leaders will travel to the environmentally sensitive Kruger National Park in part to witness the impact that land grabs by poor farmers have on the environment there.
"This conference is Africa's chance to illustrate its problems while the whole word is watching," Alfred Stanton, an activist with the Cape Town-based advocacy group Africa Now, told United Press International. "This is a rare opportunity and we must do our best to make the world take notice."
Even so, some African activists have decried the lack of emphasis on AIDS -- another big problem in Africa. Other groups complain that the rich nations have repeatedly shown little regard for the developing world.
Thousands of activists plan to demonstrate during the summit, demanding concrete action. They fear that in the current climate of global economic uncertainty wealthy nations will have a hard time agreeing to more direct aid and increased access to markets for Third World countries.
The decision by President Bush not to attend the summit has drawn particular behind-the-scenes criticism. It has been seen as a sign of the Bush administration's strong focus on world terrorism and lack of interest in the issues of the agenda.
One area of divergence between Washington and most European countries is the Kyoto Protocol setting global reductions of emissions from traffic and factories, which Bush has said the United States will not ratify.
--
Letter from Johannesburg: Summit madness
By R.W. Johnson
UPI
Aug. 26
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- Those who aspire to a career in bomb sniffing or food-tasting will have opportunities galore this week in Johannesburg for the United Nations' World Summit on Sustainable Development. The presence of so many VIPs -- some hundred or more heads of state are expected -- has thrown the conference organizers into a frenzy of security measures.
Specialists have been brought in from around the world to deal with worse case scenarios ranging from kidnapping, air attacks, chemical bombs, mortar assaults, cyber attacks and attempts to disrupt power and telecommunications. Cars at summit sites are virtually dismantled in the search for bombs. Food-tasters check for poisoning and no one is allowed to overfly Johannesburg without 24 hours' notice.
Arguably leading the list of usual suspects is the anti-globalization Social Movements Indaba led by Dennis Brutus, a South African poet who was once imprisoned on Robben Island with anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela and who is now a veteran activist of the street battles of Seattle, Prague and Genoa. The SMI points out that "Jo'burg will be the biggest meeting ever of world leaders promising 'people, planet and prosperity.' Their lies cannot be allowed to stand. Join us as we build a new world with our lives and our bodies, as we unmask the W$$D!" (Variation on WSSD theirs.)
It is no small irony that Brutus will be doing his best to disrupt proceedings in which Mandela, who became president of South Africa after his release from Robben, will play a walk-on role surrounded by glitterati.
But the SMI is only one voice in a cacophony. Part of the problem is that this is a summit about everything. According to whom you talk it is a meeting about global poverty, trade liberalization, development finance, water supplies, debt forgiveness, housing, health, aid, climate change, alternative technology, AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, education, over-population, the preservation of tropical forests, wetlands and coastal eco-systems, wild life conservation, animal rights, access to affordable medicine, intellectual property rights, the brain drain of Third World doctors and nurses to the West, inequality, food security, waste re-cycling, intellectual property rights, economic growth, agriculture, energy resources, global emissions and global warming, desertification, sanitation, bio-diversity and food security -- for starters.
Thus the equally far-reaching prospects for fuss and perhaps even trouble. To protests from among the now-familiar ranks of anti-globalization and environmental groups one must add shebeen-owners, street-hawkers, anti-privatization trade unionists and the Free Market Foundation whose director, Leon Louw, sides with the hawkers who claims they have been "cleaned up like litter": Louw argues that the summit organizers seem inspired by Verwoerd -- South African prime minister who helped implement apartheid policies -- and are trying "to turn Jo'burg into a Disneyland fantasyland. Summit delegates won't realize they are in Africa."
Already the Greenpeace ship, Esperanza, has been in Cape Town where it confronted two armed vessels bearing plutonium to Britain. Greenpeace is also present in Johannesburg and hint darkly at other mystery activities and protests. Already we have the award of ironic "Green Oscars" to companies like BP and Shell for "greenwashing," that is, putting out an environmentally friendly image while in fact pillaging natural resources.
(Not surprisingly, the award-winners failed to attend the ceremony, which also included awards for "best make-up" and "best supporting government.")
South Africa's National Intelligence Agency has many agents mingling with the activists and is particularly concerned about the somewhat anarchic Landless People's Movement, over 50 of whose activists have already been arrested. The chairman of the South African group, Mangaliso Khubeka, was questioned by the NIA. "They asked me what I want. I want to plough. How can they say they're having a Summit on Sustainable Development? What development are they talking about? We don't see any. People are hungry. We have no land or jobs."
Khubeka seems angry and determined. It doesn't seem sensible to remind him that if you want to plough the urban jungle of Johannesburg is the last place to come.
But for many locals the summit is a commercial opportunity. Astonishingly, many delegates are arriving without accommodation booked and are being charged exorbitant rates by landlords. Eager sex-workers from all over the country have descended on Jo'burg. ("We're hoping for a real bonanza," said Harry Gibbs, who runs a massage parlor called Tigerbelles. "The girls are all pumped up and raring to go.")
Even senior police officers, addressing the vast force pulled in to cover the summit, have warned their men to be wary of prostitutes with the injunction, "This is Joburg. Things happen here."
Meanwhile, out at the Global People's Forum -- the NGO, or non-governmental organization, conference in the south of the city -- you can visit the Karaites Institute of Afrikology and buy herbal remedies alleged to cure HIV, womb cancer, tuberculosis and much else besides. African curio sellers are everywhere as are African National Congress stands selling hammer and sickle t-shirts and caps with Castro and Che Guevara on them.
For the moment the carnival goes on. Behind the scenes we hear that there is still no agreement on a draft declaration and the summit may still see a bitter standoff between rich and poor nations. There is almost as much resentment against U.S. President George W. Bush for not coming as there is against Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe because he is coming. The green activists wanted Bush to come so they could protest against him and feel cheated of their prey. They would also like to demonstrate against Mugabe but from a distance.
And of course, the summit has no end of extremely serious issues to deal with. The last big United Nations conference South Africa hosted -- the World Conference Against Racism a year ago -- began in similar carnival style and ended in bitterness, reproach and shambles. For the moment it's fun to be at the WSSD and most people seem determined to enjoy it. Whether this mood survives the week ahead is a moot point.
--
Analysis: Zimbabwe looms large at summit
By R.W. Johnson
Aug. 26
UPI
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- The issue of Zimbabwe, where famine threatens to starve half the population, increasingly seems likely to dominate the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
The Zimbabwean opposition Movement for Democratic Change has called for a mass demonstration on Monday in the summit city Johannesburg, where hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans live. MDC deputy Gibson Sibanda is flying down to lead it as the party's leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, has had his passport confiscated as a result of his impending trial on charges of having plotted to assassinate President Robert Mugabe.
Trouble cannot be ruled out not only because there is great indignation amongst delegates and green activists here that Mugabe plans to address the summit but because Mugabe's ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front) party has also opened offices in Johannesburg which, the MDC claim, are actually a cover for spying and intimidation.
Feelings are running high among Zimbabweans here, many of whom believe Mugabe rigged his latest victory in presidential elections in March. The MDC pamphlet advertising the demonstration likens what is going on in Zimbabwe to the Holocaust, with 6 million to 8 million lives at risk. Neither Hitler nor Stalin, it argues, ever killed such a proportion of their own people.
"What is going on in Zimbabwe is genocide," said the MDC's chief executive, Isaac Maposa. "Mugabe has deliberately destroyed our farming industry and thus the people's source of food, and he is using starvation as a political weapon. Potentially this genocide will be more than six times greater than that in Rwanda.
"Nobody wants to spoil the summit but it is very difficult to discuss sustainable development under that shadow. Former President Clinton has said that he now regards his failure to react over the Rwanda genocide to be the worst mistake of his administration. But if six times that many people die in Zimbabwe, what will the world say then? The 6 million killed by Hitler have never been forgotten; another 6 million are on the line now."
All last week South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki has come under intense diplomatic pressure to condemn Mugabe. The U.S. assistant secretary of State for Africa, Walter Kansteiner, made it clear the United States does not see Mugabe as a legitimate leader and would like to see him removed from power: in effect he has been declared, along with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, a candidate for "regime change." It is expected that Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he addresses the summit, will also have harsh words for Mugabe.
Mbeki's continued silence on the matter helped nudge a sharp drop in South Africa's currency, the rand, this past week. But his government indignantly insists that the issue of Zimbabwe cannot be allowed "to derail" the summit, which 98 heads of state as well as sundry celebrities ranging from Leonardo Di Caprio to Mikhail Gorbachev are expected to attend.
Amidst the gathering's carnival atmosphere, most serious voices are laden with doom, summed up by Nitin Desai, the United Nations official in charge of the summit: "All projections show things will get worse." But nowhere is this more dramatically true than right here in southern Africa where hunger is now affecting 13 million people, half of them in Zimbabwe.
Last year's cereal deficit in the region has grown from 2.78 million tons to 5.4 million tons this year -- which is being blamed on Mugabe. In normal times, Zimbabwe has been a large surplus producer, able to take up the slack if any surrounding state suffers crop failure. Now, with Zimbabwe itself short of at least 2 million tons of maize while Mugabe drives commercial farmers off the land in the midst of drought, a human tragedy of huge proportions looms closer every day.
Inevitably this has led to an ever-increasing focus on Mugabe's planned address to the summit on Sept. 2. John Prescott, Britain's deputy prime minister, is one of several world leaders who will press for Mugabe to be disinvited. New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark and Australia's John Howard led the way last week in demanding much stronger action by the British Commonwealth against Mugabe.
But to date Mbeki has dug in his heels. Some faint hope exists that Mugabe's decision to sack his whole Cabinet on Thursday might mean he will decide to stay home. But this would be extremely atypical: Mugabe loves to travel, to play the international statesman and to show how he has triumphed over the "smart sanctions" levied by the European Union and United States. The betting has to be that Mugabe will still come, making his appearance an excellent candidate for the event of the summit.
--
Analysis: Greens losing ground in EU By Gareth Harding
Europe Correspondent
Aug. 26
UPI
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- As European Union leaders prepare to jet off to Johannesburg for the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development, few have resisted the temptation to trumpet the EU's global leadership on environmental issues.
The EU salvaged the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in the teeth of U.S. opposition, they are keen to point out. The 15-member club is also one of the few powers to have pushed for world leaders to adopt concrete goals and targets at the second "Earth Summit," EU heads of state stress.
They have a point.
Whereas the United States was at the vanguard of environmental policy throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, the EU now has arguably the most stringent, comprehensive body of environmental law in the world.
It has also been at the forefront of efforts to agree to binding targets aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, has fought to place environmental concerns at the heart of international commerce within the World Trade Organization -- and almost single-handedly saved the U.N. Convention of Biodiversity from oblivion.
But although the EU is undoubtedly a world leader in environmental issues, the victory of right-wing parties in recent elections is leading to an environmental roll-back in half a dozen EU states.
In Denmark, traditionall