Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Singapore, U.S. Sign Customs Deal
Weapons of Silent Mass Destruction
Japan Shuts Down Nuke Power Reactor
Japan Welcomes Energy Meeting
Japan PM Says Bush May Consider N.Korea Dialogue
Air Force Test Missile Out West
Focusing the missile defense effort
Experts Say Nuclear Plants Can Survive Jetliner Crash
Government to Move Nuclear Material
Nevada Alleges DOE, NRC Meetings
House Democrats form anti-war coalition
Bush Outlines Doctrine of Striking Foes First
Bush Seeks Power to Use 'All Means' to Oust Hussein
Bush Outlines Anti-Terror Strategy
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
Resolution Likened to '64 Vietnam Measure
Ohio congressman leading the charge to avoid Iraq war
MILITARY
Temple carvings show Mayan rivals fought 'world war'
A U.S. Gift to Iraq: Deadly Viruses
U.S. Agriculture Vulnerable to Bioterror Attack
Firms show wares at homeland security expo
IMF chief sees upside of a short war in Iraq
Rumors of war sap market
War effect: Price of oil to skyrocket
Army Postpones Chemical Disposal
Commander: 200 Colombia Rebels Die
Praise for Mr. Schroeder
German leader links Bush's 'style' to Hitler's
Indian Kashmir Poll Dogged by Killings, Protests
Hussein Denies U.S. Weapons Allegations
Hussein Says Bush Wants to Control Mideast Oil
No Threat
Brinkmanship With Baghdad
Israeli Army Shells Arafat's Besieged Offices
Koreas begin demining border
Jordan to aid US in return for cheap oil
Designs on NATO await new elections
Rumsfeld to Propose New NATO Force
Pakistan Denies Plot on Musharraf's Life
Preventive Strikes on Pankisi Planned
U.S. Seeks Russian Support on Iraq
Deserting Russia's Desperate Army
Pentagon official urges broader focus for intelligence
U.S, Britain Lean on United Nations over Iraq
Military planners favor February
Air Force Test Missile Out West
CNN rejects ads by Jewish groups
GAO: Pentagon Can't Track Donations
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Bush Supports an Independent 9/11 Probe
Justice Dept. Won't Release Names
Liberties Group Urges Court Action
Court Filings Are Coded for Al Qaeda, Officials Say
Key Dates in Hijackers' Movements
ENERGY AND OTHER
OPEC Asked to Explain Production
Energy Bill Loophole Aimed at Westar
Environment Proposed for Costa Rican Constitution
War and Human Rights
ACTIVISTS
Women Strike 11-11
Shut down the protesters
Officials won't let protests shut city
Security Agents Release Chinese AIDS Activist
Venezuela Police Fire Tear Gas, Break Up Protest
Tear Gas Used on Venezuelan Protest
IMF protests will test antiglobalization movement
Vatican will not support American war on Iraq
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
[If you're concerned about West Nile Virus, be sure to check out "A U.S. Gift to Iraq: Deadly Viruses" under "--- biological weapons" below, originally at http://www.businessweek.com:/print/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2002/nf20020920_3025.htm?mainwindow; letter from Centers for Disease Control at http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/images/sep2002/a39tab28.gif.]
-------- asia
Singapore, U.S. Sign Customs Deal
By Alexa Olesen
Associated Press Writer
Friday, September 20, 2002; 5:23 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42896-2002Sep20.html
SINGAPORE -- The United States and Singapore signed an agreement Friday to allow American customs inspectors in this bustling Asian port to screen U.S.-bound cargo for terrorist shipments.
The agreement, one of several that Washington has struck with other governments around the world, is aimed at preventing the smuggling of nuclear, chemical, biological or other deadly weapons into the United States.
It provides for U.S. custom officials to be stationed in Singapore and work alongside their Singaporean counterparts, U.S. Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner said.
"Combatting terrorism is now the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Customs Service and is going to be for a long time to come," Bonner said at an American Chamber of Commerce luncheon after the signing ceremony.
The U.S. officials will use radiation detection equipment and x-ray machines to inspect high-risk containers, Bonner said.
Singapore is one of the world's busiest ports. Some 300,000 ships travel from or through it each year to the United States.
On Thursday, Singapore released details of an alleged plot by al-Qaida-linked terrorists to attack a U.S. Navy ship at the Changi Naval Base, as well as a pub that they believed was popular with American military service personnel. The men were detained last month.
In December, authorities arrested 13 people who it claimed were plotting to attack the U.S. embassy and other Western interests here.
-------- du
Weapons of Silent Mass Destruction
by Joanne Baker
Friday, September 20, 2002
by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0920-06.htm
Whilst we in Britain are debating the possible hazard of Iraq acquiring biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, the Iraqi people need be in no doubt at all that the formidable array of munitions now being ranged against them by the US and allies will contain substantial amounts of radioactive material, which like all other weapons of mass destruction, will continue to kill for generations after the attack is over. Although our Ministers of Defense, like Dr. Moonie, would have us believe that the risks of depleted uranium are minimal, previous experience in Iraq, the Balkans and more recently Afghanistan, has shown otherwise. According to Dr. Moonie, "there are two potential hazards arising from the use of DU: a low level radiation hazard....; and a chemical toxicity hazard, similar to that posed by other heavy metals such as lead." These are not, he assures us, "'of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering' within the meaning of Article 35 of the first Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949."
How strange then that an epidemiological study made by Professor Alim Yacoub*, shows that it is in precisely those areas where depleted uranium munitions were used and where levels of contamination of soil, plants and water are highest, that a substantial increase in childhood malignancies and leukemias have been recorded. There has been a steady percentage rise in cases since 1993 due to the cumulative effects of exposure. The figures for the year 2000 were a 300% rise in leukemias and 384.2% rise in malignancies. His study shows a shift of incidences in leukemias in recent years towards younger children consistent with exposure to ionizing radiation. There has also been a marked rise in congenital diseases and birth malformations in Iraq. Down's syndrome has increased by 4.5 fold with many of the mothers below the age of 35. Many of the birth defects, especially those in southern Iraq, are multi-malformational, reminiscent of children born after Hiroshima and Nagasaki or after the nuclear testing in the Pacific. Babies are born without limbs, eyes, genitalia, internal organs or with additional abnormal organs and many with extraordinary tumors. There is an increase in hydocephaly and anencephaly. These children are either born to mothers who were living in the areas of southern Iraq where depleted uranium was most heavily used or their fathers were veterans from these same areas. In most of these cases there is no previous history of genetic disorder in the families. Many women are now terrified of giving birth and the sanctions prevent proper ante natal care and scanning.
Should Dr. Moonie ever visit the hospitals of Iraq, he would see for himself ample evidence of 'superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering'. Ward after ward of children and adults dying, in all probability, from the effects of internal radiation: tiny ceramic aerosolized particles which have entered the body through inhalation or ingestion to lodge in the deep lung or migrate to the lymph or bone giving off a steady pulse of alpha radiation. The one year old baby with a huge stomach cancer, the two year old bleeding hopelessly from the ear and throat, the eight year old leukemia victim who buries her head in the pillow to hide her silent tears. These are not Saddam's propaganda pieces any more than the valiant doctors, who for all their training and skills, must simply watch them die. Since sanctions were imposed on Iraq, no child has survived leukemia All die in pain with even morphine denied. Parents sell everything they have ever possessed to buy cancer drugs and still the children die.
Depleted uranium is also known to cause neurological disorders, immune breakdown with AIDS like symptoms and rare bowel and kidney problems. Many Iraqi children have suffered from a fatal epidemic of swollen abdomens due to kidney failure. Lowered potassium levels, the result of kidney damage, can lead to cardiac arrest and potassium has also been banned at times as a dual use item. Healthcare under the 'oil for food' deal is criminally inadequate. British government officials tell us that the Iraqis could have as much medicine as they wanted but the figures published by the United Nations prove otherwise. Money for healthcare amounts to less than $1 a month per person - this in a country which prior to 1990 had the best modern health service in the region.
A quantitative analysis of depleted uranium isotopes in British, Canadian, and U.S. Gulf War Veterans by Col. Asaf Durakovic, published recently in the journal 'Military Medicine', shows that more than 50% of those tested were expelling depleted uranium in their urine more than nine years after the end of the Gulf War. An autopsy of a Canadian veteran who died, showed depleted uranium in the lung and bone. These same people are suffering from a range of health problems which include chronic fatigue, rare bowel and kidney disorders, respiratory problems, neurological problems, depression and mood swings, skin disorders, loss of hair and teeth, painful joints and cancer. The body not only attempts to rid itself of the radioactivity through the urine, but through the semen. This can lead to painful internal burning for the partner after intercourse, known as 'burning semen syndrome' and causes genetic damage to the foetus. Many veterans have produced children with rare genetic disorders and birth defects. British troops now being cheered on to war by Blair and Bush would do well to mind the words of Carol Picau, a US Gulf War veteran:
"Take us in our basic training, firing our weapons, climbing mountains, rappelling, doing all these wonderful things the army teaches you to do, and then show us now, with our crippled bones, our incontinence. Take all of us in our wheelchairs, missing arms and legs, and dying of cancers and brain tumors. Take our graves and put that on a commercial."
Depleted uranium is a by-product of the nuclear enrichment process which removes most of the isotopes U-235 and U-234 used in fission. The resulting radioactive 'waste' is known as depleted uranium hexaflouride, around 99.7% of which is composed of the alpha emitting isotope U-238. It is 40% less radioactive that natural uranium and can be transformed into an oxide or a metal. As a metal, it has qualities which are very advantageous to the military. It has a hardness and density similar to tungsten, a melting point similar to copper, is very malleable, highly pyrophoric and the nuclear industry is happy to give it away to save itself the high costs of radioactive waste disposal. Depleted uranium is most dangerous when it burns, creating a fine dust which is easily airborne. Left in the soil, the metal will quickly oxidize and enter the water and food chain. The clean up of testing grounds in the United States has been costed at $1000 per cubic meter. In munitions, depleted uranium is usually alloyed with metals such as titanium, niobium, molybdenum or beryllium. Beryllium dust is itself known to cause severe respiratory problems. Some batches of depleted uranium are contaminated with spent nuclear fuel. This means they contain small amounts of plutonium, americanium, neptunium, telechnecium and U-236. Anti- tank penetrators analyzed in Kosovo by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found definite traces of U-236 and plutonium 239/240. Damacio Lopez, director of the International Depleted Uranium Study Team, took readings of penetrators and holes in tank armour in Iraq in January 2001 and found readings as high as 2 100 - 2 450 counts/minute. He himself received radiation burns.
An urgent question to put to the US and UK governments while they threaten to launch another attack on Iraq, is how much depleted uranium is being used in current weaponry? Both governments have long since admitted to its use in anti tank penetrators and tank armour and it is now known to be used in shape charged warhead technology. According to Jane's web site , depleted uranium is also used to increase the penetration effect of some guided weapons. There is a high probability that it is the main component of the advanced unitary penetrator war heads used in guided bomb systems. These were used extensively in Afghanistan and will be used again in Iraq. With weights between 100 - 1500 kg and a deep penetrating effect, the result could mean the flooding of ground water systems with large amounts of radioactivity. In November last year Dr. Moonie stated that "whether DU is used in munitions for the United States forces is a matter for the US Government". Surely it is also a matter for the civilians of target countries and the countries which border them, as well as for allied and regional troops. The more extensively depleted uranium is used, the more extensive the cover up has to be. If the truth were admitted, compensation claims to the US and UK governments from troops and civilians would already be phenomenal. Instead we have veterans hounded by MI5, scientists fired from their jobs and journalists threatened and harassed.
One of the propaganda designs of recent wars has been to avoid troops coming home in body bags and reassure domestic populations that civilians are not really being targeted. "We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan...." , our politicians assure us. On this note we can be comforted by the possible deployment of new 'non-lethal' weapons designed to attack electronic systems without inflicting 'visible' collateral damage. In a recent article in the New Scientist, David Windle writes:
"US intelligence reports indicate that key elements of the Iraqi war machine are located in heavily-fortified underground facilities or beneath civilian buildings such as hospitals. This means the role of non-lethal and precision weapons would be a critical factor in any conflict. High Power Microwave (HPM) devices are designed to destroy electronic equipment in command, control, communications and computer targets and are available to the US military. They produce an electromagnetic field of such intensity that their effect can be far more devastating than a lightning strike."
We do not know what microwave weapons will do to human health but our bodies are electrochemical in nature and any force that seriously disrupts their molecular functioning will cause irreparable damage. Microwaves, for example, are used in gene altering technology to weaken the cell membrane. Impaired cells are open to viruses, fungi and other microorganisms. Russian research on thousands of workers exposed to microwaves during their work with radar in the 1950s showed serious health effects known as 'microwave sickness'. This is described in Robert O. Becker's book, 'The Body Electric'.
"It's [Microwave sickness] first signs are low blood pressure and slow pulse. The later and most common manifestations are chronic excitation of the sympathetic nervous system [stress syndrome] and high blood pressure.
This phase also often includes headache, dizziness, eye pain, sleeplessness, irritability, anxiety, stomach pain, nervous tension, inability to concentrate, hair loss, plus an increased incidence of appendicitis, cataracts, reproductive problems, and cancer.
The chronic symptoms are eventually succeeded by crisis of adrenal exhaustion and ischemic heart disease [the blockage of coronary arteries and heart attacks]."
The effect of heart seizure was emphasized in a US Defense Intelligence Agency Report 'Biological Effects of Radiowaves and Microwaves' 1973, along with the other vital issue of electronic mind control.
As Iraq has already been bombed back to the stone age (1991), does the US government really believe an electronics blackout would be anything very unusual? Is it worth targeting these weapons at the already chronically malnourished and cancer ridden children in the Baghdad hospitals? Are we to believe that to zap them with electric bolts far greater than lightning will do them no harm at all or are our politicians and military cynical enough to think that as they are dying anyway, no one will know nor care?
It would seem that as weapons technology advances so the victims themselves become less and less visible. No bloody massacre or mushroom cloud to shock and appall - just hundreds of thousands of slow, lingering, silent deaths. Some conditions might take many years to unfold, others are passed on from generation to generation. The result is an irreversible and insidious deterioration of our common gene pool.
Joanne Baker is with the Pandora DU Research Project E-mail: pduproject@yahoo.co.uk Joanne has visited Iraq four times since 1999.
Alim Yacoub, MBChB, DPH, MSc., PhD, MFCM Dean and Professor, College of Medicine, Al-Mustansiriya University, Baghdad
-------- japan
Japan Shuts Down Nuke Power Reactor
The Associated Press
Friday, September 20, 2002; 6:03 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42952-2002Sep20?language=printer
TOKYO -- A major Japanese power company shut down one of its nuclear power reactors Friday for an emergency inspection because of possible cracks in its cooling system.
The No. 3 reactor at Chubu Electric Power's Hamaoka nuclear power plant was shut down for an inspection of the pipes carrying water to cool the reactor, Chubu Electric announced on its Web site. All four of the Hamaoka plant's reactors are now inactive and undergoing safety checks, it said.
A company official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the suspected damage was minor and the shutdown did not pose a safety threat.
Public broadcaster NHK said the utility had found the damage previously but did not report it to the government.
Chubu Electric found a radioactive leak in the same No. 3 reactor in July, though no radioactivity escaped into the outside environment. Radioactive leaks were also discovered at the Hamaoka plant's No. 1 reactor in November and the No. 2 and No. 4 reactors in May and July.
The Hamaoka plant is in Shizuoka prefecture (state), just southeast of Tokyo.
The news comes just weeks after Japan's largest utility, Tokyo Electric Power, was forced to shut down five nuclear reactors for safety checks after it admitted to failing to report problems with the reactors to the authorities.
Tokyo Electric admitted in August it didn't report problems at three of its power plants in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The problems were brought to light after an investigation by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
On Friday, Tokyo Electric spokesman Akio Kobayashi said there were another eight cases of cracks or minor structural damage at the company's plants besides the 29 reported earlier. Kobayashi said the problems weren't serious enough to affect safety.
Chubu Electric is Japan's third-largest power company and serves the central Japan region, including the major city of Nagoya.
Japan relies on nuclear power for 30 percent of its electricity. However, the Japanese public has become increasingly wary of the reactors since a 1999 radiation leak at a fuel-reprocessing plant killed two workers.
----
Japan Welcomes Energy Meeting
By Yuri Kageyama
AP Business Writer
Friday, September 20, 2002; 5:19 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42894-2002Sep20?language=printer
OSAKA, Japan -- Just about everything is expensive in Japan, and there's no exception for gasoline, which at $3 a gallon is roughly double the price paid by Americans.
Many Japanese ride their bikes or take the bus to get around town. The pricey fuel, along with expensive labor, raw materials and land, helps to drive up the prices of most products.
Japan has much at stake in playing host this weekend to the International Energy Forum, which will draw delegations from nearly 70 nations - ranging from OPEC oil giants to consumers like the United States and European Union - who hope to strengthen ties between buyers and sellers.
Japanese officials will be holding sideline meetings with representatives of key oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran to ensure a steady supply, while lobbying to bring home the point that oil producers have as much to lose from volatile prices as do consumers.
Japan is a petroleum consumer through and through, importing virtually all its oil - nearly 90 percent of it from the Middle East. That makes it particularly vulnerable to price fluctuations.
Recently, crude prices have approached $30 per barrel amid expectations that President Bush is about to attack Iraq to try to topple President Saddam Hussein.
Should war break out in the Middle East, Japanese consumers could well be forced to pay even more for gas than they are now.
"Gas prices are too expensive," grumbled Yoshiaki Takagi, a 52-year-old pastry store owner who spends $400 a month on fuel for his two station wagons and the boilers he uses for his business. "Japanese prices are way too high compared to other nations."
For Takagi and others tired of paying so much, a meeting Thursday of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in Osaka brought little comfort.
OPEC decided to leave its official output ceiling unchanged at 21.7 million barrels a day, despite calls from the United States and other Western nations to boost production and bring prices down. OPEC took the unusual step in meeting on an oil consumer's home turf because its ministers were in town anyway for the weekend energy forum co-hosted by Italy and the United Arab Emirates.
A "war premium" over the Iraq jitters has already raised oil prices by $2 to $4 lately, analysts say.
"The impact on oil prices from an attack on Iraq is sure to hurt Japan and an upward pressure on prices will be felt little by little," said Reiji Ogino, analyst at Mitsubishi Securities Co. in Tokyo.
Unlike the United States and Europe, which in an emergency can count on oil reserves that are geographically closer, Japan is almost totally dependent on the politically volatile Middle East.
That said, high gasoline prices here are explained mainly by government policy. Taxes account for about 60 percent of the pump price - far higher than the U.S. tax, but below that in some European nations.
The Japanese government is also worried about soaring energy consumption from neighboring China. Japan expects over the next 20 years to see a doubling in Asian oil demand, much of it from China.
Tokyo is urging China and other nations to maintain oil stockpiles to ensure a stable supply.
Japan is also offering monetary aid to develop natural gas supplies in Asia in an effort to cut its dependence on oil, said Yasuo Tanabe, a government official who oversees international energy policy.
"Oil-producing and oil-consuming nations need to reaffirm a cooperative relationship because we're basically in the same boat," Tanabe said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
Adding to the concerns here is the public backlash toward nuclear power - a pillar of this nation's energy policy - that has erupted over a cover-up scandal at a utility giant.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. admitted last month it failed to report cracks and other problems at its nuclear plants in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The company says the problems weren't serious enough to endanger safety but has stopped several reactors for inspections.
Japan now gets about 52 percent of its power from oil, 13 percent from natural gas and 12 percent from nuclear power.
It hopes to boost the portion dependent on nuclear power to 15 percent and natural gas to 14 percent while lowering the reliance on oil to 45 percent by 2010.
Yasuhisa Ohno, an analyst who writes about energy policy, was not optimistic about Japan's ability to deal with an energy crunch that would filter down to consumers by way of high prices.
"Japan basically has no leverage to bring oil prices down," he said. "It is powerless to do anything."
-------- korea
Japan PM Says Bush May Consider N.Korea Dialogue
Reuters
Friday, September 20, 2002
By Teruaki Ueno
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42968-2002Sep20?language=printer
TOKYO (Reuters) - President Bush was quoted Friday as telling Japan's prime minister that he would seriously consider resuming stalled dialogue with North Korea.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said he had proposed in a telephone call to Bush Thursday night that he resume stalled dialogue with Pyongyang.
Koizumi, recording an interview to be aired on Japanese television Sunday, said Bush had replied he would "seriously" consider the proposal.
Koizumi briefed Bush on his landmark summit Tuesday with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, at which Kim promised to extend a moratorium on missile tests and honor pledges concerning Pyongyang's nuclear program.
Bush has linked North Korea with Iraq and Iran in an "axis of evil" which he says threatens the world with weapons of mass destruction.
Washington is currently pondering whether to send its own senior envoy to North Korea to reopen talks, and U.S. officials had been watching Koizumi's Pyongyang summit for clues as to whether Kim was really ready to open up his isolated nation.
Koizumi also said Japan would never allow any economic aid it gave North Korea to be used to make weapons of mass destruction.
Japan and North Korea have no diplomatic relations.
Analysts have said Tokyo could provide up to $10 billion to the economically crippled North if the two Asian neighbors normalize diplomatic ties.
SUSPICION REMAINS
Some analysts and U.S. officials believe North Korea could be using its nuclear energy program to develop nuclear weapons. U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said recently North Korea was the world's foremost pedlar of ballistic missile technology and it needed drastic reforms to survive.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency ranks North Korea as the world's biggest exporter of ballistic missiles and missile technology, and defense analysts say Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Egypt are among the buyers.
North Korea stunned its neighbors in August 1998 when it test-fired a missile that flew over Japan's main island of Honshu and landed in the Pacific.
North Korea said it was launching a satellite.
Koizumi said Thursday that Kim agreed at the summit to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors into the country to examine its nuclear program.
A 1994 U.S.-North Korean deal froze the North's suspected nuclear weapons program in exchange for two Western-financed nuclear reactors and annual supplies of fuel oil.
Under that agreement, Pyongyang undertook to allow in IAEA inspectors, but it has yet to do so.
Iraq agreed last week to allow in nuclear inspectors, a move that may have put pressure on North Korea to do the same. No firm date has been set for the start of the Iraqi inspections.
Analysts believe cash-strapped North Korea wants to improve relations with the West to secure desperately needed aid and avoid becoming a target of the U.S.-led war on terror.
Kim and Koizumi agreed Tuesday that the two countries would resume full-scale talks on establishing diplomatic ties in October and that economic aid for the battered North Korean economy would be worked out as part of that process.
-------- missile defense
Air Force Test Missile Out West
The Associated Press
Friday, September 20, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42399-2002Sep20?language=printer
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- An Air Force missile test Thursday provided a spectacular light show seen over California and much of the West, as far away as Utah and New Mexico.
The colorful contrail was seen soon after the unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile blasted off at 7:36 p.m. from an underground silo at the Vandenberg military base north of Santa Barbara.
"The smoke went up in spirals as the sun was setting and turned into an orange, amber color. It was like a flower going into bloom pretty quickly," said Simon Cox, who saw it from a restaurant terrace in Santa Barbara.
The missile traveled about 4,200 miles in about 30 minutes, striking a predetermined target at the Kwajalein Missile Range in the western chain of the Marshall Islands, the Air Force said.
Vandenberg spokeswoman Kelly Gabel said clear conditions were responsible for the spectacular light show.
"We do this two or three times a year, but because the weather was so perfect we decided to launch it early," Gabel said. As a result, people were still awake to see it, and although the sun had set, sunlight below the horizon glinted off unspent fuel particles and water droplets.
"Suddenly we're getting calls from people as far away as New Mexico who saw it and want to know what it is," Gabel said.
The mission was directed by the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg and the 341th Space Wing and the 341st Space Wing, from Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana.
The purpose was to test launch systems and the missile's accuracy and reliability.
----
Focusing the missile defense effort
James Hackett
September 20, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020920-96469124.htm
The recently reported recommendation of the Defense Science Board to narrow the focus of the administration's approach to ballistic missile defense is right on target.
The national missile defense program has suffered since its inception from being spread too thin, trying to develop all kinds of technologies. As a result, the program has lacked a clear focus on the primary goal of deploying a defense of the nation.
The attempt to do research and development in a variety of different technologies has dispersed the available funds, sometimes slowing development of systems that could be deployed in the near term. The ABM treaty compounded the problem by blocking realistic testing and preventing any technology from getting close to deployment.
In the early years of the program, it was important to review all kinds of technologies to see which held the most promise. As time went on, such ideas as particle beam weapons and laser weapons bouncing off mirrors in space were dropped in favor of things that could be developed more quickly.
The key technology that emerged after years of research and development was hit-to-kill. The idea of striking a target and destroying it by impact is not new, but in the 1980s and 1990s new high-speed computers, increasingly sensitive seekers, and the ability to miniaturize everything, finally made it a reality.
It became possible to put a small hit-to-kill device on the front end of an interceptor missile, launch it into space, and then have its own engine and on-board computer send it unerringly to strike and destroy the target missile's warhead.
The value of this technology became apparent during the Gulf war when Patriot PAC-2 interceptors exploded near incoming missiles but failed to destroy their warheads. Facing an Iraq that had succeeded in producing chemical weapon warheads and was producing anthrax and other biologicals, it became a high priority at the Pentagon to find a better way to stop such weapons. A hit-to-kill interceptor solves the problem by striking a warhead at such high speed that its contents, whether chemical, biological, or nuclear, are destroyed in a ball of fire.
The demonstrated ability of hit-to-kill interceptors to strike their targets at very high speed (the land-based midcourse system endorsed by the Defense Science Board has achieved three intercepts in a row) made it the technology of choice for both regional and national missile defense. Today, all major missile defense weapons under development by the U.S., land-based and sea-based, are armed with hit-to-kill technology.
The Defense Science Board endorses the missile defense weapon systems that will use this technology on ground-based interceptors in Alaska and on Aegis cruisers, and suggests the administration decide on an architecture leading to their deployment. The board reportedly also urges development of a faster interceptor for sea-based missile defenses so they can play a greater role in national defense.
The goal is to put operational defenses in place. The midcourse missile defense being built in Alaska should advance from a test facility with five interceptors to a deployed national missile defense with 100 or more. And the work needed to give sea-based defenses at least some continental defense capability should be accelerated. Other technologies that are far in the future, such as a space-based laser, would better be deferred to allow available funds to be spent on things that can be deployed in the next few years.
What the missile defense program needs now is an architecture with clear objectives for the companies and engineers working on various parts of the effort. The architecture should integrate and focus their work on the goal of a deployed missile defense for the nation that can be grown into a worldwide missile defense network.
Defining the architecture does not preclude future changes. The idea is to deploy the best existing technologies and then improve or add to them in block upgrades as the chosen technologies mature and others become deployable. It is reasonable to assume that missiles will be around a long time, and so will missile defenses. The initial national missile defense can gradually become a worldwide, layered missile defense network to protect not only the nation, but also its friends, allies, and forces overseas.
What is most important is to get something deployed that can protect the country as soon as possible, but which can be improved and enhanced in the future.
James T. Hackett is a contributing writer to The Washington Times based in San Diego.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Experts Say Nuclear Plants Can Survive Jetliner Crash
New York Times
September 20, 2002
By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/national/20NUKE.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 - Seeking to counter assertions that the nation's nuclear plants are vulnerable to attacks like the one on the World Trade Center, 19 prominent nuclear experts have concluded that a reactor containment building could easily withstand the force of a jetliner crash.
But the federal laboratory that conducted a major test cited by the experts says its experiment was not meant to demonstrate anything about reactors' structural soundness.
The 19 experts, many of them retired, work or worked at universities or companies that build or operate reactors. In an article on Friday in the journal Science, they dismiss fears voiced by opponents of nuclear power that the nation's reactors are vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
"We read that airplanes can fly through the reinforced, steel-lined 1.5-meter-thick concrete walls surrounding a nuclear reactor," the article says, "and inevitably cause a meltdown resulting in `tens of thousands of deaths' and `make a huge area uninhabitable for centuries,' to quote some recent stories." But, they add, "no airplane regardless of size, can fly through such a wall."
The article says the scenario "was actually tested in 1988 by mounting an unmanned plane on rails and `flying' it at 215 meters per second (about 480 m.p.h.) into a test wall." The engines penetrated only about two inches and the fuselage even less, according to the article.
But the relevance of the test, conducted at Sandia National Laboratories, has long been in dispute. People who opposed nuclear power before Sept. 11 pointed out that the test wall moved several feet; the movement reduced the damage by absorbing some of the force of impact.
At Sandia, a spokesman, John German, said the point of the test was to move the wall, as a way to measure the impact forces. The test was sponsored by the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics Inc., of Tokyo, as a preliminary step in building a computer model of such impacts, but the Japanese decided not to sponsor the next step, Mr. German said.
Asked if it showed that a plane could not penetrate a dome, he said, "We've been trying like heck to shoot down this rumor."
Mr. German said: "That test was designed to measure the impact force of a fighter jet. But the wall was not being tested. No structure was being tested."
The nuclear experts contend that the test makes their point nevertheless. The opponents of nuclear power have argued that the plane in the Sandia test, an F-4 Phantom, weighs far less than a jumbo jet.
But James Muckerheide, a nuclear engineer who is the co-director of the Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, on whose work the authors relied, said in an e-mail response to a reporter's question that penetrating a reactor containment building would take far more than an airliner. Compared with the F-4, Mr. Muckerheide said, "a large passenger aircraft is a slow, empty, tin can."
"The mass of the aircraft can put a heavy compression load on the containment structure," he said, "but it has negligible penetrating ability."
The containment building can withstand huge compression loads, he argued. The fact that the block in the Sandia test moved had a trivial effect, Mr. Muckerheide said.
Whether a containment building is the soft spot of a nuclear plant is also not clear. Most of the radioactivity in a power plant is in the spent fuel pool, which, critics note, is usually in a building that is far less sturdy.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting an engineering analysis of the vulnerability of power plants to aircraft attack, Sue Gagner, an agency spokeswoman, said. "If warranted by the ongoing detailed analysis, we will consider changes," Ms. Gagner said.
Articles in Science, like those in many scientific journals, are reviewed before publication by experts not connected with the authors. But the magazine's editor in chief, Donald Kennedy, said that if there was a difference between the authors and the group that performed the experiment, "they're going to thrash it out in our letters column, and we'll let them do it."
The magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
----
Government to Move Nuclear Material
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 20, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Material.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department confirmed Friday it plans to move several tons of plutonium and weapons-grade uranium to the Nevada Test Site from a federal laboratory in New Mexico where critics said it was at risk from terrorist attacks.
The move had been anticipated for some time. Last month, an Energy Department memo, obtained and released by a private watchdog organization, indicated the move was only awaiting final review of an environmental impact report.
That report now has been approved by Everet H. Beckner, deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, department officials said.
NNSA spokesman Bryan Wilkes said the material is being moved because buildings at Los Alamos are aging and the Nevada Test Site has newer facilities and the best security. He denied there is a terrorist risk where the material is now located.
The enriched nuclear material is stored in a part of Los Alamos National Laboratory known as Technical Area-18. Built in the 1940s, the facility is located at the bottom of a steep canyon, where the high ground and an adjacent highway make it difficult to defend.
Pete Stockton, who headed an Energy Department team three years ago that recommended that the material be moved, said the material is not secure at Los Alamos.
``They know they can't protect it anymore and they've known for a long time they can't protect it,'' said Stockton, who now works for the private watchdog group, Project on Government Oversight.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- nevada
Nevada Alleges DOE, NRC Meetings
By Ken Ritter
Associated Press Writer
Friday, September 20, 2002; 11:18 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46623-2002Sep20?language=printer
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa is accusing two federal agencies of holding secret meetings about building the nation's nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
In letters to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Richard Meserve, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Del Papa alleged a trend to exclude the public from decisions about the Yucca Mountain project.
She stopped short of accusing the department and the NRC of breaking the law or violating federal rules. The Energy Department would operate the high-level nuclear waste repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The NRC would license it.
But Del Papa pointed to comments by Energy Department officials at a Sept. 10 meeting in Las Vegas about designs having been presented to the NRC and about other meetings planned between Energy Department and NRC officials.
Margaret Chu, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, also submitted a document to board members stating that the Energy Department had made commitments to the NRC about five elements of the Yucca Mountain plan, Del Papa said.
"Why was Nevada not given notice of such meetings or interactions?" she asked.
An Energy Department spokesman said his agency was reviewing Del Papa's complaints, but he declined to discuss specifics. Spokesman Joe Davis said the department has complied with the law and would continue to do so.
Davis noted that until the Energy Department submits an application to the NRC, federal regulations allow the two agencies to "confer informally," while posting notices of meetings and making public copies of correspondence and other materials.
NRC spokeswoman Rosetta Virgilio said her agency had not received the letter.
Congress in July approved the Yucca project, but the state has five lawsuits pending seeking to block it.
On the Net:
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: http://www.rw.doe.gov/
Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov/
Nevada opposition: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste
-------- us politics
House Democrats form anti-war coalition
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020920-347297.htm
A group of 19 House Democrats yesterday pledged to build a congressional coalition to oppose a U.S. military attack on Iraq.
"Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, who predicted "dozens" more Democrats would join their group in coming days to oppose the Bush administration's plan for an attack. "The administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent or immediate threat to the United States."
Mr. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, has been leading the anti-war effort. He said there is no credible evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 terrorist attacks or to the al Qaeda network. Mr. Kucinich also said there is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress this week that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is a real threat who has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons and has an active program to acquire and build nuclear weapons. Mr. Rumsfeld said the United States should act before Saddam provides weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
"We have a president who wants to go to war. There is no question about it," said Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat. "He denies it all over the place, but everything points to it."
"Naked aggression is not the American way," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Democrat, referring to a pre-emptive U.S. strike against Iraq.
"We do not have to go to war, we have alternatives," said Rep. Barbara Lee, who was the lone House member to vote against a congressional resolution last September that gave the president the power to respond to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Mrs. Lee, California Democrat, said she would introduce a resolution yesterday emphasizing the importance of working through the United Nations to ensure Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. The measure has 20 co-sponsors.
The anti-war Democrats said a pre-emptive strike against Iraq would make the United States an aggressor, would be too costly financially and in terms of human life, and could be open-ended.
Mr. McDermott alluded to the Vietnam War. "I saw what happens when you send your people to something where it is unclear why they're there, what the goal is," he said.
Mr. Kucinich and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said some House Republicans are likely to join them in their effort.
Rep. Constance A. Morella, the Maryland Republican who is in a tight congressional race, said in an interview yesterday that while she had not seen any proposed language yet, she would be inclined to oppose "a unilateral, pre-emptive strike to go to war" with Iraq.
"To go to war before the United Nations has acted? Again, I'm inclined against it," she said.
A spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, predicted overwhelming Republican support for the president's Iraq resolution, however.
Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Democrat, said the Bush administration is "distracted by old business, by the business of Poppy Bush."
Mr. McDermott said the administration's goal is a regime change in Iraq, not having weapons inspectors do their job there. "That's the point - a regime change. It's not inspectors. They don't care down at the White House about whether we have disarmament or not, they want to go to war," he said.
Mrs. Kaptur said it had to do with oil.
"Fighting for oil and those dictatorships that prop up the politics of oil is not worthy of the loss of one more American life," she said.
----
Bush Outlines Doctrine of Striking Foes First
By DAVID E. SANGER
New York Times
September 20, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20CND-STRA.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Bush administration published today its first comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. The strategy document also states, for the first time, that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way it was during the cold war.
In the 33-page document, Mr. Bush also seeks to answer the critics of growing American muscle-flexing by insisting that the United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies," rather than seek "unilateral advantage." It calls this union of values and national interests "a distinctly American internationalism."
The document, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," is one that every president is required to submit to Congress. It is the first comprehensive explanation of the administration's foreign policy, from defense strategy to global warming.
It sketches out a far more muscular and sometimes aggressive approach to national security than any since the Reagan era. It includes the discounting of most nonproliferation treaties in favor of a doctrine of "counterproliferation," a reference to everything from missile defense to forcibly dismantling weapons or their components. It declares that the strategies of containment and deterrence - staples of American policy since the 1940's - are all but dead. There is no way in this changed world, the document states, to deter those who "hate the United States and everything for which it stands."
"America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones," the document states, sounding what amounts to a death knell for many of the key strategies of the cold war.
One of the most striking elements of the new strategy document is its insistence "that the president has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago."
"Our forces will be strong enough," Mr. Bush's document states, "to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." With Russia so financially hobbled that it can no longer come close to matching American military spending, the doctrine seemed aimed at rising powers like China, which is expanding its conventional and nuclear forces.
Administration officials who worked on the strategy for months say it amounts to both a maturation and an explanation of Mr. Bush's vision for the exercise of America power after 20 months in office, integrating the military, economic and moral levers he holds.
Much of the document focuses on how public diplomacy, the use of foreign aid, and changes in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank can be used to win what it describes as a battle of competing values and ideas - including "a battle for the future of the Muslim world."
The president put the final touches on the new strategy last weekend at Camp David after working on it for months with his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and with other members of the national security team. In its military hawkishness, its expressions of concern that Russian reforms could be undermined by the country's elite, and its focus on bolstering foreign aid - especially for literacy training and AIDS - it particularly bears the stamp of Ms. Rice's thinking.
A senior White House official said Mr. Bush had edited the document heavily "because he thought there were sections where we sounded overbearing or arrogant." But at the same time, the official said, it is important to foreclose the option that other nations could aspire to challenge the United States militarily, because "once you cut off the challenge of military competition, you open up the possibility of cooperation in a number of other areas."
Still, the administration's critics at home and abroad will almost certainly find ammunition in the document for their argument that Mr. Bush is only interested in a multilateral approach as long as it does not frustrate his will. At several points, the document states clearly that when important American interests are at stake there will be no compromise.
The document argues that while the United States will seek allies in the battle against terrorism, "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively." That includes "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities" not to aid terrorists, the essence of the doctrine Mr. Bush declared on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.
The White House delayed releasing the document this week so that its lengthy discussion of conditions under which the United States might take unilateral, pre-emptive action would not dominate delicate negotiations in the United Nations or the testimony of administration officials who appeared at Congressional hearings to discuss Iraq.
The new strategy departs significantly from the last one published by President Clinton, at the end of 1999.
Mr. Clinton's strategy dealt at length with tactics to prevent the kind of financial meltdowns that threatened economies in Asia and Russia. The Bush strategy urges other nations to adopt Mr. Bush's own economic philosophy, starting with low marginal tax rates. While Mr. Clinton's strategy relied heavily on enforcing or amending a series of international treaties, from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to Kyoto protocols on the environment, Mr. Bush's strategy dismisses most of those efforts.
In fact, the new document - which Mr. Bush told his staff had to be written in plain English because "the boys in Lubbock ought to be able to read it" - celebrates his decision last year to abandon the ABM treaty because it impeded American efforts to build a missile defense system. It recites the dangers of nonproliferation agreements that have failed to prevent Iran, North Korea, Iraq and other countries from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and says that the United States will never subject its citizens to the newly created International Criminal Court, "whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans."
The document makes no reference to the Kyoto accord, but sets an "overall objective" of cutting American greenhouse gas emissions "per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years." The administration says that is a reasonable goal given its view of the current state of environmental science. Its critics, however, point out that the objective is voluntary, and allows enormous room for American emissions to increase as the American economy expands.
The doctrine also describes at great length the administration's commitment to bolstering American foreign aid by 50 percent in the next few years in "countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom." It insists that the programs must have "measurable results" to assure that the money is actually going to the poor, especially for schools, health care and clean water.
----
Bush Seeks Power to Use 'All Means' to Oust Hussein
By TODD S. PURDUM and ELISABETH BUMILLER
New York Times
September 20, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20PREX.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 - President Bush asked Congress today for sweeping authority to use "all means he determines to be appropriate, including force" to disarm Iraq and dislodge Saddam Hussein, and warned: "If the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will."
"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force," Mr. Bush told reporters in the Oval Office after meeting with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior officials working to overcome French and Russian resistance in the Security Council and draft a new resolution there holding Iraq to account.
It was a whirlwind day on multiple fronts as Mr. Bush made his hardest push yet for swift action on Iraq. Secretary Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld took the administration's case to Capitol Hill, where senior leaders of both parties expressed general support for Mr. Bush's request but signaled that there would be changes in wording.
At the United Nations, Iraq's foreign minister read a combative letter from Mr. Hussein, insisting his country had no weapons of mass destruction but attacking the Bush administration for a "cyclone of American accusations and fabricated crises against Iraq."
Mr. Bush, in seeking Congressional approval for a possible military strike, made a long string of charges, including repeated Iraqi violation of a decade of United Nations resolutions on disarmament and repression of minorities, Iraq's attempt to assassinate President Bush's father in 1993, its support for international terrorist organizations and the presence of Qaeda members who, he said, "are known to be in Iraq."
After citing Congress's own 1998 declaration that American policy should be to remove the Iraqi leadership and promote democracy in its place, the draft concludes: "The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."
Senior Congressional leaders of both parties said they expected some changes in wording, particularly to the line about restoring international peace in the region.
"We are interested and determined to keep the focus on Iraq, not on Iran or other countries in the region that also pose a threat to the United States," said the Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said: "I'm sure the president isn't specifically asking us for unilateral authority to move against Syria or Lebanon if there's not peace on the Lebanese border. So what does it mean?"
The Republican leader, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, said the resolution was "very strong" but added, "The president has made it clear he wants to have input from the Congress, and we'll have to see what recommendations are made."
At the United Nations, Iraq's foreign minister followed up his offer on Monday to readmit international weapons inspectors by reading a letter from Mr. Hussein.
"I hereby declare before you that Iraq is totally clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," the minister, Naji Sabri, said, quoting Mr. Hussein. "Our country is ready to receive any scientific experts, accompanied by politicians you choose to represent any one of your countries, to tell us which places and scientific and industrial installations they would wish to see."
Mr. Bush said he had not heard the speech, but dismissed it as "the same old song and dance we've heard for 11 years."
But the Russian defense minister, Sergei B. Ivanov, whose country is one of five on the Security Council with veto power, indicated that his government's first priority was the return of inspectors, leaving unsettled the issue of a new Council resolution.
"I think we can easily establish whether there exists or not weapons of mass destruction technology, some sort of program, preparation of cooking something which shouldn't be done," Mr. Ivanov said at an appearance at the Pentagon with Secretary Rumsfeld.
Testifying on Capitol Hill before the House International Relations Committee, Secretary Powell said Iraq was already in "material breach" of a long string of United Nations resolutions. He said Iraq must unconditionally remove all weapons of mass destruction, end all support for terrorism, cease persecution of civilians, account for gulf war prisoners and end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program.
"I ask for your immediate action on such a resolution to show the world that we are united in this effort," Secretary Powell said.
Mr. Rumsfeld, who pressed the president's case before the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that even rigorous weapons inspections in Iraq were not likely to lead to the elimination of Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction, because the current inspection system has fewer teeth than the one in place immediately after the gulf war.
"There's no doubt in my mind but that the inspection program that currently is on the books wouldn't work because it's so much weaker than the earlier one," he said.
He also took pains to explain that allowing inspectors in with no realistic chance they would disarm Iraq would only play into Baghdad's "ploy" to delay tougher measures.
"The more inspectors that are in there, the less likely something is going to happen," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The longer nothing happens, the more advanced their weapons programs go along."
Several senators asked how the United States might mitigate the potential for Iraq to use chemical or biological weapons against American troops or allies in the region.
Mr. Rumsfeld said the United States would seek to deter Iraqi field commanders with harsh reprisals, but did not lay out specifics.
"We would have to make very clear to them that what we are concerned about in Iraq is the Saddam Hussein regime, and the regime is not all the soldiers and it's not all the people and that they ought to be very careful about functioning in that chain of command for weapons of mass destruction," he said.
After the hearing, Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iraqi commanders who used chemical or biological weapons would be hunted down and tried by war crimes tribunals.
The proposed Congressional resolution was drafted in the offices of Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, and Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser. It builds on resolutions against Iraq approved by Congress in 1991 and 1998, but has as its central justification pre-emption, or "anticipatory self-defense," which a senior administration official today defined as the right of the United States to attack a country that it thinks could attack it first.
Although the resolution does not use the words "regime change," senior administration officials said today that ousting Mr. Hussein was implicitly woven into its 16 points.
Some leading Congressional figures sounded skepticism about the president's approach. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he would prefer a resolution urging United Nations action.
"Going it alone has some very significant risks," Mr. Levin said, adding: "I'd like the focus of a resolution to be on urging the U.N. to take action. It's lot different for Saddam Hussein to be looking down the barrel of a gun that is held by the world."
Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin and a frequent critic of the administration, issued a statement calling the White House's draft resolution "incredibly broad."
"Not only does it fail to adequately define the mission in question, it appears to actually authorize the president to do virtually anything anywhere in the Middle East, a proposal that no doubt will alarm many of our most important allies in the fight against terrorism," he said.
----
Bush Outlines Anti-Terror Strategy
Fri Sep 20, 2002
By SANDRA SOBIERAJ,
Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20020920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_strategy&printer=1
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush ( news - web sites) declared in an aggressive new national security strategy Friday that the United States will stop any adversary challenging America's military superiority and adopt a strike-first policy against terrorist threats "before they're fully formed."
The 35-page document, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," marks the end to the deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War and officially shifts the country to a pre-emptive policy that Bush first outlined at West Point in June.
"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first," Bush wrote in the document submitted to Congress as required annually by law.
"As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed," he added.
At a time when Bush is struggling to convince Russia, France and other wary United Nations ( news - web sites) members to support an offensive against Iraq's Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites), Bush's doctrine included an unequivocal statement of America's right to act on its own:
"While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."
The report, Bush's first since becoming president, essentially summarizes his strategy as it evolved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and as it now underpins his campaign against Saddam.
Longer-term, Bush's doctrine asserts U.S. global military superiority. "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States," he wrote.
At the White House, administration officials were keen to bat down suggestions that the doctrine reinforces overseas opinions that Bush has pursued a superpower's foreign policy of go-it-alone arrogance.
A senior official briefing reporters on the doctrine said the United States would have no problem with Europe or any freedom-loving ally building up its military might. And White House press secretary Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites) emphasized a principled side to U.S. foreign policy, noting that the Bush strategy also pledges to promote democracy and economic openness and to champion human dignity worldwide.
"What the world has seen in the 20th century is a benevolent America that uses its strength for good around the world," Fleischer said.
On the Net:
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
----
Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy
September 20, 2002
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20STEXT_FULL.html?ex=1033526074&ei=1&en=0a4fcc5260e564d9 and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39666-2002Sep19?language=printer
Following is the full text of President Bush's new national security strategy. The document, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," will soon be transmitted to Congress as a declaration of the Administration's policy.
INTRODUCTION
THE great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom -- and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. By making the world safer, we allow the people of the world to make their own lives better. We will defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.
Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.
To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal -- from better homeland defenses and law enforcement to intelligence and cutting off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror -- because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.
The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies' plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action.
As we defend the peace, we will also take advantage of an historic opportunity to preserve the peace. Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world's great powers find ourselves on the same side -- united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos. The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. We are also increasingly united by common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will encourage the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and international order. We will strongly resist aggression from other great powers -- even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural advancement.
Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.
The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a better future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty -- so the United States will work with individual nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. The United States will deliver greater development assistance through the New Millennium Challenge Account to nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. We will also continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the terrible toll of AIDS and other infectious diseases.
In building a balance of power that favors freedom, the United States is guided by the conviction that all nations have important responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Nations that seek international aid must govern themselves wisely, so that aid is well spent. For freedom to thrive, accountability must be expected and required.
We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment.
Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person -- in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.
I. Overview of America's International Strategy
"Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent."
President Bush West Point, New York June 1, 2002
The United States possesses unprecedented -- and unequaled -- strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.
For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality.
That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends.
This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.
And this path is not America's alone. It is open to all.
To achieve these goals, the United States will:
-champion aspirations for human dignity;
-strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
-work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
-prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
-ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
-expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
-develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
-transform America's national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.
II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity
"Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities."
President Bush West Point, New York June 1, 2002
In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. Fathers and mothers in all societies want their children to be educated and to live free from poverty and violence. No people on earth yearn to be oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.
America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.
These demands can be met in many ways. America's constitution has served us well. Many other nations, with different histories and cultures, facing different circumstances, have successfully incorporated these core principles into their own systems of governance. History has not been kind to those nations which ignored or flouted the rights and aspirations of their people.
Our own history is a long struggle to live up to our ideals. But even in our worst moments, the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were there to guide us. As a result, America is not just a stronger, but is a freer and more just society.
Today, these ideals are a lifeline to lonely defenders of liberty. And when openings arrive, we can encourage change -- as we did in central and eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, or in Belgrade in 2000. When we see democratic processes take hold among our friends in Taiwan or in the Republic of Korea, and see elected leaders replace generals in Latin America and Africa, we see examples of how authoritarian systems can evolve, marrying local history and traditions with the principles we all cherish.
Embodying lessons from our past and using the opportunity we have today, the national security strategy of the United States must start from these core beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty.
Our principles will guide our government's decisions about international cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation of resources. They will guide our actions and our words in international bodies.
We will:
-speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom;
-use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are rewarded for the steps they take;
-make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights to move toward a better future; and
-take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments.
We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist it.
III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends
"Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."
President Bush Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral) September 14, 2001
The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.
In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.
The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in our history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly elusive enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come through the persistent accumulation of successes -- some seen, some unseen.
Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia.
Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate.
We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a coordinated effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional campaign localizes the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure the state has the military, law enforcement, political, and financial tools necessary to finish the task.
The United States will continue to work with our allies to disrupt the financing of terrorism. We will identify and block the sources of funding for terrorism, freeze the assets of terrorists and those who support them, deny terrorists access to the international financial system, protect legitimate charities from being abused by terrorists, and prevent the movement of terrorists' assets through alternative financial networks.
However, this campaign need not be sequential to be effective, the cumulative effect across all regions will help achieve the results we seek.
We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:
-direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors;
-defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and
-denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities.
We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes:
-using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose;
-supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation;
-diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at risk; and
-using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism.
While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense we are also strengthening America's homeland security to protect against and deter attack.
This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization since the Truman Administration created the National Security Council and the Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public and the private sector.
This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, emergency management systems will be better able to cope not just with terrorism but with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened to manage not just bioterror, but all infectious diseases and mass-casualty dangers. Our border controls will not just stop terrorists, but improve the efficient movement of legitimate traffic.
While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in today's globalized world we need support from our allies and friends. Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can provide.
As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work with international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists
In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom and fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this conflict. In leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, productive international relationships and redefining existing ones in ways that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
IV. Work with Others To Defuse Regional Conflicts
"We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so small."
President Bush
Berlin, Germany May 23, 2002
Concerned nations must remain actively engaged in critical regional disputes to avoid explosive escalation and minimize human suffering. In an increasingly interconnected world, regional crisis can strain our alliances, rekindle rivalries among the major powers, and create horrifying affronts to human dignity. When violence erupts and states falter, the United States will work with friends and partners to alleviate suffering and restore stability.
No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action -- direct or indirect -- is warranted. We have finite political, economic, and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind:
The United States should invest time and resources into building international relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge.
The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively.
Policies in several key regions offer some illustrations of how we will apply these principles:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of human suffering, because of America's close relationship with the state of Israel and key Arab states, and because of that region's importance to other global priorities of the United States. There can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests, and listens to their voices, and counts their votes. The United States will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.
The United States, the international donor community, and the World Bank stand ready to work with a reformed Palestinian government on economic development, increased humanitarian assistance and a program to establish, finance, and monitor a truly independent judiciary. If Palestinians embrace democracy, and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel's identity and democracy. So the United States continues to challenge Israeli leaders to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. As there is progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop. As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. The United States can play a crucial role but, ultimately, lasting peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians resolve the issues and end the conflict between them.
In South Asia, the United States has also emphasized the need for India and Pakistan to resolve their disputes. This administration invested time and resources building strong bilateral relations with India and Pakistan. These strong relations then gave us leverage to play a constructive role when tensions in the region became acute. With Pakistan, our bilateral relations have been bolstered by Pakistan's choice to join the war against terror and move toward building a more open and tolerant society. The Administration sees India's potential to become one of the great democratic powers of the twenty-first century and has worked hard to transform our relationship accordingly. Our involvement in this regional dispute, building on earlier investments in bilateral relations, looks first to concrete steps by India and Pakistan that can help defuse military confrontation.
Indonesia took courageous steps to create a working democracy and respect for the rule of law. By tolerating ethnic minorities, respecting the rule of law, and accepting open markets, Indonesia may be able to employ the engine of opportunity that has helped lift some of its neighbors out of poverty and desperation. It is the initiative by Indonesia that allows U.S. assistance to make a difference.
In the Western Hemisphere we have formed flexible coalitions with countries that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Chile, and Colombia. Together we will promote a truly democratic hemisphere where our integration advances security, prosperity, opportunity, and hope. We will work with regional institutions, such as the Summit of the Americas process, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Defense Ministerial of the Americas for the benefit of the entire hemisphere.
Parts of Latin America confront regional conflict, especially arising from the violence of drug cartels and their accomplices. This conflict and unrestrained narcotics trafficking could imperil the health and security of the United States. Therefore we have developed an active strategy to help the Andean nations adjust their economies, enforce their laws, defeat terrorist organizations, and cut off the supply of drugs, while -- as important -- we work to reduce the demand for drugs in our own country.
In Colombia, we recognize the link between terrorist and extremist groups that challenge the security of the state and drug trafficking activities that help finance the operations of such groups. We are working to help Colombia defend its democratic institutions and defeat illegal armed groups of both the left and right by extending effective sovereignty over the entire national territory and provide basic security to the Colombian people.
In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, and desperate poverty. This threatens both a core value of the United States -- preserving human dignity -- and our strategic priority -- combating global terror. American interests and American principles, therefore, lead in the same direction: we will work with others for an African continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. Together with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa's fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists.
An ever more lethal environment exists in Africa as local civil wars spread beyond borders to create regional war zones. Forming coalitions of the willing and cooperative security arrangements are key to confronting these emerging transnational threats.
Africa's great size and diversity requires a security strategy that focuses bilateral engagement, and builds coalitions of the willing. This administration will focus on three interlocking strategies for the region:
countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement and require focused attention;
coordination with European allies and international institutions is essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace operations; and
Africa's capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations must be strengthened as the primary means to address transnational threats on a sustained basis.
Ultimately the path of political and economic freedom presents the surest route to progress in sub-Saharan Africa, where most wars are conflicts over material resources and political access often tragically waged on the basis of ethnic and religious difference. The transition to the African Union with its stated commitment to good governance and a common responsibility for democratic political systems offers opportunities to strengthen democracy on the continent.
V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
"The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power."
President Bush West Point, New York June 1, 2002
The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States -- with our allies and friends -- to emphasize deterrence of the enemy's use of force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation.
Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were inconceivable.
But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex and dangerous.
In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:
-brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
-display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
-are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
-sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
-reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.
At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world's principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states' pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations.
We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.
Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes:
Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities -- detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities -- are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries.
Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials. We will continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement to commit up to $20 billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step forward.
Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked.
It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.
In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations.
In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States.
Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action.
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered covertly and without warning.
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.
We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:
-build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
-coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
-continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.
VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade.
"When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a privileged few, no amount -- no amount -- of development aid is ever enough. When nations respect their people, open markets, invest in better health and education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade revenue and domestic capital is used more effectively."
President Bush
Monterrey, Mexico March 22, 2002
A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. Economic growth supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty.
We will promote economic growth and economic freedom beyond America's shores. All governments are responsible for creating their own economic policies and responding to their own economic challenge. We will use our economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic growth, including:
-pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity;
-tax policies -- particularly lower marginal tax rates -- that improve incentives for work and investment;
-rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are confident that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic endeavors;
-strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use;
-sound fiscal policies to support business activity;
-investments in health and education that improve the well-being and skills of the labor force and population as a whole; and
-free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and opportunity.
The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies -- industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world.
A return to strong economic growth in Europe and Japan is vital to U.S. national security interests. We want our allies to have strong economies for their own sake, for the sake of the global economy, and for the sake of global security. European efforts to remove structural barriers in their economies are particularly important in this regard, as are Japan's efforts to end deflation and address the problems of non-performing loans in the Japanese banking system. We will continue to use our regular consultations with Japan and our European partners -- including through the Group of Seven (G-7) -- to discuss policies they are adopting to promote growth in their economies and support higher global economic growth.
Improving stability in emerging markets is also key to global economic growth. International flows of investment capital are needed to expand the productive potential of these economies. These flows allow emerging markets and developing countries to make the investments that raise living standards and reduce poverty. Our long-term objective should be a world in which all countries have investment-grade credit ratings that allow them access to international capital markets and to invest in their future.
We are committed to policies that will help emerging markets achieve access to larger capital flows at lower cost. To this end, we will continue to pursue reforms aimed at reducing uncertainty in financial markets. We will work actively with other countries, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the private sector to implement the G-7 Action Plan negotiated earlier this year for preventing financial crises and more effectively resolving them when they occur.
The best way to deal with financial crises is to prevent them from occurring, and we have encouraged the IMF to improve its efforts doing so. We will continue to work with the IMF to streamline the policy conditions for its lending and to focus its lending strategy on achieving economic growth through sound fiscal and monetary policy, exchange rate policy, and financial sector policy.
The concept of "free trade" arose as a moral principle even before it became a pillar of economics. If you can make something that others value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something that you value, you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the freedom for a person -- or a nation -- to make a living. To promote free trade, the Unites States has developed a comprehensive strategy:
Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we helped launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda, especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for completion in 2005. The United States has led the way in completing the accession of China and a democratic Taiwan to the World Trade Organization. We will assist Russia's preparations to join the WTO.
Press regional initiatives. The United States and other democracies in the Western Hemisphere have agreed to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas, targeted for completion in 2005. This year the United States will advocate market-access negotiations with its partners, targeted on agriculture, industrial goods, services, investment, and government procurement. We will also offer more opportunity to the poorest continent, Africa, starting with full use of the preferences allowed in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and leading to free trade.
Move ahead with bilateral free trade agreements. Building on the free trade agreement with Jordan enacted in 2001, the Administration will work this year to complete free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Our aim is to achieve free trade agreements with a mix of developed and developing countries in all regions of the world. Initially, Central America, Southern Africa, Morocco, and Australia will be our principal focal points.
Renew the executive-congressional partnership. Every administration's trade strategy depends on a productive partnership with Congress. After a gap of 8 years, the Administration reestablished majority support in the Congress for trade liberalization by passing Trade Promotion Authority and the other market opening measures for developing countries in the Trade Act of 2002. This Administration will work with Congress to enact new bilateral, regional, and global trade agreements that will be concluded under the recently passed Trade Promotion Authority.
Promote the connection between trade and development. Trade policies can help developing countries strengthen property rights, competition, the rule of law, investment, the spread of knowledge, open societies, the efficient allocation of resources, and regional integration -- all leading to growth, opportunity, and confidence in developing countries. The United States is implementing The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to provide market-access for nearly all goods produced in the 35 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. We will make more use of this act and its equivalent for the Caribbean Basin and continue to work with multilateral and regional institutions to help poorer countries take advantage of these opportunities. Beyond market access, the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in public health. We will ensure that the WTO intellectual property rules are flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical medicines for extraordinary dangers like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. Commerce depends on the rule of law; international trade depends on enforceable agreements. Our top priorities are to resolve ongoing disputes with the European Union, Canada, and Mexico and to make a global effort to address new technology, science, and health regulations that needlessly impede farm exports and improved agriculture. Laws against unfair trade practices are often abused, but the international community must be able to address genuine concerns about government subsidies and dumping. International industrial espionage which undermines fair competition must be detected and deterred.
Help domestic industries and workers adjust. There is a sound statutory framework for these transitional safeguards which we have used in the agricultural sector and which we are using this year to help the American steel industry. The benefits of free trade depend upon the enforcement of fair trading practices. These safeguards help ensure that the benefits of free trade do not come at the expense of American workers. Trade adjustment assistance will help workers adapt to the change and dynamism of open markets.
Protect the environment and workers. The United States must foster economic growth in ways that will provide a better life along with widening prosperity. We will incorporate labor and environmental concerns into U.S. trade negotiations, creating a healthy "network" between multilateral environmental agreements with the WTO, and use the International Labor Organization, trade preference programs, and trade talks to improve working conditions in conjunction with freer trade.
Enhance energy security. We will strengthen our own energy security and the shared prosperity of the global economy by working with our allies, trading partners, and energy producers to expand the sources and types of global energy supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Central Asia, and the Caspian region. We will also continue to work with our partners to develop cleaner and more energy efficient technologies.
Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years, by the year 2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be to:
-remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for international cooperation;
-obtain agreements with key industries to cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases and give transferable credits to companies that can show real cuts;
-develop improved standards for measuring and registering emission reductions;
-promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as nuclear power -- which produces no greenhouse gas emissions, while also improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks;
-increase spending on research and new conservation technologies, to a total of $4.5 billion -- the largest sum being spent on climate change by any country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year's budget; and
-assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas emitters such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and resources to join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and better path.
VII. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy
"In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens."
President Bush Washington, D.C. (Inter-American Development Bank) March 14, 2002
A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development -- and opportunity -- is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.
Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries. Worse, development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery. Results of aid are typically measured in dollars spent by donors, not in the rates of growth and poverty reduction achieved by recipients. These are the indicators of a failed strategy.
Working with other nations, the United States is confronting this failure. We forged a new consensus at the U.N. Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey that the objectives of assistance -- and the strategies to achieve those objectives -- must change.
This Administration's goal is to help unleash the productive potential of individuals in all nations. Sustained growth and poverty reduction is impossible without the right national policies. Where governments have implemented real policy changes we will provide significant new levels of assistance. The United States and other developed countries should set an ambitious and specific target: to double the size of the world's poorest economies within a decade.
The United States Government will pursue these major strategies to achieve this goal:
Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core development assistance given by the United States. While continuing our present programs, including humanitarian assistance based on need alone, these billions of new dollars will form a new Millennium Challenge Account for projects in countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. Governments must fight corruption, respect basic human rights, embrace the rule of law, invest in health care and education, follow responsible economic policies, and enable entrepreneurship. The Millennium Challenge Account will reward countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those that have not to implement reforms.
Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development banks in raising living standards. The United States is committed to a comprehensive reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other multilateral development banks more effective in improving the lives of the world's poor. We have reversed the downward trend in U.S. contributions and proposed an 18 percent increase in the U.S. contributions to the International Development Association (IDA) -- the World Bank's fund for the poorest countries -- and the African Development Fund. The key to raising living standards and reducing poverty around the world is increasing productivity growth, especially in the poorest countries. We will continue to press the multilateral development banks to focus on activities that increase economic productivity, such as improvements in education, health, rule of law, and private sector development. Every project, every loan, every grant must be judged by how much it will increase productivity growth in developing countries.
Insist upon measurable results to ensure that development assistance is actually making a difference in the lives of the world's poor. When it comes to economic development, what really matters is that more children are getting a better education, more people have access to health care and clean water, or more workers can find jobs to make a better future for their families. We have a moral obligation to measure the success of our development assistance by whether it is delivering results. For this reason, we will continue to demand that our own development assistance as well as assistance from the multilateral development banks has measurable goals and concrete benchmarks for achieving those goals. Thanks to U.S. leadership, the recent IDA replenishment agreement will establish a monitoring and evaluation system that measures recipient countries' progress. For the first time, donors can link a portion of their contributions to IDA to the achievement of actual development results, and part of the U.S. contribution is linked in this way. We will strive to make sure that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks build on this progress so that a focus on results is an integral part of everything that these institutions do.
Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in the form of grants instead of loans. Greater use of results-based grants is the best way to help poor countries make productive investments, particularly in the social sectors, without saddling them with ever-larger debt burdens. As a result of U.S. leadership, the recent IDA agreement provided for significant increases in grant funding for the poorest countries for education, HIV/AIDS, health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and other human needs. Our goal is to build on that progress by increasing the use of grants at the other multilateral development banks. We will also challenge universities, nonprofits, and the private sector to match government efforts by using grants to support development projects that show results.
Open societies to commerce and investment. Trade and investment are the real engines of economic growth. Even if government aid increases, most money for development must come from trade, domestic capital, and foreign investment. An effective strategy must try to expand these flows as well. Free markets and free trade are key priorities of our national security strategy.
Secure public health. The scale of the public health crisis in poor countries is enormous. In countries afflicted by epidemics and pandemics like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, growth and development will be threatened until these scourges can be contained. Resources from the developed world are necessary but will be effective only with honest governance, which supports prevention programs and provides effective local infrastructure. The United States has strongly backed the new global fund for HIV/AIDS organized by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and its focus on combining prevention with a broad strategy for treatment and care. The United States already contributes more than twice as much money to such efforts as the next largest donor. If the global fund demonstrates its promise, we will be ready to give even more.
Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of democracy and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank resources are devoted to education. This proportion should grow. The United States will increase its own funding for education assistance by at least 20 percent with an emphasis on improving basic education and teacher training in Africa. The United States can also bring information technology to these societies, many of whose education systems have been devastated by AIDS.
Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, including biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields in developing countries while using fewer pesticides and less water. Using sound science, the United States should help bring these benefits to the 800 million people, including 300 million children, who still suffer from hunger and malnutrition.
VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power
"We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war."
President Bush West Point, New York June 1, 2002
America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions -- as broad as practicable -- of states able and willing to promote a balance of power that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires clear priorities, an appreciation of others' interests, and consistent consultations among partners with a spirit of humility.
There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies and friends in Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of two of the strongest and most able international institutions in the world: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since its inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter-European security, and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world trade.
The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the first time. NATO's core mission -- collective defense of the transatlantic alliance of democracies -- remains, but NATO must develop new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new circumstances. NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the alliance.
The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, creating coalitions under NATO's own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions. To achieve this, we must:
-expand NATO's membership to those democratic nations willing and able to share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests;
-ensure that the military forces of NATO nations have appropriate combat contributions to make in coalition warfare;
-develop planning processes to enable those contributions to become effective multinational fighting forces;
-take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of scale in our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so that they dominate potential aggressors and diminish our vulnerabilities;
-streamline and increase the flexibility of command structures to meet new operational demands and the associated requirements of training, integrating, and experimenting with new force configurations; and
-maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as we take the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces.
If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a partnership as central to the security and interests of its member states as was the case during the Cold War. We will sustain a common perspective on the threats to our societies and improve our ability to take common action in defense of our nations and their interests. At the same time, we welcome our European allies' efforts to forge a greater foreign policy and defense identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to close consultations to ensure that these developments work with NATO. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to better prepare the family of transatlantic democracies for the challenges to come.
The attacks of September 11 energized America's Asian alliances. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an attack on Australia itself, following that historic decision with the dispatch of some of the world's finest combat forces for Operation Enduring Freedom. Japan and the Republic of Korea provided unprecedented levels of military logistical support within weeks of the terrorist attack. We have deepened cooperation on counter-terrorism with our alliance partners in Thailand and the Philippines and received invaluable assistance from close friends like Singapore and New Zealand.
The war against terrorism has proven that America's alliances in Asia not only underpin regional peace and stability, but are flexible and ready to deal with new challenges. To enhance our Asian alliances and friendships, we will:
-look to Japan to continue forging a leading role in regional and global affairs based on our common interests, our common values, and our close defense and diplomatic cooperation;
-work with South Korea to maintain vigilance towards the North while preparing our alliance to make contributions to the broader stability of the region over the longer-term;
-build on 50 years of U.S.-Australian alliance cooperation as we continue working together to resolve regional and global problems -- as we have so many times from the Battle of Leyte Gulf to Tora Bora;
-maintain forces in the region that reflect our commitments to our allies, our requirements, our technological advances, and the strategic environment; and
-build on stability provided by these alliances, as well as with institutions such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, to develop a mix of regional and bilateral strategies to manage change in this dynamic region.
We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of internal transition -- most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape.
With Russia, we are already building a new strategic relationship based on a central reality of the twenty-first century: the United States and Russia are no longer strategic adversaries. The Moscow Treaty on Strategic Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a critical change in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, long-term relations with the Euro-Atlantic community and the United States. Russia's top leaders have a realistic assessment of their country's current weakness and the policies -- internal and external -- needed to reverse those weaknesses. They understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas.
United States policy seeks to use this turn in Russian thinking to refocus our relationship on emerging and potential common interests and challenges. We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the global war on terrorism. We are facilitating Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization, without lowering standards for accession, to promote beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations. We have created the NATO-Russia Council with the goal of deepening security cooperation among Russia, our European allies, and ourselves. We will continue to bolster the independence and stability of the states of the former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable neighborhood will reinforce Russia's growing commitment to integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.
At the same time, we are realistic about the differences that still divide us from Russia and about the time and effort it will take to build an enduring strategic partnership. Lingering distrust of our motives and policies by key Russian elites slows improvement in our relations. Russia's uneven commitment to the basic values of free-market democracy and dubious record in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remain matters of great concern. Russia's very weakness limits the opportunities for cooperation. Nevertheless, those opportunities are vastly greater now than in recent years -- or even decades.
The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia.
Differences remain, including over the development of India's nuclear and missile programs, and the pace of India's economic reforms. But while in the past these concerns may have dominated our thinking about India, today we start with a view of India as a growing world power with which we have common strategic interests. Through a strong partnership with India, we can best address any differences and shape a dynamic future.
The United States relationship with China is an important part of our strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region. We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China. The democratic development of China is crucial to that future. Yet, a quarter century after beginning the process of shedding the worst features of the Communist legacy, China's leaders have not yet made the next series of fundamental choices about the character of their state. In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom is the only source of that greatness.
The United States seeks a constructive relationship with a changing China. We already cooperate well where our interests overlap, including the current war on terrorism and in promoting stability on the Korean peninsula. Likewise, we have coordinated on the future of Afghanistan and have initiated a comprehensive dialogue on counter-terrorism and similar transitional concerns. Shared health and environmental threats, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS, challenge us to promote jointly the welfare of our citizens.
Addressing these transnational threats will challenge China to become more open with information, promote the development of civil society, and enhance individual human rights. China has begun to take the road to political openness, permitting many personal freedoms and conducting village-level elections, yet remains strongly committed to national one-party rule by the Communist Party. To make that nation truly accountable to its citizen's needs and aspirations, however, much work remains to be done. Only by allowing the Chinese people to think, assemble, and worship freely can China reach its full potential.
Our important trade relationship will benefit from China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which will create more export opportunities and ultimately more jobs for American farmers, workers, and companies. China is our fourth largest trading partner, with over $100 billion in annual two-way trade. The power of market principles and the WTO's requirements for transparency and accountability will advance openness and the rule of law in China to help establish basic protections for commerce and for citizens. There are, however, other areas in which we have profound disagreements. Our commitment to the self-defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act is one. Human rights is another. We expect China to adhere to its nonproliferation commitments. We will work to narrow differences where they exist, but not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree.
The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities. With our long-standing allies in Europe and Asia, and with leaders in Russia, India, and China, we must develop active agendas of cooperation lest these relationships become routine and unproductive.
Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge. We can build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober analysis, and common action. In the long-term, these are the practices that will sustain the supremacy of our common principles and keep open the path of progress.
IX. Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century
"Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, and enterprise of our people."
President Bush Washington, D.C. (Joint Session of Congress) September 20, 2001
The major institutions of American national security were designed in a different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be transformed.
It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military's highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our military must:
-assure our allies and friends;
-dissuade future military competition;
-deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and
-decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails.
The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world's most strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on how an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might occur. We will channel our energies to overcome a host of operational challenges.
The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces.
Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate across the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch of the armed forces. We must prepare for more such deployments by developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space.
Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S. intelligence advantages, and taking full advantage of science and technology. We must also transform the way the Department of Defense is run, especially in financial management and recruitment and retention. Finally, while maintaining near-term readiness and the ability to fight the war on terrorism, the goal must be to provide the President with a wider range of military options to discourage aggression or any form of coercion against the United States, our allies, and our friends.
We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy -- whether a state or non-state actor -- to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
Intelligence -- and how we use it -- is our first line of defense against terrorists and the threat posed by hostile states. Designed around the priority of gathering enormous information about a massive, fixed object -- the Soviet bloc -- the intelligence community is coping with the challenge of following a far more complex and elusive set of targets.
We must transform our intelligence capabilities and build new ones to keep pace with the nature of these threats. Intelligence must be appropriately integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems and coordinated with our allies and friends. We need to protect the capabilities we have so that we do not arm our enemies with the knowledge of how best to surprise us. Those who would harm us also seek the benefit of surprise to limit our prevention and response options and to maximize injury.
We must strengthen intelligence warning and analysis to provide integrated threat assessments for national and homeland security. Since the threats inspired by foreign governments and groups may be conducted inside the United States, we must also ensure the proper fusion of information between intelligence and law enforcement.
Initiatives in this area will include:
-strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to lead the development and actions of the Nation's foreign intelligence capabilities;
-establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides seamless and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing the nation and our allies;
-continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to sustain our intelligence advantage;
-investing in future capabilities while working to protect them through a more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence capabilities; and
-collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the government with all-source analysis.
As the United States Government relies on the armed forces to defend America's interests, it must rely on diplomacy to interact with other nations. We will ensure that the Department of State receives funding sufficient to ensure the success of American diplomacy. The State Department takes the lead in managing our bilateral relationships with other governments. And in this new era, its people and institutions must be able to interact equally adroitly with non-governmental organizations and international institutions. Officials trained mainly in international politics must also extend their reach to understand complex issues of domestic governance around the world, including public health, education, law enforcement, the judiciary, and public diplomacy.
Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil wars, and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief requirements are better understood, we must also be able to help build police forces, court systems, and legal codes, local and provincial government institutions, and electoral systems. Effective international cooperation is needed to accomplish these goals, backed by American readiness to play our part.
Just as our diplomatic institutions must adapt so that we can reach out to others, we also need a different and more comprehensive approach to public information efforts that can help people around the world learn about and understand America. The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area where America must excel.
We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials.
We will make hard choices in the coming year and beyond to ensure the right level and allocation of government spending on national security. The United States Government must strengthen its defenses to win this war. At home, our most important priority is to protect the homeland for the American people.
Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is diminishing. In a globalized world, events beyond America's borders have a greater impact inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas, and goods from across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish -- our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life -- are vulnerable to terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we bring to justice those responsible for the September eleventh attacks. As time passes, individuals may gain access to means of destruction that until now could be wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This is a new condition of life. We will adjust to it and thrive -- in spite of it.
In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require. When we disagree on particulars, we will explain forthrightly the grounds for our concerns and strive to forge viable alternatives. We will not allow such disagreements to obscure our determination to secure together, with our allies and our friends, our shared fundamental interests and values.
Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy, and the resilience of our institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious, entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that energy. That is where our national security begins.
----
Resolution Likened to '64 Vietnam Measure
By Mike Allen and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 20, 2002; Page A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41999-2002Sep19?language=printer
President Bush's request to Congress yesterday for authorization to invade Iraq marked the broadest request for military authority by any White House since President Lyndon B. Johnson won approval of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, legal scholars said.
The "discussion draft" Bush sent lawmakers would authorize the president to "use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force," to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring Saddam Hussein to disarm. Administration officials said the president would not be bound by the ultimate decision of the United Nations about whether military force was warranted.
White House officials said that while they will negotiate the final language, Bush will insist that the resolution not require future approval by Congress or the U.N. A pair of senior administration officials used the phrase "maximum flexibility" four times during a 23-minute briefing on the proposal.
The three-page, 20-paragraph draft would authorize the president to use force to defend against Iraq and to "restore international peace and security in the region." Legal scholars said that appeared to give him permission to send the U.S. military into action not only against Iraq but also against other enemy forces or nations that might emerge before the United States restores stability to the region. White House officials said the resolution was intended to be specific to Iraq, but the sweep of the language took scholars aback and opened Bush to criticism from Democrats who supported the idea of a resolution.
In keeping with the Bush administration efforts to restore presidential prerogatives to pre-Watergate strength, the resolution contains fewer constraints than the Persian Gulf War resolution of 1991. That resolution required Bush's father to report back to Congress that the United States had exhausted "all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means" of expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait. In an effort to compel support from Democrats, yesterday's draft was modeled on a 1998 resolution that condemned Hussein but did not confer the authority envisioned by Bush.
Law professors said the language Bush submitted yesterday stopped just short of the breadth of the 1964 resolution that Johnson used as a justification for escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam. That resolution, passed unanimously in the House and with only two dissenters in the Senate, authorized all necessary measures to repel armed attack against U.S. forces and "prevent further aggression" in Southeast Asia.
Peter J. Spiro, a professor of international law at Hofstra University on Long Island, said the Tonkin Gulf resolution was seen in retrospect as a blank check, and said Bush's request is only marginally more limited. "That's why I think this has very little chance of being enacted as proposed," Spiro said. "The Tonkin Gulf still looms over these war powers issues. Especially in cases such as this where Congress has shown ambivalence, Congress will carefully tailor the scope of the authority."
By including a clause authorizing the use of force "in order to enforce" U.N. Security Council resolutions that sanctioned the Gulf War, Bush effectively reiterated that he already has all the authority he needs under international law to wage war, even without a new U.N. resolution.
"Even though everyone understands we're starting a new war, he's treating it as an old war," said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale who served as an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.
The president's draft makes no mention of the War Powers resolution of 1973, which was passed partly in reaction to the perceived mistakes of the Tonkin Gulf resolution. The War Powers resolution allows the president to commit troops on his own for 60 to 90 days, then requires congressional approval if troops are to remain engaged in hostilities.
If the draft had cited the authority of the War Powers resolution, legal analysts said, then a commitment to Iraq might be subject to limitations on how long it could continue without fresh congressional approval. However, legal analysts said presidents generally have contested the constitutionality of the War Powers resolution, and that Bush in any case would not want to concede any limits on what he can do in Iraq in a document that is probably the opening bid in what could be an extended negotiation with Hill leaders.
"One could expect that given Congress's institutional ambivalence in this, there would be counteroffers that would include qualifications on the use of force," Spiro said.
In listing the rationale for using force against Iraq, the draft resolution also appears to take the view that the administration's doctrine of preemptive use of force is consistent with international law, as embodied in the U.N. charter.
The draft resolution speaks of "the inherent right, acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself." Article 51 of the charter, however, speaks specifically only of the use of force in response to an armed attack, whereas the administration argues war is justified because of the likelihood of a future armed attack by Iraq or allied terrorist groups.
--------
Ohio congressman leading the charge to avoid Iraq war
National Catholic Reporter,
September 20, 2002
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/092002/092002e.htm
Washington - If the groups opposing U.S. intervention in Iraq are playing an outside game -- putting external pressure on members of Congress -- then Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, is orchestrating the inside game, working to convince his colleagues that U.S. action against the Baghdad regime "is neither desirable nor inevitable." It's a new role for the one-time "boy mayor" of Cleveland -- he was elected to that post more than two decades ago at age 31.
In mid-July, as Bush administration rhetoric targeting Iraq increased, the 56-year-old Kucinich was among the first members of Congress to oppose an attack. He urged the U.S. to "work in coordination with the international community to contain Iraq, and not proceed unilaterally with an unprovoked war."
Three weeks later he drafted a letter signed by 74 other House Democrats urging the president to seek Congressional approval before launching an attack.
Most recently, Kucinich has launched a series of congressional-hearing-like "briefings" to make the case against intervention. Speakers at these events have included former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter and one-time U.N. assistant general secretary Dennis Halliday. The goal of the briefings, said Kucinich, is to "provide an opportunity for the American people to hear an alternative view."
From his modest perch as ranking member of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, Kucinich does not possess the clout of his House leadership colleagues nor the reputation of a keen legislative strategist.
And for all his earnestness and energy, legislative acumen may be what opponents of U.S. policy need most as Congress prepares to consider a Bush administration-backed resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq.
-- Joe Feuerherd
-------- MILITARY
-------- americas
Temple carvings show Mayan rivals fought 'world war'
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington,
20 September 2002
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=334858
Hieroglyphics found on a Mayan temple in Central America suggest a "world war" was fought between two rival superpowers in the seventh and eighth centuries.
The evidence was hidden by thick jungle, which covered most of a set of stone stairs at the Guatemalan temple. A hurricane last year destroyed part of the foliage, revealing more steps bearing inscriptions.
After translating the carvings, scientists now believe that what was previously thought to be a series of local conflicts was a much bigger war with battle lines formed by the vassal states of two Meso-American superpowers.
"The hundreds of new hieroglyphics fill in a vital 60-year gap of unknown Mayan history and clarify many political and military relationships of this critical period," said Federico Fahsen, a Guatemalan expert on Mayan hieroglyphics and a professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. "When I read those hieroglyphics, I had to blink to make sure that I was reading [them] correctly."
The hieroglyphics were found on the steps of a temple at the Dos Pilas site in northern Guatemala, close to the Mexican border. Scientists had translated many carvings at the site over several years.
But the hurricane uncovered a further 18 steps, which bore carvings about Dos Pilas, which was established as a military outpost of the great Maya city of Tikal in 629. The king of Tikal placed his four-year-old brother, Balaj Chan K'awiil, on the throne there.
Battles that later broke out between the two communities had been considered a local rivalry between the brothers but the translations reveal a more complex conflict. The step writings say the king of Dos Pilas became a great warrior and for many years was an ally of his brother in Tikal.
Then the city state Calakmul, in what is now Mexico, conquered Dos Pilas, took the king prisoner and restored him to the throne as a puppet ruler. Balaj Chan K'awiil - now loyal to Calakmul - launched a decade-long war against Tikal that ended in his victory. His forces sacked Tikal and brought its ruler, his brother, to Dos Pilas to be sacrificed.
Professor Fahsen said: "The west section of the steps was very graphic. It says, 'Blood flowed and skulls of the 13 peoples of Tikal were piled up'.''
Arthur Demarest, of Vanderbilt University's Institute of Meso-American Archaeology, said the battles took place when Mayan civilisation was on the verge of moving to a higher level of organisation and forming a single empire.
"However, this didn't happen," he said. "Instead, the giant war went back and forth ... and then the Mayan world broke up into regional powers."
The "world war" theory was first suggested by Simon Martin, a research fellow at the University College London. He said yesterday: "What is most important is this is basically a whole campaign battle narrative for a whole continent.''
-------- biological weapons
A U.S. Gift to Iraq: Deadly Viruses
SEPTEMBER 20, 2002
By Dean Foust and John Carey in Washington, D.C.
Edited by Sheridan Prasso
NEWS ANALYSIS
A 1995 letter from the Centers for Disease Control lists all the biological materials sent to Saddam's scientists for 10 years
As the West Nile Virus spreads nationwide, some congressional leaders are asking whether the mosquito-borne illness could be linked to terrorism or to Iraq's bioweapons program. If so, a more troubling question may be whether Iraq's weapons efforts were unwittingly helped by U.S. scientists.
In a previously unreleased letter obtained by BusinessWeek, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention admitted that the CDC supplied Iraqi scientists with nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples in the 1980s, including the plague, West Nile, and dengue fever. The letter, written in 1995 by then-CDC director David Satcher, was in response to a congressional inquiry.
The CDC was abiding by World Health Organization guidelines that encouraged the free exchange of biological samples among medical researchers -- before Congress imposed tighter controls on biological exports in 1995, says Thomas Monath, who headed the CDC lab where the viruses came from during the period in which they were handed over. "It was a very innocent request, which we were obligated to fulfill," recalls Monath. Plus, in the 1980s, Iraq and the U.S. were allies.
Scientists say the West Nile strain that so far has killed 46 people in the U.S. is not the same strain provided to Iraq, and they find it unlikely that it could have mutated. They also question whether terrorists would even try to develop West Nile as a weapon when more virulent viruses are available.
Still, some observers believe there should have been more prudence. "We were freely exchanging pathogenic materials with a country that we knew had an active biological warfare program," says James Tuite, a former Senate investigator who helped publicize Gulf War Syndrome. "The consequences should have been foreseen."
The CDC's 1995 Letter to the Senate
In 1995, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention provided to then-Senator Donald Riegel (D-Mich.) a complete list of all biological materials -- including viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, and fungi -- that the CDC provided to Iraq from Oct. 1, 1984 through Oct. 13, 1993. Among the materials on the list are several types of dengue and sandfly fever virus, West Nile virus, and plague-infected mouse tissue smears. In his letter to Riegel, then-CDC Director David Satcher wrote: "Most of the materials were non-infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of infections to mosquito-borne viruses."
Here's the complete letter and list of biological materials:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/images/sep2002/a39tab28.gif
----
U.S. Agriculture Vulnerable to Bioterror Attack
By Cat Lazaroff
September 20, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2002/2002-09-20-06.asp
WASHINGTON, DC,A large scale agricultural bioterrorism attack would quickly overwhelm existing laboratory and field resources, warns a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The report, released Thursday, warns that the nation cannot rapidly detect and identify many pests and pathogens, and needs a comprehensive plan to defend against bioterrorism.
The report says that while a bioterrorism attack on U.S. agriculture is highly unlikely to result in famine or malnutrition, it could harm people, disrupt the economy, and cause widespread public concern and confusion.
(Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy Agricultural Research Service)
Spores of anthrax bacteria (Photo courtesy U.S. Postal Service)
"Biological agents that could be used to harm crops or livestock are widely available and pose a major threat to U.S. agriculture," said Harley Moon, chair of the 12 member committee that wrote the report, and professor of veterinary medicine at Iowa State University, Ames.
"Part of the plan to defend against agricultural bioterrorism should be to enhance our basic understanding of the biology of pests and pathogens so we can develop new tools for surveillance and new ways to control an outbreak," Moon added.
The committee began its study at the request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Those acts and the subsequent anthrax attacks - which the reports argues showed that "bioterrorism is now a reality" - heightened concerns about an attack on U.S. agriculture.
Although USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has several emergency plans for dealing with the unintentional introduction of plant and animal pests and pathogens, the committee could not find, as of last spring, any publicly available in depth national plan to defend against the intentional introduction of biological agents in an act of terror.
These Vermont sheep, imported from Belgium and the Netherlands in 1996, were found to carry scrapie, a form of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (Photo courtesy USDA)
A comprehensive plan to counter agricultural bioterrorism should define the role each federal and state agency will play in preventing and responding to an attack and how they will cooperate with one another, the National Research Council (NRC) report says.
The committee also said that significant gaps exist in U.S. knowledge about foreign pests and pathogens. The agencies involved should develop a consensus list of biological agents that could potentially be used in an attack, the report states.
The agencies also need to agree to a shorter list of agents - representative of various types of agents and the plant or animal species they would target - for which preparations can be made. Developing countermeasures for this subset of agents would be valuable to officials and front line personnel in the event of an attack, even if the agent ultimately confronted does not happen to be on the short list.
Besides the threats posed by well known diseases such as anthrax and mad cow, there are a host of little known pathogens that, while not as directly dangerous to humans, could devastate the U.S. economically and threaten the food supply, the report notes. The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease that arose naturally in the United Kingdom, for example, forced the destruction of millions of animals and cost billions of dollars.
Last week, bacteria that can cause a deadly disease in pigs were stolen from a lab in Michigan. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy Agricultural Research Service)
This week, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the National Pork Board issued a warning after a bacterium that attacks pigs was stolen from a laboratory at Michigan State University (MSU) late last week. The infectious agent, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, can cause convulsions, pneumonia and rapid death in pigs. The laboratory was working with the bacteria as part of a project to develop swine vaccines.
"The bacteria are not known to cause a threat to human health," said Beth Alexander, MSU physician, after consulting with experts in infectious disease. Alexander said MSU had already tested the specific strains of bacteria used in the vaccine research and found no indication that the strains posed a threat to human health.
"Humans cannot be harmed by this," said Lonnie King, dean of MSU's College of Veterinary Medicine, "whether by direct contact with the bacteria, or by eating meat from an infected animal. This is strictly a disease that strikes pigs."
However, if the disease were to become widespread at U.S. hog farms, it could devastate the industry and the nation's pork supplies. The National Pork Board urged pork producers to review their security plans and watch for suspicious activity or people around their farms or community.
The NRC report says that the federal government should develop potential attack scenarios to help train health and agricultural professionals on how to respond to a disease outbreak. The committee recommended building upon USDA's current emergency plans for coping with the unintentional introduction of pests and pathogens, but emphasizes that the new plan must be designed specifically for terrorist threats.
Microbiologist Harry Danforth and other scientists are laying the groundwork for development of animal disease vaccines, including one for chicken coccidiosis. (Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy Agricultural Research Service)
As part of the plan, the United States needs to create a network of laboratories to coordinate the detection of bioterror agents in the event of an attack. The USDA appears to have budgeted for such a network in the next fiscal year, the committee said.
A nationwide agricultural bioterrorism communication system, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Health Alert Network," also is necessary. And new technologies are needed to aid in the early detection of bioterror agents, particularly genetically engineered ones.
Early detection is key to stopping the spread of an agricultural bioterror attack, the committee stressed.
At the report's public release on Thursday, the committee noted that authorities may have already begun steps to correct some of the deficiencies noted in the report, based on briefings provided to federal officials earlier this year.
Validating tests for mad cow disease at a lab in Geel, Belgium. (Photo courtesy EU Joint Research Center)
Given the importance of this report to homeland defense, the National Academies took the unusual step of briefing the Office of Homeland Security and USDA on the report's preliminary findings and conclusions. The report also was submitted to the USDA and the Office of Homeland Security for a classification review.
In a statement issued Thursday in response to the report, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said the USDA has started implementing some of the report's recommendations.
"USDA has identified a priority list of threat agents and provided resources to increase research in this area," Veneman said, adding that the agency is working to strengthen its laboratory network to help detect bioterror agents. The USDA has also increased funding for research programs related to biological agents and detection technology, including $43 million in new grants to states and universities, she said.
"USDA has been working with other federal agencies in conducting various interagency, intergovernmental exercises to further test our systems," Veneman added. "A comprehensive exercise will take place later this month in a continued effort to strengthen this type of planning and coordination."
Wild and farmed elk can carry brucellosis, a disease that can make animals - and humans - spontaneously abort. (Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy Agricultural Research Service)
Among the steps the Bush administration has taken in an effort to improve the security of the nation's food supply is a proposal to transfer the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to the proposed Department of Homeland Security, which Congress is now debating. The NRC report was already in final stages of preparation when President George W. Bush called for this transfer, so the committee did not analyze the significance of such a move.
At its own discretion, the National Academies decided to remove certain detailed and specific information from the report. An appendix of the material that was removed is not for distribution to the general public.
"We are convinced that this report will increase our security by helping to inform and assist the nation in improving its awareness, capabilities, and plans to defend against threats of agricultural bioterrorism," wrote the presidents of the National Academies in a foreword to the report.
More information on steps the USDA is taking to counter the threat of bioterrorism is available at: http://www.usda.gov/homelandsecurity/homeland.html
-------- business
Firms show wares at homeland security expo
By Tim Lemke
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020920-71303295.htm
Hundreds of business people packed into the D.C. Armory yesterday to show off products they say will protect the world from terrorists and possibly win their firms a piece of the billions set aside for homeland security.
At the Homeland Security Expo and Conference, big and small companies ranging from Verizon to "Toby's Nose Filters" pitched products and systems designed to satisfy a governmental call for a safer home front. The Department of Commerce sponsored the conference, marketing it toward federal procurement officers and law enforcement officials.
For companies manning tables yesterday it was an attempt to cash in on an estimated $100 billion homeland security market. President Bush has asked that $38 billion be set aside for homeland security beginning Oct. 1, and Congress has sought more. While only a handful of elite companies will profit from that, many firms hope to capitalize on spending by private citizens to secure their homes and on continuing efforts by corporate America to protect critical information systems.
"One of the great things about this expo is that the companies see homeland security not just as a challenge, but an opportunity," Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said in a brief speech.
Indeed, some companies pitched complex technological systems selling for thousands of dollars. Delphi Technologies, a former General Motors subsidiary, displayed its complex TruckSecure system, designed to prevent tractor-trailers from being used as weapons in the same way that planes were used in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Selling for between $1,000 and $1,500, the system includes two-way communication between the truck and the dispatch center, with a Global Positioning System to track the truck's route.
"If the truck leaves its intended destination, we have the ability to tell the truck to go idle," said Delphi spokesman Steve Gaut.
Also on display was the "First Responder" truck, hailed by its creator, Raytheon Co., as the most advanced vehicle capable of acting as a command center in the event of a crisis.
The First Responder, as big as a sport utility vehicle, features satellite Internet access, phone and streaming video access, and sensors designed to detect harmful chemical and biological materials. In addition, it includes systems to help police, fire and military agencies communicate. The U.S. subsidiary of BAE Systems PLC presented similar technologies being used by special forces in the Navy.
It's fancy stuff, but not every company yesterday was going high tech. Many products illustrated that a breach of the nation's security can begin with something as simple as a stolen key.
The Equipment Lock Company of Hedgesville, W.Va., makes steel locks to place on construction equipment, such as bulldozers. Similar to the popular Club lock used in cars, these steel contraptions make starting and moving equipment nearly impossible. They are particularly useful in the building industry, company spokesman Bryan Witchey said, because one key is often used for every piece of machinery on a construction site.
Other uncomplicated products pitched as homeland security solutions yesterday included Toby's Nose Filters, which, when placed in the nostrils, can filter out everything from secondhand smoke to allergens and bad odors, the company says. Developed with the help of National Aeronautics and Space Administration researchers, the filters are available at any drugstore.
----
IMF chief sees upside of a short war in Iraq
But a long conflict could hinder global growth, Koehler says
Alan Friedman,
International Herald Tribune
Friday, September 20, 2002
ROME A short-term military action in Iraq would probably have only a minor impact on the world economy, and could even produce a "positive effect" by eliminating uncertainty over the situation, according to the head of the International Monetary Fund.
But a protracted conflict with Saddam Hussein would create a "downside risk" to the global economy at a time when prospects for recovery have weakened, said Horst Koehler, managing director of the IMF.
"It depends," Koehler said in an interview. "If it is a rather short-term action, and if it is contained to Iraq, I think the effect will be minor on the economics, and there may even be some positive effect because it would be a clarification of the situation."
"This looming threat, this unclear situation, is making investors hesitant," Koehler said. A protracted war in Iraq, he added, would create "unpredictability, and that is the downside risk."
Later, an aide to Koehler said the IMF chief hoped for a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Saddam Hussein so that war could be averted.
Koehler, speaking a week before the start of the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF in Washington, also cautioned that collapsing equity prices, investor fears about corporate scandals, and volatility in world oil prices caused by the threat of a war in Iraq could conspire to delay a global economic recovery.
"Risks to the global economic outlook today are clearly tilted more to the downside than they were a few months ago," Koehler said.
Among other things, the lingering impact of the WorldCom and Enron scandals and the wealth destruction on Wall Street could have an impact - albeit limited - on American consumers.
Another problem for the U.S. economy, he said, was that "continuing profit warnings in the corporate sector could make investors hesitate more, and that is not good for recovery."
Still, the IMF chief said he did not fear a new U.S. recession. He attributed downside risks to the world economy to "further shocks during the course of this year," including scandals in corporate governance that he said had "worsened the situation."
But while policymakers were on guard against the threat of recession, he added, "for me the bigger risk is that recovery is delayed."
Indeed, the most likely outcome, Koehler said, is that recovery "will continue, slower than we had expected, and not as forcefully as we would have wished." But this did not amount to a "doom and gloom" scenario, he added.
For now, he said, the U.S. economy did not need further measures by the Federal Reserve to stimulate activity.
"If things worsen, that has to be a consideration," Koehler said when asked whether the Fed should cut interest rates.
"But for the time being I don't think it is necessary."
Koehler cautioned that, over the longer term, mounting U.S. public deficits and excess spending would need to be curbed.
In a speech Thursday to the Council on Foreign Relations, he urged the United States to "beware of falling back into chronic public-sector deficits."
The message for the Bush administration, he told the International Herald Tribune, was that "while for the short term the deficit is helpful to counteract recessionary trends, if we fall back into deficits this would not be good, so I think we need to contain expenditures."
Turning to Japan, which has pinned hopes for an economic turnaround on a recovery in the United States, Koehler said the government should do more to fight deflation.
He said Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi had reassured him in a conversation last week that "they would act on getting rid of nonperforming bank loans and on corporate restructuring because these are the underlying issues for Japan."
On Wednesday, under pressure from the government, the Bank of Japan made the unprecedented announcement that it would buy shares directly from the country's troubled banks to help them avert losses from falling stock prices. The move was widely seen as undermining the bank's credibility.
Koehler said he "would be cautious about a final judgment." If the move was part of a broader package to shore up the struggling banking sector, he said, that would be understandable.
But "if it remains an isolated action to prop up stock prices then I would have some doubts about the wisdom in that," Koehler said.
Commenting on the continuing financial crisis in Argentina, the IMF chief said the country still needed to undertake a series of steps in order to free up additional funding from the lending institution.
"We never ask the impossible: they need to define a monetary anchor, to demonstrate through implementation that fiscal soundness will return and that includes the provinces, and their Parliament needs to stop this infighting," he said.
Earlier this week, the first deputy director of the IMF, Anne Krueger, cautioned that Buenos Aires would risk a heavy penalty if it failed to make an $800-million payment to the World Bank coming due in October.
----
Rumors of war sap market
By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020920-15736941.htm
The prospect of war with Iraq is weighing on the stock market, where investors fear that high oil prices and a prolonged and costly conflict would hurt the fledgling economic recovery.
Worries about Iraq and a softening economy have contributed to an 1,100-point loss in the Dow Jones Industrial Average since Aug. 22, while expectations of military action against Iraq have helped send oil prices up by 48 percent in recent months.
Yesterday, the price of a barrel of oil hovered just below $30, reflecting a war "premium" of between $4 and $6 a barrel, analysts said. Rising oil prices caused sharp increases in consumer energy costs for a second straight month, the Labor Department reported.
While the market reaction thus far has been negative, no one really is certain what the economic impact of another Persian Gulf war would be.
Bush officials say a war would have little impact on the economy, although they concede it could push up the budget deficit by another $100 billion to $200 billion. In any case, they say the effect on the economy should not be a consideration in deciding whether to go to war.
The 1991 war with Iraq helped to push an already-weak economy into recession, however, and most economists say another conflict could do the same.
A few analysts hold out hope that a quick win by American forces would actually boost stocks and the economy, but nearly all agree that the economic risks are considerable if that doesn't happen.
"The economy is very vulnerable to any sort of shocks right now" as consumer spending for months has been the only major source of growth and strength, said Jay Bryson, economist at Wachovia Securities.
With the economy already listing, he said, "it only takes one more torpedo to bring the ship down."
A debilitating shock could occur if oil prices spike to $40 a barrel from their current level of about $30 - not an unlikely scenario considering it happened in the Persian Gulf war, he said. Oil prices could go even higher if the conflict is prolonged and widens into a war involving other nations in the Middle East, analysts say.
The sticker shock from high oil prices, combined with news of American casualties, would pummel consumer confidence and pinch purchasing power, both of which already are suffering somewhat from higher oil prices and rumors of war.
If the shock occurred during the height of the home-heating season this winter, Mr. Bryson said, "you could kiss Christmas sales goodbye."
Businesses right now would be hurt even more than consumers by high oil prices, as competitive pressures have left them with little wherewithal to pass on such increased costs.
An oil shock likely would add to record business bankruptcies in such industries as airlines and energy-intensive manufacturing, leading to more layoffs in a classic recessionary spiral, Mr. Bryson said.
One helpful offset for businesses and consumers is that interest rates most likely would plunge in the event of war as investors dive into safe-haven Treasury bonds. That would enable those who still have jobs to refinance and reduce their debts, he said.
Edward Yardeni, chief investment strategist, said he hopes any move by the United States against Iraq will quickly succeed and provide a boost to stocks and the economy.
But until a victory is within sight, worries about the war will continue to weigh on the market and cloud the economic outlook, he said, dashing hopes that stocks would stage a major rally by the end of the year.
Because war now appears "more likely, though not inevitable," Mr. Yardeni said he has pushed back by several months his optimistic targets for a rise in the major stock indexes.
Overall, Mr. Yardeni remains optimistic and he expects the economy to keep growing in the event of war. He notes that consumers and businesses already have withstood a sizable increase in oil prices this year, and yet the economy continues to grow at around a 3 percent annual rate.
"With or without a war, a successful outcome in Iraq for the United States could have consequences as positive and bullish as our victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War," Mr. Yardeni said.
Economies and markets generally flourish when democracy prevails, he said.
President Bush has said his goal is to replace Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with a democratic government.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan also does not expect any invasion of Iraq to thwart growth, as long as the conflict is short and successful. But he said in testimony last week that a prolonged conflict would pose "difficulties" for the economy.
One big difference with 1991 is that a war with Iraq would hardly come as a surprise, and this time around the United States would control the timing, analysts say.
The talk of war is giving the markets and consumers time to gradually adjust to higher oil prices, and the U.S. government could help mitigate the impact of any oil shock by dipping into its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
While government officials see little cause for concern, some Wall Street economists are warning that a U.S. attack in the Middle East almost certainly would plunge the world into recession.
"The Iraq wild card and the related possibility of an oil shock - however brief - shouldn't be taken lightly," said Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach. He contends that conditions now are even more conducive to recession than they were in 1990.
"Today's global economy is more trade-intensive and more U.S.-centric," he said, referring to the important role the United States plays in fostering world growth by importing vast quantities of goods.
"Should America suffer a recessionary relapse, the rest of the world is lacking the cyclical immunities that would prevent renewed global recession," he said.
--------
War effect: Price of oil to skyrocket
$40 per barrel level likely as Iraq operation proceeds
September 20, 2002
STRATFOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATE
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29015
Though it is too early to predict the exact economic effects of a war against Iraq, it is clear that the ramp-up to hostilities will send oil prices soaring, having a dramatic effect on the global recession, report analysts from Stratfor, the global intelligence company.
While the global energy picture has changed much since 1990, one thing is certain: Once it becomes apparent that Washington will settle for nothing less than the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, oil prices will spike.
During Desert Shield, Brent crude shot up more than $20 from its levels on Aug. 1, 1990 - the day before Iraq invaded Kuwait. And in February 2002, just before the Bush administration commenced its warmongering against Iraq and suicide bombings began to surge in the Middle East, Brent prices were clustered around the $20 mark. A return to $40 per barrel is highly likely considering Washington's steady march back toward the Middle East.
High energy prices affect different economic players in different ways. OPEC states - excluding Iraq, of course - will be among the biggest winners in the near term. Nearly all OPEC members have monochromatic economies that would wither and die without oil. Such economies, like other extraction-based economies, are unstable and inefficient. For example, the Energy Intelligence Group estimates that the bureaucracy of Saudi Arabia is so bloated that the country falls into deficit whenever oil prices dip below $25 per barrel - even though Saudi oil is among the cheapest in the world to bring to market.
In the short term, therefore, a war with Iraq will be a huge boon to OPEC producers. Even the threat of war is serving them well: Without Washington's stream of bellicose statements, prices would be about $5 per barrel cheaper than they are now. Last year's global recession, combined with this year's sluggish growth and a rapid increase in non-OPEC oil supplies, should have left prices relatively flat, but anything that keeps Washington's threats going or actually leads to war will minimize Iraq's presence in the market and maximize oil prices.
The situation is even brighter for non-OPEC producers. Though their economies certainly are addicted to oil, most of them do not rely upon it as wholly as those of OPEC states. These non-members rarely face systemic collapse when prices dip, but they certainly enjoy the windfall when prices rise. Examples are Norway and Russia: Norway invests all of its oil proceeds in its national retirement fund; Russia - despite sustaining a severe economic hit during the 1997-1998 oil crash - retained both its relative social stability and its government. Venezuela and Indonesia, both OPEC members, were not so lucky. The Gulf states of OPEC have survived only because of their large savings accounts and small populations.
Unlike the quota-bound OPEC states, however, non-OPEC producers have little reason to rein in production. Instead of spending their windfall on overhead, most of them will invest in fresh production.
For oil importers, the prospect of a war with Iraq is not so positive, but the impact of the ensuing high oil prices varies widely among these states.
Those who suffer the most will be states that depend on heavy industry and those whose consumers have low levels of disposable income. Heavy industry is very energy-intensive, and consumer and industrial energy demands tend to be inelastic. Therefore, any increase in energy prices translates into a direct hit on the pocketbooks of industrialists and consumers. The knock-on effect from consumers is particularly sharp, since it reduces the amount of money consumers spend in all areas. The end result is that the non-energy sector is starved of sales and, therefore, funds. In short, high energy prices slam purchasing power across the board, lowering both standards of living and national output.
That means that developing states stand to be hurt the most by a war with Iraq. Almost all of the world's poorer states are deeply dependent upon heavy industry or have little to no disposable income - or, in many cases, both.
Within the developed world, the United States will suffer least. It enjoys the highest level of disposable income of all the major developed states, and its dependence on heavy industry withered years before the dot-com boom materialized.
The United States also has four other critical buffers. First, it is the fastest-growing of the major economies, having racked up relatively steady - if modest - growth since the fourth quarter of 2001. During that time, Europe and Japan have remained in recession.
Second, as a proportion of national output, the United States spends less on energy consumption than do other industrialized states. Net imports account for about 1 percent of U.S. GDP, versus 1.5 percent for the European Union and 1.4 percent for Japan. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that the recessionary effect of high oil prices hits the EU approximately one-third harder than the United States.
Third, the United States is a major energy producer as well as importer. It produces 41 percent of its own oil; Japan, by comparison, produces 2 percent of its domestic demand.
Finally, and perhaps most important, U.S. dollars dominate the oil market. Since the dollar tends to do well in times of international crisis, other countries will suffer disproportionately. For example, while oil prices tripled in dollar terms from the beginning of 1999 to the end of 2000, they quadrupled in euro terms.
-------- chemical weapons
Army Postpones Chemical Disposal
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Chemical-Weapons.html
ANNISTON, Ala. (AP) -- The Army has postponed plans to begin burning Cold War-era chemical weapons at its new incinerator next month, citing new objections from state environmental officials.
The Army's spokesman for the project, Mike Abrams, said burning will probably not begin until after Jan. 1.
The Army had planned to begin destroying 2,254 tons of deadly Cold War-era chemical weapons at the Anniston Army Depot in late October.
But the state Department of Environmental Management asked for a delay Sept. 12, complaining that the Army's laboratory burn tests were not done according to the procedure approved by the agency.
Abrams said the tests will be redone to meet the state's objections.
The announcement Friday came just hours after The Birmingham News reported that Army officials exchanged e-mails outlining a plan to deflect criticism of the incinerator by embarrassing local officials over their stand on emergency response training.
But Abrams said the newspaper's report did not influence the timing of the announcement.
In the Pentagon e-mails, the officials said they would challenge Alabama to beef up its emergency response training and then publicize the state's refusal. Local officials object to holding training exercises without the protective suits and other equipment they have demanded.
Alabama officials who read the e-mails reacted angrily.
``It is alarming, to say the least, that there are people more interested in building a record to cover their own butts than the safety of the people of Alabama,'' Gov. Don Siegelman told the News.
The Army did not immediately answer questions by The Associated Press about the e-mails.
-------- colombia
Commander: 200 Colombia Rebels Die
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Colombia-Fighting.html or
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46076-2002Sep20?language=printer
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- The Colombian air force bombarded two rebel camps in northwest Colombia, killing an estimated 200 insurgents, the air force commander said Friday. The claim could not be immediately verified.
``We know we have hit them very hard, they have a high number of deaths. Intelligence reports indicate there were 200 killed,'' air force Gen. Hector Fabio Velasco said without elaborating.
Government forces have not been sent to the forested, mountainous area in northwest Colombia, which is heavily mined, Velasco said. While there was no body count to substantiate the claim, an aerial bombardment can inflict heavy casualties if the rebels -- who aren't known to possess surface-to-air missiles -- are caught in the open.
The death toll was calculated based on technology aboard the aircraft -- including heat-seeking devices to detect corpses -- and on reports from civilians in the area, an air force spokesman said on condition of anonymity.
The estimated toll is even higher than one the air force claimed on Sept. 5, when it said it killed 100 rebels in aerial bombardments of a rebel stronghold in southern Colombia over several days.
Operations with warplanes and combat helicopters against rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, were continuing near Ituango village, 200 miles northwest of Bogota, Velasco said. The rebels were killed on Thursday and Friday, he added.
The top U.S. military commander for the region, meanwhile, said the United States was committing to helping Colombia fight ``terrorism'' as he handed over a Hercules transport plane to the Colombian air force.
``This is another symbol of the cooperation between the United States and Colombia,'' Army Gen. James T. Hill said during the ceremony at Bogota's military airport. ``This is another sign that we fight together against the evil of terrorism.''
Hill, a Vietnam and Desert Storm veteran, was meeting with Colombian military commanders during his first trip to Colombia since taking over the Miami-based U.S. Southern Command on Aug. 27.
The United States -- which has classified both of Colombia's leftist rebel groups and a right-wing militia as terrorist organizations -- is stepping up its military aid to this South American nation beyond its traditional counternarcotics assistance. President Alvaro Uribe, a hard-liner in his second month in office, is scheduled to meet with President Bush next Wednesday in the White House, where he will appeal for more military aid.
Washington provided more than $1 billion in military aid to Colombia during the Clinton administration, most of it dedicated to wiping out cocaine- and heroin-producing crops, which furnish the rebels and paramilitaries with huge profits.
In southern Colombia, meanwhile, police have not yet investigated a report that FARC rebels massacred 11 civilians over the weekend, police Col. Jose Arnulfo Oliveros said Friday.
A local resident, Alberto Mosquera, told authorities he had been one of 22 civilians kidnapped near the village of Vistahermosa by the rebels and accused of collaborating with a right-wing paramilitary group. The rebels then shot 11 of the captives to death and buried them in a common grave, Mosquera said.
Police in southern Meta state said there were too many rebels present in the area to immediately head to the site and search for the common grave.
``We don't have anything verified yet,'' Olivaros, chief of police for Meta, told The Associated Press.
Vistahermosa was one of the five towns in a rebel safe haven the government granted the FARC at the start of peace talks four years ago, and then revoked last February when the talks collapsed.
Colombia's war, now in its 38th year, pits the FARC and a smaller rebel group against the U.S.-backed military and the outlawed paramilitary force.
-------- germany
Praise for Mr. Schroeder
Friday, September 20, 2002
Washington Post; Page A28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42091-2002Sep19?language=printer
The Sept. 17 editorial "Mr. Schroeder Ducks" missed the most important reason for the German chancellor's stand: The German people oppose military action in Iraq.
As an American living abroad I find this kind of representation refreshing. I wish I could trust my own politicians to follow Mr. Schroeder's example and listen to the people.
MICHAEL BALDZIKOWSKI
Frankfurt, Germany
•With his U.N. speech, President Bush seemed to embrace multilateralism, while German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is the isolated, ugly unilateralist. But let us not forget that Vice President Cheney's statements about the uselessness of additional U.N. weapons inspections, regime change in Iraq as the only solution and U.S. willingness to invade Iraq by itself were the proximate cause for Mr. Schroeder's vocal opposition.
And let us also not forget that Washington began to pay a lot more attention to its allies when Mr. Schroeder slammed on the brakes. Mr. Schroeder's opposition has undoubtedly been good for his electoral prospects, but it has also been good for the international debate on what to do about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Sadly, it probably hasn't been good for Germany.
DAVID BACH,
San Francisco
----
German leader links Bush's 'style' to Hitler's
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020920-597820.htm
BERLIN - A German Cabinet minister yesterday stirred outrage at home and abroad by comparing President Bush's political style to that of Adolf Hitler, an analogy the White House called "outrageous and inexplicable."
The remark by Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, which spurred immediate opposition calls for her resignation, came at the end of a fierce campaign in which Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has boosted his re-election prospects by strongly opposing U.S. military action against Iraq.
Mrs. Daeubler-Gmelin told a small group of labor union members that Mr. Bush was using the Iraq issue to divert attention from domestic problems, such as the economy and corporate scandals, the German Schwaebisches Tagblatt newspaper reported.
"That's a popular method - even Hitler did that," the minister was quoted as saying by a reporter who attended the Wednesday discussion in the southern city of Stuttgart.
According to the newspaper, Mrs. Daeubler-Gmelin contacted its management later that day to say she had not compared Mr. Bush and the Nazi leader, but rather their methods. She also said she considered the event in question a private affair.
In a statement yesterday, she accused the paper of "far-fetched and slanderous" reporting and said she "would regret it very much if this matter were to cast the slightest shadow on my respect for the president of the United States."
At the White House, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer reacted angrily to the minister's comment.
"The United States and Germany have a very long and valuable relationship, and relations between the people of the United States and Germany are very important to Americans," Mr. Fleischer told reporters.
"But this statement by the justice minister is outrageous and inexplicable," he said.
Sen. Jesse Helms, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement saying he and other members of Congress were "appalled" by the anti-American tenor of the German campaign.
"If Chancellor Schroeder succeeds in winning re-election through America-bashing then the U.S. Congress must seriously consider moving U.S. forces out of Germany and stationing them on the territory of other NATO allies," the statement said.
Until yesterday, the Bush administration had been reluctant to respond to Mr. Schroeder's vocal opposition to U.S. threats of military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, preferring to see the chancellor's stand as typical pre-election rhetoric.
U.S. officials said he is likely to show greater flexibility if he wins the parliamentary election on Sunday, which the most recent polls show is a dead heat.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said earlier this week, "When countries are engaged in elections, people say things that they think they should say."
An op-ed column in yesterday's New York Times suggested a darker motivation behind the German rhetoric, however.
Columnist William Safire quoted former German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping as having told a group of Americans recently that he believed that Mr. Bush wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein to curry favor with "a powerful - perhaps overly powerful -Jewish lobby" in the United States.
Close aides to Mr. Schroeder, both in his government and his campaign, have maintained that the chancellor is opposing the threat of war, not the United States generally, while insisting that he will not change his position should his Social Democratic Party (SPD) win a second term in office.
His administration was clearly seeking to distance itself from Mrs. Daeubler-Gmelin's comment while, according to aides, trying to establish what exactly the minister had said.
Mr. Schroeder's main opponent in the election, Edmund Stoiber of the conservative Christian Democratic Union, has accused the chancellor of risking Germany's role as an active international player only to attract more votes in this weekend's close race.
However, even he has been forced to speak against war with Iraq as Mr. Schroeder has used the issue to overcome a deficit of several percentage points in the polls.
Asked in a television interview yesterday whether he would let U.S. forces use Germany as a strategic base for an attack on Iraq if the United States took unilateral action, the conservative challenger said, "Definitely never if the Americans go it alone."
His Christian Democratic Union party, meanwhile, called for Mrs. Daeubler-Gmelin's resignation, arguing that the SPD was "deliberately trying to create the impression that the real opponent is Bush and not Saddam Hussein."
"This shows what Schroeder and his Social Democrats really think of our American allies," Thomas Goppel, a spokesman for Mr. Stoiber's campaign, was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.
-------- india / pakistan
Indian Kashmir Poll Dogged by Killings, Protests
Reuters
By Sheikh Mushtaq and Terry Friel
Friday, September 20, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43986-2002Sep20?language=printer
SRINAGAR, India (Reuters) - Another ruling party activist was gunned down in Indian Kashmir, the fourth this week, and police fired tear gas on a separatist rally on Friday, as tensions mounted ahead of the second stage of a state poll.
Senior National Conference party worker Moulvi Mohammed Hussain was shot dead overnight at his home 40 miles south of Jammu and Kashmir summer capital, Srinagar, police said.
Ahead of Tuesday's second day of voting, police also detained leading separatist Javed Mir for urging a boycott of a poll India wants to be successful to bolster its rule in the Himalayan state at the heart of a military standoff with nuclear rival Pakistan.
Police and anti-Indian protesters clashed near Srinagar's main Jamia Masjid (Grand Mosque) after midday prayers, hurling stones at each other until police dispersed the rally with tear gas.
Monday's first round of voting in many of the state's most dangerous areas was largely peaceful. But officials have warned violence could rise over the remaining three rounds, ending Oct. 8, which also include highly volatile areas.
Islamic separatists have vowed to derail the election, targeting anyone involved in the poll.
More than 460 people, including a state minister and about 30 political workers -- mostly from the National Conference -- have been killed since the election was announced Aug. 2.
MORE VIOLENCE
Shadowy separatist group Al-Arfeen has said it killed two of the three National Conference workers slain in Srinagar. No one has claimed responsibility for the other two deaths, nor that of an opposition party worker in north Kashmir earlier this week.
Security forces also said they killed three suspected rebels trying to cross the frontier from Pakistan, a day after U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill said Washington believed infiltration had risen since the poll was called.
Two militants, a civilian and a soldier were killed in separate incidents around the state over the past 24 hours.
India regards the level of violence in Jammu and Kashmir as a critical indicator of Pakistan's commitment to its pledge to stop militants crossing the frontier. Islamabad says rebel incursions have halted except for rogue elements.
More than 35,000 people have died in the 13-year revolt against India's rule -- 2,000 so far this year alone.
The main separatist alliance, the All Parties Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference, is not running in the election, which the National Conference -- also a member of the federal coalition government -- is almost certain to win, and has urged a boycott.
Pakistan, which dismisses the poll as a farce, wants implementation of U.N. resolutions for Kashmiris to vote on staying with India or joining Pakistan. Independence is not an option under those resolutions.
India and Pakistan have massed one million men and heavy weapons along the border since an attack on India's parliament in December that New Delhi blamed on Pakistani-based militants.
-------- iraq
Hussein Denies U.S. Weapons Allegations
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 20, 2002; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41742-2002Sep19?language=printer
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 19 -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein declared today that his country "is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons" and urged the United Nations to resist the Bush administration's campaign to obtain U.N. backing for a military strike against his government.
In a message read before the U.N. General Assembly by Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, Hussein cast his country as a victim of U.S. aggression and alleged the United States had "fabricated" charges that Baghdad has been secretly building an arsenal of banned weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi president also charged that Washington's military ambitions were aimed at defending Israel's interests in the Middle East and acquiring control of Iraq's oil fields.
Hussein's message mixed continued defiance of the United States with softer language rebutting charges that he was a threat to peace. Coming three days after Iraq invited U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country, it represented an escalation in the Iraqi leader's efforts to thwart the administration's plans even as it sought to limit the scope of any new inspections regime.
The speech was received with warm applause from the delegates in the General Assembly chamber, although the U.S. delegation remained impassive as Sabri ended his remarks.
"I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," the Iraqi foreign minister said, reading from Hussein's message to the world body. "The U.S. administration wants to destroy Iraq in order to control the Middle East oil. In targeting Iraq, the United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism, which has been killing the heroic people of Palestine, destroying their property, murdering their children and seeking to impose their domination on the whole world."
The Iraqi remarks came as the United States, backed by Britain, stepped up pressure on the Security Council to approve tough action against Baghdad. The United States is seeking Security Council support for a resolution authorizing military action against Baghdad if it refuses to grant unfettered access to U.N. weapons inspectors and is informing council members that if they do not act, the administration believes it has the authority to move against Iraq unilaterally under the U.N. Charter.
In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the speech "presented nothing new and was more of the same."
"The speech is an attempt to lure the world down the same dead-end road that the world has traveled before and, in that, it represents a disappointing failure by Iraq," Fleischer said.
Many countries, particularly Russia, China and most of the Arab world, continued to press the United Nations to give Iraq another chance to prove it has dismantled its weapons program and destroyed its weapons stockpiles. "We welcome Iraq's decision," said Tunisian Foreign Minister Habib Ben Yahia. "This is a step toward detente in the region. Tunisia supports the Arab position, which is against any strike against an Arab state."
In his message, Hussein accused President Bush of presenting the American public and the United Nations "with the utmost distortions" relating to Iraq's weapons program and by insinuating that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
He warned that if the Bush administration succeeded in toppling his government, other countries would be subject to U.S. domination. "God forbid, it would dictate on you what each country needs for its economic development, what quantities of oil it is allowed to buy, and what prices," he said.
Hussein reiterated Iraq's invitation to U.N. weapons inspectors or any other foreign politicians or scientists, saying that Baghdad is "ready to cooperate with the Security Council" on arranging new inspections, which were suspended in 1998 after repeated intransigence by the Iraqi government. But he added that Iraq and the United Nations would have to strike "a balanced formula" for inspections that would "reassure Iraq with regard to it security, sovereignty, territorial integrity and its right to choosing its own way with out interference."
He also demanded that the United Nations lift sanctions on Iraq and force Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions calling for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, including Israel's nuclear weapons program.
U.S. officials are concerned that Iraq intends to block inspections of a broad range of national security sites in Iraq, citing agreements with the United Nations that require the inspectors to follow a cumbersome set of procedures that can delay access to such sites for days.
Testifying before the House International Relations Committee today, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the Iraqi remarks demonstrated Hussein "is already walking away" from promises to unconditionally allow arms inspectors to return.
The United States and Britain are seeking to tighten the inspections regime by negotiating ironclad assurances that U.N. inspectors would be granted unfettered access at a moment's notice to any location in Iraq. They have insisted that the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, be given new instructions on how to carry out tough inspections in Iraq.
Blix has said he is obliged to honor a 1995 agreement between U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Iraq that requires foreign diplomats be flown to Baghdad to accompany U.N. inspectors hunting for weapons at "presidential sites," a series of palaces and other national security institutions that the Iraqi government insists are off-limits.
"This administration is not going to live with these arrangements," said one council diplomat. "Blix must be allowed to visit any site at any time and nothing is off limits."
Blix provided the Security Council today with a detailed time line for renewed inspections that he will present to the Iraqi government during talks in Vienna at the end of the month. He said that the first team of U.N. inspectors could arrive in Baghdad on Oct. 15, and that it would take at least 120 days before he could inform the council precisely which Iraqi weapons systems need to be dismantled. It would be months more before the United Nations could determine whether Iraq is fully cooperating.
John D. Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, asked Blix to shorten the timetable, accelerating the period before the United Nations can test Iraq's willingness to disarm.
He also provided the council with key elements the United States wants in a new Security Council resolution. They include a condemnation of Iraq's violations of past Security Council resolutions, a detailed list of obligations Iraq must fulfill, a clear deadline for Iraqi compliance, and a warning that Iraq's failure to comply will not be tolerated.
----
Hussein Says Bush Wants to Control Mideast Oil
New York Times
September 20, 2002
By JULIA PRESTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/middleeast/20IRAQ.html
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 19 - President Saddam Hussein of Iraq accused the Bush administration today of seeking to "destroy Iraq in order to control the Middle East oil" and asserted that Mr. Bush had made "distortions" to lead Americans to think Iraq had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Mr. Hussein's comments came in a letter to the General Assembly, excerpts of which were read there today by his foreign minister, Naji Sabri. The Iraqi leader assailed the administration as broadly as Mr. Bush criticized Iraq in the same hall on Sept. 12. Mr. Hussein accused Washington of "making up problems" with Baghdad to promote the interests of Israel, which he called "the Zionist entity."
Mr. Hussein declared that Iraq is "clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." But he made no pledges to cooperate with United Nations arms inspectors who are preparing to return to Iraq after a nearly four-year hiatus. Expressing skepticism about their impartiality, the Iraqi leader said only, "along with you, we are waiting to see."
That wait should take about a month. Hans Blix, the Swedish arms expert who heads the United Nations chemical and biological weapons team based in New York, said in a press briefing this afternoon that he expected an advance team of inspectors to arrive in Iraq on Oct. 15. Mr. Hussein's comments, his most extensive to date on the sharpening confrontation with Washington, offered no assurances to the United Nations weapons teams. Instead, Mr. Hussein made a general offer to "any scientific experts accompanied by politicians you choose to represent any one of your countries" to come to Iraq to look for weapons. He said Iraq would provide those foreign experts "all the facilities they need to achieve their objective."
Mr. Hussein's fierce tone echoed Mr. Bush's, but his sharp words contrasted with the smoother diplomatic language that most other leaders have adopted in eight days of General Assembly speechmaking that ended today. He never spoke of Israel by name, for example, referring only to "Zionism."
Mr. Blix briefed the Security Council in a closed meeting about his plans to renew inspections in Iraq, which were suspended in December 1998 when the inspectors were withdrawn in advance of an American and British bombing attack on Baghdad. Afterward, Mr. Hussein refused to allow them to return.
Speaking after the Security Council meeting, Mr. Blix said he had told the Council that Iraqi officials had "not yet been ready" to work out logistical details at a meeting he held with them at the United Nations on Tuesday. Mr. Blix reported that the Iraqi officials said they would complete those practical discussions in talks in Vienna from Sept. 30 to Oct. 2.
According to a time line he presented to the Council, Mr. Blix said the advance team's provisional starting date in Iraq was Oct. 15. The full inspection team, including nuclear experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency, would start work about two months later. But the inspections would not become "fully operational" until at least 60 days after that, Mr. Blix said.
Then it will take at least four months of inspections before Mr. Blix will report back to the Security Council on Iraq's progress in disarmament - if Baghdad cooperates fully with the work.
However, Mr. Blix, who has been under pressure from the United States and other Council nations to accelerate the inspections, said he expected to conduct a few test inspections in the first two months after his team arrived, to judge Iraq's disposition toward the United Nations teams. He said Iraq could have "no sanctuaries" in its territory from the inspectors.
In the Council meeting, the United States ambassador, John D. Negroponte, said that Iraqi officials seemed to be stalling the start of the inspections. He said the United States would press the Council for a resolution specifying tough consequences if Iraq failed to disarm itself of prohibited weapons.
In his letter read before the Council, Mr. Hussein said the Bush administration was planning an attack against Iraq in order to "control the politics as well as the oil and economic policies of the whole world."
"If it succeeded in that, God forbid," the Iraqi leader said, "it would dictate on you what each country needs for its economic development" by controlling the price and distribution of oil. The Bush administration, he charged, was "acting on behalf of Zionism, which has been killing the heroic people of Palestine, destroying their property, murdering their children and seeking to impose their domination on the whole world."
He said the United Nations sanctions program that monitors Iraqi oil sales - imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 - was "tantamount to looting" and called on the Security Council to lift the sanctions.
Some United Nations officials and many Council diplomats were taken aback by Mr. Hussein's comments. In meetings here over the past days, Mr. Sabri was more conciliatory, leading Council members as well as Arab leaders to believe that Iraq might now have a more open attitude toward the arms inspections.
----
No Threat
A former weapons inspector rejects Bush's evidence
by Jon Wiener
SEPTEMBER 20 - 26, 2002
Los Angeles Weekly
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=38538
SCOTT RITTER WAS SENIOR U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR IN Iraq from 1991 to 1998. For the last couple of years, the former U.S. Marines major has been a high-profile critic of U.S. policy against Iraq, arguing that Saddam Hussein represents no military threat. Last week, after President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed to have evidence of new activity at a suspected Iraqi nuclear-weapons facility, Ritter traveled to Iraq and visited the site with a group of journalists and TV cameramen to demonstrate that Bush and Blair were wrong. He also spoke to the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad, urging it to head off U.S. military action by re-admitting U.N. inspectors and letting them do their job. A few days later, Iraq told the U.N. it was willing to submit once again to inspections. Jon Wiener spoke with Ritter before and after his visit last week to Baghad.
L.A. WEEKLY: What can you tell us about Saddam and nuclear weapons?
SCOTT RITTER: Clearly Iraq had a nuclear-weapons program. Of the four categories of prohibited weapons, nuclear is the one we most thoroughly eradicated. Especially the part of their nuclear program that was dedicated to enrichment, to producing the highly enriched uranium needed for the fissile core of a nuclear device. This was wiped out, there was nothing left. For Iraq to reconstitute that would require not only tens of billions of dollars of investment, but also the reconstitution of entire industrial facilities that are easily detected by our intelligence services. It would also require technology to be purchased abroad, which is tightly controlled and not something Iraq could do without being detected. I find it hard to believe the vice president when he says Iraq is close to developing a nuclear weapon -- they weren't anywhere near close in 1998, when inspectors left. If some new development has transpired in the last four years, I wish the White House would share that evidence with the American people.
What about chemical weapons? We know that in the Iran-Iraq war Saddam used mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin on the Iranians, and he also used chemical weapons on the Kurds at that time. What happened to that chemical-weapons capability when you and the U.N. inspectors were there from 1991 to '98?
Iraq had a massive chemical-weapons industry, with gigantic factories dedicated to the production of these deadly agents. They did use them against the Iranians and against the Kurds, which is one reason why the international community outlawed them in 1991. Once inspectors went into Iraq, we not only destroyed the factories and equipment that produced these agents, we also rounded up the weapons and the precursor chemicals that are mixed together to produce the deadly agent, and we eliminated them. We achieved tremendous success in this area. We eradicated their mustard-agent and their sarin- and tabun-agent production capability. If Iraq managed to hide some of their nerve agent from us, it has a shelf life of only five years, so today, with their factories destroyed, Iraq has no nerve-agent capability -- unless they reconstituted their manufacturing base, which no one has demonstrated.
VX is a different subject altogether. Iraq lied to us from day one about VX. They said they never had a VX program. But we uncovered their entire research-and-development plant, which had been bombed during Desert Storm and destroyed. Using documentation recovered from that, we were able to track down and discover Iraq's stockpile of VX, confirming that it had been destroyed. We also exposed another Iraqi lie -- that they had never stabilized VX. We even proved that they put it in warheads, contrary to what they had declared. [But] the bottom line is -- even though the Iraqis lied to us about VX, and we still might have some concerns about this program, there is no VX production capability in Iraq today -- unless Iraq went out after 1998 and acquired all this technology that we had destroyed.
The third category of weapons of mass destruction is biological. I wanted to ask especially about anthrax.
For a biological weapon to work, you have to either turn it into an aerosol, with particles of a certain size which can be inhaled into your lungs, or a dry powder of a certain size, such as we found in the letters that were mailed in October. Iraq successfully produced biological agents: They produced anthrax and botulism toxin. But they never successfully produced a biological weapon. They did put agent -- liquid sludge -- into bombs and warheads, but the fact is, the only way that was going to kill you was if it actually landed on you. They had no way of disseminating the agent, it would have simply soaked into the ground where it landed. We destroyed the factories that produced this agent, we destroyed the production equipment, and we destroyed the pieces of technology that Iraq could have used to weaponize this agent.
There was some concern that Iraq might have produced more anthrax than they declared. But liquid bulk agent of the type that Iraq produced has a maximum shelf life under ideal conditions of three years. After that it germinates and becomes useless sludge. For Iraq to have biological weapons today, they would not only have to reconstitute the manufacturing base to produce biological agent, but they would have to perfect the technology to turn that agent into a weapon, to aerosolize it or turn it into dry powder. They didn't have that capability in December 1998, and no one has demonstrated that they have that capability today.
Vice President Cheney in a recent speech said, "Saddam devised an elaborate program to conceal his programs to develop chemical and biological weapons." And he said, "The inspectors missed a great deal" and that "The inspectors were actually on the verge of declaring that Saddam's programs . . . had been fully accounted for, a shutdown, but then Saddam's son-in-law suddenly defected and began sharing information. Within days, inspectors were led to an Iraqi chicken farm. Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots of evidence regarding Iraq's most secret weapons program." What's your comment on that?
A harsh comment. Either the vice president has been misinformed or lied to by his own intelligence services, the CIA and others, or he himself is lying. Let's set the record straight: In the spring of 1995, the executive director of UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission), my boss, was prepared to make a finding that Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed. We weren't going to give them a clean bill of health. But we wanted to progress the issue of disarmament to the point where we could talk about lifting economic sanctions. They were crippling Iraq, causing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to lose their lives. We had fundamentally disarmed Iraq: That meant 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons capability had been accounted for.
Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected in August 1995. We achieved our final breakthrough prior to his defection. I have the transcripts of the debriefs of the son-in-law, Hussein Kamal. Listen to what he said: "I ordered in 1993 that all remaining weapons be destroyed. Today in Iraq there are no weapons. We destroyed them all." How does Dick Cheney turn that statement into one saying Saddam Hussein's son-in-law spilled the beans about Iraq's weapons program? All he did was confirm our conclusion that in fact these weapons had been destroyed.
So Dick Cheney is misleading the American public.
What were the circumstances that led the U.N. weapons inspectors to leave Iraq in December 1998? The Bush administration and the media often repeat that Saddam "kicked out" the weapons inspectors, and that's why we face the necessity of war today.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Iraqis did not kick the inspectors out in December 1998. The Americans ordered the inspectors out, and then bombed Iraq using intelligence information gathered by the inspectors to target Saddam Hussein and his security apparatus.
It's impossible to talk about the return of unfettered access until there's some guarantee that the U.S. won't again use the weapons inspectors as a vehicle for spying on Saddam, and targeting Saddam. As long as the Americans continue to say that regime removal is their number-one policy priority regarding Iraq, even ahead of disarmament, we have no chance of getting weapons inspectors back in.
What if we are shown evidence that Iraq now possesses weapons of mass destruction?
I believe that not only would the Security Council approve military action against Iraq under those circumstances, but we would have a large and viable coalition supporting us. But if Iraq has these weapons, the Bush administration needs to back up its rhetoric with evidence to support it. The fact that they haven't suggests they don't have the evidence, and that this is strictly about domestic American politics.
You spoke to the Iraqi parliament, urging them to re-admit U.N. weapons inspectors. What kind of response did you receive from them?
First let me explain why I spoke there. It was not in order to address Iraqi democracy. There is no democracy in Iraq. Their parliament is a Baath Party organization. I picked the parliament to use it as a platform to address the Iraqi government and also, frankly, to reach an American domestic audience. Decisions in Iraq are made not by the parliament but by the government -- and they were listening closely. Not only at the parliament but in my meeting with [Foreign Minister] Tariq Aziz and other ministers who advise the president. I told them all the same thing: If they didn't let inspectors in, and give them unfettered access, there would be war, and it would destroy their country. That message was received openly and understood clearly.
How do you interpret Bush's speech to the U.N. on 9/12?
If I believed the Bush administration was committed to disarming Iraq, that their final objective was eliminating weapons of mass destruction, I would be supportive of that speech. But it was a hypocritical speech -- because the final objective of the Bush administration is regime removal, pure and simple. Bush was saying the U.N. has to agree to remove Saddam's regime. But that runs counter to the U.N. Charter. The U.N. has never authorized regime removal in Iraq. That is purely a unilateral U.S. policy. It's been promoted since 1991 by James Baker under George Herbert Walker Bush. Baker made it clear at that time that even if Iraq complied with U.N. resolutions, sanctions would continue until Saddam was removed from power. This statement undermined the ability of the inspectors to work in Iraq. What motives do the Iraqis have to cooperate when the U.S. says their cooperation is irrelevant? Clinton and Madeleine Albright said the same thing. But no U.N. Security Council resolution talks about removing Saddam Hussein from power.
What's the next move?
The ball is now clearly in Iraq's court. The most important force that can head off this war is the government of Iraq itself. They must allow the unconditional return of U.N. inspectors with unfettered access. They've made it clear that they won't agree unless they can guarantee that inspectors won't be used to spy on them. There are some promising developments on that front. The Canadian prime minister appears to be ready to offer to serve as an honest broker between the inspectors and Iraq. Canada would monitor their interaction to ensure the inspectors don't go off task. Canada could be joined by South Africa, the leader of the nonaligned movement. And the government of Belgium, another member of NATO, is likewise contemplating serving as a guarantor of proper behavior by the inspectors. The question is whether these countries have the will to step forward. No nation has exhibited that yet.
How much time do we have before war begins?
The U.S. Central Command is deploying battle staff to Qatar. Six hundred officers will be positioned there in November. This means we're going to war soon. We're already bombing the Iraqis frequently. We already have troops deployed in the region. Deploying the battle staff in November, I think, means war is going to start maybe as soon as December or January.
Who did you vote for in the presidential election in 2000?
I voted for George Bush.
----
Brinkmanship With Baghdad
By Jim Hoagland
Friday, September 20, 2002
Washington Post; Page A29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42097-2002Sep19?language=printer
The abrupt acceptance by Iraq's foreign minister of renewed U.N. weapons inspections has unleashed a period of intense diplomatic maneuvering that will test the patience and skills of the Bush administration. Three principles should guide the policy professionals and the American public through the coming twists and turns:
(1) The argument over inspections doesn't begin until the fat guy with the mustache and the diamond-studded cuff links sings. Getting Saddam Hussein's signature on a document that mandates "anytime, anywhere, without notice" inspections is a necessary -- but not sufficient -- condition for resuming and cleaning up the rigged, cat-and-mouse game that inspections have always been.
(2) The hunt for the equipment and scientists the Iraqi dictator relies on to build a covert nuclear bomb is the urgent priority of resumed inspections. The United Nations must provide enforceable guarantees of protection for any Iraqi who comes forward with information on the nuclear program.
(3) There will be no hiatus in U.S. military planning and preparation while the negotiations and potential inspections take place.
The Iraqis hope to delay and deflect. But their inspection ploy can backfire, as Saddam Hussein's strategic gestures often do: It establishes the framework for the decision on military strikes that President Bush has been holding off. A breakdown of negotiations or inspections -- or an intelligence windfall showing fresh Iraqi defiance on its weapons program while it pretends to negotiate -- could provide a clear and visible trigger for U.S. action.
Bush's skepticism about Iraq's intentions is well founded. But this is a moment in which Washington must endure a time-limited diplomatic effort to hold Saddam Hussein to his word, if it can be obtained. That makes it possible then to hold the leaders of France, Russia and other powers to theirs.
These leaders have joined U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in saying Iraq will face severe consequences if it does not finally allow honest inspections and live up to the other promises it made to secure an end to the Persian Gulf War. These leaders -- not Bush -- will bear the responsibility for destroying the world body's credibility if they countenance continued deceit and murderous behavior by the Iraqi Baathist command after this exercise.
But Bush must now avoid a central error committed by his father in dealing with Saddam Hussein at war's end in 1991. American troops achieved a battlefield domination that was squandered in the political process of framing a flawed cease-fire that was never enforced by the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations.
Eager to claim victory, and misunderstanding the nature of the Iraqi dictator's hold on power, Bush 41, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell did not insist that Saddam Hussein personally take responsibility for the defeat of his army. He sent flunkies to deal with the Americans and immediately set about distancing himself from their action.
This symbolism is vital in totalitarian Iraq. Iraqis know that Saddam Hussein does not hesitate to fire or kill ministers or generals whose policy pronouncements or commitments become inconvenient to him. The foreign minister who floated the renewal of inspections answers only to Saddam Hussein, who incarnates the nation in his own mind. It is all personal to him.
After a 1975 interview with him in Baghdad, I wrote a long profile in which I traced his career as a teenage assassin and his then embryonic campaign of genocide against the Kurds. The ruler was very upset with the piece, I was later told by one of his officials, because I had mentioned that he wore diamond-studded cuff links while praising Arab socialism and sacrifice.
President Bush's tough-minded challenge to the U.N. General Assembly caused Saddam Hussein to send out his foreign minister to blink for him by offering to discuss "practical arrangements" for resuming weapons inspections. The two-track Bush policy of applying pressure through diplomacy while continuing to push forward with intelligence and military options is yielding results.
The diplomatic and military pressures must continue to operate as a package. The Iraqi National Congress, the main opposition group, can identify 1,200 nuclear scientists, aides and other personnel involved in the nuclear weapons program. These Iraqi officials and their families must be guaranteed protection if the nuclear inspectors are to have any chance of success.
Saddam Hussein has for 11 years periodically sent out his aides to promise disarmament while he has consistently shown the Iraqi public in deed that his weapons of mass destruction will have to be pried from his cold, dead fingers. He seems to have finally encountered an American president willing to take him at his deed.
-------- israel / palestine
Israeli Army Shells Arafat's Besieged Offices
September 20, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast.html
RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Israeli forces shelled Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's private offices and demolished other buildings, tightening a siege of his headquarters on Saturday after suicide bombings in Israel.
A Palestinian photographer holed up with Arafat in his main building, the last still intact in the West Bank complex after a day-long assault, said Arafat was showered with dust when a tank shell hit the floor above him on Friday but that he was unhurt.
The siege in the West Bank city of Ramallah, which followed back-to-back Palestinian bombings which killed seven people and shattered a six-week lull in such attacks, drew censure worldwide and raised fears of a new surge of violence as Washington considers military action against Iraq.
Israeli officials said the objective was not to harm Arafat, whom they hold responsible for attacks on Israelis, but to tighten his isolation and force the handover of wanted militants they say are holed up inside.
``We have said we are not going to harm Mr. Arafat personally. We usually stand by our word, unlike Arafat who has yet to meet one of his commitments (to rein in militants),'' government spokesman Raanan Gissin said.
But Palestinian officials expressed fears for Arafat's safety as army bulldozers tore down the bridge linking the two wings of his building, demolished the main access staircase and destroyed most other structures in the compound.
``I contacted the Americans and Europeans and demanded an immediate cessation of the Israeli assault on Arafat's headquarters,'' Palestinian cabinet member Saeb Erekat told Reuters. ``They told me they are exerting every possible effort.''
A senior Palestinian official, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), said he had held asked Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer by telephone to halt the assault so the standoff could be resolved through dialogue.
``The contacts (with Ben-Eliezer) will continue tomorrow (Saturday),'' Abbas said.
MEN SURRENDER AMID RUBBLE OF PRESIDENTIAL COMPLEX
CNN showed Palestinians coming out with hands up, and being bound and blindfolded by waiting soldiers. It put the number of detainees at 26. It was not clear whether any of them were on Israel's list of militants wanted for attacks on Israelis.
Israeli security sources confirmed a tank shell had been fired on Friday night and described it as a result of ``exchanges of fire.'' The photographer told Reuters by telephone that Arafat had moved down from the second floor before the shell hit.
Powerful explosions sent huge clouds of white dust and smoke into the air and the blasts echoed through the deserted streets of the city of Ramallah as one building after another was blown up with dynamite or leveled by armored bulldozers.
The army also enforced curfews on six of the eight Palestinian-ruled cities in the West Bank and sent troops and tanks on a raid into the northern Gaza Strip, in which Palestinian hospital sources said two Palestinians were killed.
Palestinian witnesses said two Palestinians were also killed and 15 others injured in a gun battle that erupted near Gaza's border with Egypt after militants damaged a tank with an explosive device. Two soldiers were also hurt, the army said.
In Qalqilya, Israeli troops blew up the family home of a militant killed in a recent clash, witnesses said, adding that residents were not allowed to rescue belongings and that electricity in the West Bank town was knocked out by the blast.
The army said the dead militant had dispatched a suicide bomber who killed 22 people in Israel in June 2000. Israel calls this demolition policy a tactic to deter suicide attacks.
ARAFAT PINNED DOWN PHYSICALLY, POLITICALLY
The army said it razed about 20 buildings or mobile buildings in Arafat's compound, already battered by other Israeli incursions following Palestinian attacks. Witnesses later reported seeing trenches being dug around the compound.
The action underlined Arafat's physical as well as political isolation as he struggles to control militants behind suicide bombings, carry out reforms sought by the United States and reassert his authority in a disgruntled parliament.
Arafat looks powerless to rein in the militants but also says he cannot carry out reforms sought by Washington and Israel because of the army siege and Israeli blockades in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He also has no firepower to resist the army.
Israeli tanks and bulldozers stormed the compound after two Palestinian suicide bombings -- one which killed six people on an Israeli bus on Thursday and another which killed an Israeli policeman at a bus stop in northern Israel on Wednesday.
One of Arafat's bodyguards in the sandbagged, fortress-like facility was killed by an Israeli marksman early on Friday.
EU AND UN CRITICIZE, U.S. CAUTIONS
The European Union said the Ramallah assault was ``counter-productive'' to efforts to secure Palestinian reforms and security for Israel, sentiments echoed by the United Nations envoy to the region, Terje Roed-Larsen, on Friday.
In Washington, a White House spokesman said Israel had a right to defend itself against Palestinian suicide bombings.
``The Palestinians have responsibilities to make certain that they prevent attacks, halt attacks and arrest the militants who are responsible for any attacks,'' he said.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there were high-level contacts between the U.S. and Israeli governments on a senior level throughout the day.
One official said Israel should consider the consequences of its actions ``on the ability to maintain the momentum in bringing about political reforms in the Palestinian community.''
The Israeli cabinet said it wanted to isolate Arafat but stopped short of ordering his expulsion as some members had demanded. That would stir Arab anger while Israel's main ally, the United States, seeks support for war on Iraq.
At least 1,550 Palestinians and 599 Israelis have been killed in the uprising which erupted in September 2000, after talks on Palestinian statehood stalled.
-------- landmines
Koreas begin demining border
Thursday, 19 September, 2002
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2267773.stm
Clearing the mines will take several months South and North Korean troops have begun clearing landmines from the heavily-fortified Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) that separates the two countries.
Dignitaries watched as about 100 South Korean soldiers, some armed, others carrying demining gear, marched through a previously locked barbed wire gate into the treacherous buffer zone.
South Korean officials said a similar event was taking place in the North.
The work is aimed at clearing two 250-metre (277-yard) corridors through the border so that road and rail links can be reconnected for the first time since the Korean War half a century ago.
Peppered with mines
The work follows spectacular ceremonies on both sides of the border on Wednesday to mark the resumption of the work, which was agreed to two years ago, but has been heavily delayed.
It is just the latest in a series of acts of reconciliation between the rival neighbours, which are still formally at war.
Our correspondent in Seoul, Caroline Gluck, says South Koreans are cynical about the ups and downs in cross-border relations. So much was promised two years ago, when their two leaders met in an historic summit, but so little has been delivered.
Demining the border will prove a challenge for both sides.
"Neither of us (North or South Korea) know where the mines are," said South Korean Lieutenant Colonel Kim Kye-won.
"We are being very careful in consideration of the safety of the troops involved."
Passageway to Europe
A South Korean defence ministry spokesman told Reuters news agency the number of mines was a secret, but that some dated from the Korean War, whilst others had been put down recently.
Clearance work is expected to take several months.
The work is symbolic, as it will physically reconnect the divided halves of the peninsula.
But it could also turn Korea into a transport hub.
The project involves two sets of cross-border road and rail links, on the east and west coast of the DMZ.
The plan is to link the western line to China and the eastern line to Russia, so freight can travel overland to Europe, significantly cutting costs.
The first of the rail links is expected to be re-connected as early as November.
-------- mideast
Jordan to aid US in return for cheap oil
From Conal Urquhart in Amman,
September 20, 2002
UK Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-421331,00.html
AMERICA has secured the use of Jordanian bases for any attack on Iraq by guaranteeing that Jordan will continue to receive cheap oil during the war.
The US move is part of a package of measures designed to ensure that Jordan's Government can privately support the US campaign against Iraq while publicly criticising it.
In return America will be able to use military bases in eastern Jordan. From there it could hit Scud missile launchers that Iraq would need to deploy close to the Jordanian border to attack Israel.
All Jordan's oil is supplied by Iraq at a quarter of the market rate. Any threat to the supply and cheap price would have a disastrous effect on Jordan's economy.
It is feared that in the event of a US attack Iraq would fire missiles at Israel, as it did in the Gulf War, in an attempt to bring Israel into the war.
Jordan is willing to compromise its anti-war stance because it fears that Israel could destroy an Iraqi missile armed with chemical or biological agents over Jordan and contaminate its territory.
The US would also base search-and-rescue teams in Jordan to seek out any pilots shot down by the Iraqis.
-------- nato
Designs on NATO await new elections
By Bruce I. Konviser
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020920-3634200.htm
PRAGUE - Slovakia's hopes for NATO membership may rest with the outcome of weekend elections in which the United States, NATO and the European Union have tried to steer voters away from a nationalist candidate whose governing record they consider anti-democratic.
Officials insist they are not telling voters how to vote, but merely making it clear that a government that includes former Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, and his ironically named Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (HZDS), would not be invited to join the West's two most prominent clubs.
"It's only fair that the NATO alliance explain to the people of Slovakia what the alliance's criteria are for joining," said a Western diplomat in the Slovak capital, Bratislava, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
Toward that end, Washington and Brussels have been doing what they can to help with the get-out-the-vote effort. The country's future hinges on voter turnout, according to Gregory Meseznikov, a political analyst at the Institute of Public Affairs in Bratislava.
"Turnout will be crucial," he said. "If the turnout is higher than 75 percent, then there will likely be a government that is pro-integration" with NATO.
Four years ago, 84 percent of eligible voters flooded the polls, ousting Mr. Meciar's regressive regime and installing a pro-Western coalition led by Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda. But Mr. Meseznikov said the latest polls suggest the turnout will be between 70 percent and 75 percent.
Mr. Dzurinda's government has positioned the country to be invited to join NATO when the alliance leaders meet in Prague in November.
The summit is widely expected to extend invitations to at least six countries - Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Slovakia may join the group, depending on the election results.
Despite the efforts of Mr. Dzurinda's government over the past four years, unemployment remains stubbornly high at about 20 percent. And a failure to crack down on corruption has further alienated voters.
This has opened the door to a clutch of new parties such as Robert Fico's Smer Party, which is running neck-and-neck with Mr. Meciar's HZDS. The last polls taken before a two-week, pre-election moratorium showed each party with about 20 percent of the vote.
Mr. Fico, a parliamentarian who broke away to form his own party, is as enigmatic as his party name, which simply means "direction."
Some fear that he is as anti-West as Mr. Meciar, but U.S. and European officials have withheld comment, saying he has no governing record to judge.
The country has no choice but to join NATO and the European Union, says Mr. Fico. But he has upset some people with proposals such as withdrawing all welfare benefits to any Gypsies who seek asylum in the West.
From the outgoing coalition, three center-right parties - Mr. Dzurinda's Slovak Democratic and Christian Union, the Christian Democratic Movement and the ethnic Hungarian Party - are each at about 10 percent.
Another eccentric character, and political newcomer, is Pavol Rusko. He is sometimes referred to as the Silvio Berlusconi of Slovakia because he owns a controlling stake in the country's leading television station.
He has been accused of using the station to unfairly promote his candidacy. His Ano (Yes) Party tallied 8 percent in the last poll.
Beyond that, a clutch of parties are vying to cross the critical 5 percent threshold needed to get into parliament but a high voter turnout could prevent several parties from reaching that mark.
--------
Rumsfeld to Propose New NATO Force
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-NATO.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States next week will propose creating a NATO combat force capable of responding on short notice to crises outside the alliance's borders, a senior defense official said Friday.
The rapid-reaction force would have a core of roughly 20,000 U.S., Canadian and European combat and support troops that would be capable of deploying on as little as one week's notice, said the official, who discussed the plan on condition of anonymity.
Rumsfeld is to unveil the proposal at a meeting with his NATO counterparts in Poland on Tuesday. If endorsed there, it would be presented to allied heads of government at a NATO summit in November.
The official said the idea, if approved, might take two years to bring to fruition.
Rumsfeld also will use the NATO session in Warsaw to discuss prospects for disarming Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, although the senior defense official told reporters it would be premature for Rumsfeld to ask the allies for specific military contributions to an Iraq invasion force.
Most NATO allies are either skeptical of or opposed to an attack on Iraq. Germany's forceful opposition in particular, has created strains with Washington, whereas Britain has supported the U.S. stance.
Among other issues on the Warsaw agenda: which aspiring new NATO members to allow into the alliance; the global war against terrorism; streamlining NATO's command structure, and lending NATO support to the international security assistance force that is operating in Kabul, the Afghan capital.
The meeting will be the first of its kind on the territory of a former Soviet-bloc nation. Over Russia's objections, three former Soviet allies -- Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic -- joined NATO in 1999. The November summit is expected to welcome in more -- Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, plus three countries that were in the Soviet Union: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov will be in Warsaw to meet with the NATO ministers on Wednesday.
The concept of a rapid-reaction force for NATO is not new, but the alliance has never had such a capability designed for military intervention outside NATO borders. Traditionally the alliance has focused on defending its own territory -- originally against the threat of invasion by the former Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. More recently it has operated in the Balkans, both as an offensive air force in Bosnia and Kosovo and, later, as a peacekeeping force in both of those countries.
In a new national security strategy published Friday, President Bush alluded to the concept.
``NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the alliance,'' he wrote.
In Rumsfeld's plan, troops comprising the rapid-reaction force would be contributed by all 19 alliance member countries. Troops would rotate out of the force every six months, the official said.
The official said the force would complement a planned European-only force of up to 60,000 troops that is due to become operational next year and will be designed mainly for peacekeeping missions.
Jerzy Szmajdzinski, the Polish defense minister, said Thursday in Warsaw that the U.S. is proposing that the rapid-reaction force have three main elements: ground troops, AWACS radar planes and shared allied intelligence. The U.S. official said it also could include naval forces and chemical-biological defenses.
On the subject of Afghanistan, Rumsfeld intends to urge that a European country agree to follow Turkey as leader of the international security assistance force in Kabul. The official said no allied nation has yet committed to taking that role, which Turkey will relinquish in December. Rumsfeld also wants the commitment to be stretched from the current six months to at least one year.
On the Net:
NATO: http://www.nato.int
-------- pakistan
Pakistan Denies Plot on Musharraf's Life
September 20, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-pakistan-musharraf-plot.html
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan denied on Friday there was any evidence of a plot to kill President Pervez Musharraf this week, despite a U.S. government statement to that effect.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had told a joint hearing of the Senate and House intelligence committees on Thursday that Pakistani authorities had foiled a plot to bomb Musharraf while he was visiting Karachi.
But Information Minister Nisar Memon told a news conference this was not correct.
``We did not find enough evidence to say that it was a plot,'' he said. ``We do not have any indication to confirm this.''
``Whatever Mr. Richard Armitage has said... Where did he pick up the information?'' Memon said.
Armitage's comments echoed Pakistani media reports on Thursday, which were also denied by Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider.
Memon said seven members of the militant group al Almi were arrested by Pakistani security agencies on Wednesday with substantial quantities of explosives.
Members of the same group have been accused of making an attempt on Musharraf's life when he visited Karachi in April, but this time Memon said there was no evidence to suggest the explosives were meant for the president.
On Thursday, Haider said the group was involved in a car bomb attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi in June that killed 12 people.
``They are involved in the U.S. consulate bombing for sure and they earlier had attempted -- not this time -- on the president's life,'' Haider told reporters.
Musharraf, speaking in Islamabad on Thursday after opening a two-day conference on peace and security in South Asia, also denied there had been any such plan.
``There is no threat to my life. God is great. He saves all,'' he told reporters.
-------- russia
Preventive Strikes on Pankisi Planned
Combined Reports
Friday, Sep. 20, 2002.
Moscow Times
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/09/20/001.html
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Moscow was prepared to unleash preventive strikes on militants in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, and that he would give U.S. officials evidence of a terrorist presence across Russia's southern border.
"If we see that bandits are headed in our direction and only 10 to 15 kilometers are left before the border, should we wait for them to cross the border, kill someone and disperse?" Ivanov, who is on a trip to Washington, said in televised remarks broadcast Thursday.
"Naturally, in this situation we will take a preventive action to protect our security and lives of our citizens." Ivanov's statement drew an immediate angry response from Georgia.
Dzhemal Gakhokidze, deputy chief of President Eduard Shevardnadze's Security Council, warned that a Russian operation in Georgia would amount to an "aggression and an international crime."
Ilya Shabalkin, a spokesman for federal forces in Chechnya, said Thursday that soldiers were battling several dozen rebels who had crossed into the region from Georgia, Itar-Tass reported.
Sergei Livantsov, a spokesman for the regional border guards headquarters, said that a Russian patrol spotted a dozen gunmen in southern Chechnya near the border with Georgia and called for an artillery strike, the Interfax-Military News Agency reported.
President Vladimir Putin last week ordered the military to draw up plans to carry out strikes on suspected Chechen rebel bases in Georgia's lawless Pankisi Gorge. He said the strikes would be carried out if Chechen rebels cross into Georgia while being chased by Russian forces.
Ivanov appeared to take the strike plan one step further in saying Russia would strike rebels on Georgian territory if they were considered a threat.
Ivanov, who is in Washington with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, said he and his colleague would use meetings with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell to provide "tons of proof" of terrorist activity in Georgia.
The meetings are part of a series agreed on in May between U.S. President George W. Bush and Putin to improve the two countries' cooperation in security.
Federal Security Service head Nikolai Patrushev echoed Ivanov's comments Thursday and said Russia will use force to "neutralize" terrorists in Georgia.
"We have proof that international terrorists are hiding in Georgia," Patrushev said before the opening of the summit of security chiefs from the Commonwealth of Independent States in Chisinau, Moldova.
"We will apply force to neutralize them so they don't reach Russian territory," he said. He did not elaborate. However, retired Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, who headed the Defense Ministry's international cooperation department until Putin fired him last year, warned Thursday that an attack on Georgia would be pointless militarily and damaging for Russia's reputation worldwide.
"Even if we launch airstrikes and score a hit -- usually we fail -- and kill 20 to 30 people, will it be a major victory?" Ivashov said at a news conference.
"But it will bring colossal complications to Russia," which will have a hard time proving to the United Nations that tiny Georgia was an aggressor, Ivashov said. On Thursday, the chief of Georgia's Security Council, Tedo Dzhaparidze, left for Washington, where he intended to talks with U.S. officials about Georgian-American relations and the operation in Pankisi, Shevardnadze spokesman Kakha Imnadze said. (AP, MT)
--------
U.S. Seeks Russian Support on Iraq
New York Times
September 20, 2002
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20CND-PREX.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - President Bush reached out to Russia today, hoping to get its backing behind his tough approach toward Iraq. The White House expressed guarded optimism afterward, while Russian officials were reserved and said more dialogue was needed.
Mr. Bush called President Vladimir Putin, then conferred at the White House with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who expressed concerns of their own about Chechen rebels operating within the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
Mr. Bush told Mr. Putin the United Nations must "pass resolutions that are firm, that accomplish the goals of disarmament, and don't let Iraq avoid responsibility," the chief White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told reporters. "The president is confident of the ultimate outcome of the action that will be taken in the United Nations."
Asked for more details of the conversations, and in particular whether Mr. Bush had offered, as an incentive, to pay Russia several million dollars to make up Iraqi debts to Moscow, Mr. Fleischer said, "The incentive the president is offering is logic and a straight, direct, from-the-heart talk about the risks that Russia faces, and the rest of the world faces, and in addition the American people face."
These risks are from "Saddam Hussein and his relentless quest for weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Fleischer went on. "That's what the president stresses in his phone calls with President Putin, as well as in his meetings today with the defense and foreign minister."
At one point, Mr. Bush told the diplomats, "The status quo is unacceptable," Mr. Fleischer said.
Moscow's cooperation is important to the United States because Russia has veto power in the United Nations Security Council. Russia and France, which also has veto power, have strong reservations about President Bush's determination to disarm and dislodge Saddam Hussein by military force, if necessary, and without United Nations backing, if the international organization does not endorse the United States' position.
President Bush would prefer to have United Nations backing for whatever course he deems necessary. He would also prefer to have a strong resolution of support from Congress, which he formally requested on Thursday.
The Russian foreign and defense ministers spoke briefly with reporters outside the White House after the meeting, and their remarks seemed cautious and noncommittal. There was also a certain awkwardness because of translation.
Asked whether President Bush had swayed them, Foreign Minister Ivanov replied in part, "Russia and the United States are firmly in favor that Iraq should fully comply with the provisions of all respective resolutions of the Security Council. Russia and the United States firmly believe that the international U.N. inspectors must return to Iraq."
A moment later, he said, "And we agreed to pursue the exchange of views on how to make the weapons inspectors more effective."
On an issue vital to Russia, the foreign minister said he had provided "clear proofs" to Mr. Bush that some officials in Georgia have ties to terrorists. Russia has accused Georgia of not doing enough against Chechan terrorists operating within its borders and has threatened to attack Chechans in Georgia.
"I believe that the U.S. side shares our concerns," the defense minister said. He went on to say that the problems concerning Georgia and Iraq are not parallel. "These are two completely different problems," he said. "If we are talking about Georgia, it's our firm belief that there is no need to give any further proofs to anyone. In our view, everything is already completely clear."
Mr. Fleischer said Mr. Bush had emphasized "the importance of Russia's protecting the sovereignty, the territorial integrity of Georgia." The United States can help the Georgian government and its military, through equipment and training, in dealing with terrorists, Mr. Fleischer said.
The two ministers later met with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who said the session was friendly and productive and embraced many issues. "Sergei and Igor, it's been a pleasure to have you both," Mr. Powell told the men.
----
Deserting Russia's Desperate Army
Tales of Draftee Abuse Expose Failure of Reform Hopes
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 20, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41861-2002Sep19?language=printer
VOLGOGRAD, Russia -- Ilya cried quietly, head in hands to conceal his 18-year-old angst. Ruslan stared impassively, nodding from time to time in agreement. Sasha simply seemed angry as he pulled up his sweat pants to reveal the red scars on his legs, pointed to his head injury and described the kidney pains that never quite go away.
Tired of such abuse from fellow soldiers and fearing more, the three young conscripts ran away from their military fire brigade in Siberia this month. They ended up here, hundreds of miles away in a basement in Volgograd, pouring out their stories to a local human rights group, Mothers' Right. Over 24 hours this week, Ilya, Ruslan and Sasha were among a half-dozen military runaways to show up.
Usually, they come in a trickle of scared pairs or unhappy threesomes, a shadow army of deserters whose existence the Russian military often prefers to ignore. But last week, a group of 54 conscripts crowded into this dingy Volgograd basement, still in uniform, exhausted and starving after walking a day and a night from the firing range where they were stationed. They complained that their senior officer had severely beaten five soldiers and threatened to attack the others. It was the largest mass desertion ever to become public in Russia.
The walkout was a stinging embarrassment for a city that sees its very existence as a testament to Russian military glory. In World War II, when Volgograd was called Stalingrad, more than 750,000 Soviet soldiers were killed or wounded defending the city against the Nazis in the bloodiest battle of the war.
Today, said Vyacheslav Kommisarov, a regional parliamentary leader, "There is no more Russian army to speak of. . . . Osama bin Laden could put on our uniform and march from the Far East to Moscow, and nobody would notice him."
The Volgograd desertion comes as the long and inconclusive debate about how to reform Russia's corruption-ridden, underfunded military has again become urgent. President Vladimir Putin has promised broad changes to transform the military, but he has yet to deliver. The war in Chechnya grinds on, a daily reminder of the military's inability to win a conflict that the Kremlin long ago declared over. Even a modest experiment to create the army's first all-volunteer division, started this month in the western city of Pskov, has quickly bogged down, a showcase not of reform but of the obstacles to it.
In Moscow, the day after the Volgograd desertion became public, the Russian parliament opened a new session with a closed-door briefing by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on the army's desperate situation. According to Russian media reports, he warned of the "crisis of conscription," with the military able to drum up only 11 percent of the draftees it needs. Those who do show up, he said, are often in such poor condition that they need months of supplementary nutrition to get into shape.
Even by official statistics that human rights groups believe are vastly understated, desertions are a severe problem, with 2,270 soldiers leaving their units without permission in the first six months of this year. Military suicides are rising, too, with 89 soldiers killing themselves in the first half of 2002, up from 70 in the same period a year ago, and 127 soldiers have died so far this year from non-combat-related causes.
Recent opinion polls document a crisis of confidence in the shaken military. According to a survey by the Public Opinion Foundation, 49 percent of Russians have a negative view of the military's performance while just 19 percent have a positive view. Over the past decade, the once-mighty Soviet military has disintegrated, from a 5 million-man force guarding a vast empire to a 1.2 million-man shadow of its former self. Across the political spectrum, politicians have long agreed that the only way to transform the army is to end conscription and remake it as a smaller, more professional force. Putin reiterated that pledge in his state of the nation address this year: "We can't drag our feet on the reform."
But that is exactly what has happened.
In Pskov, where a model of the future is supposed to be taking shape as the 76th Airborne Division is transformed into a unit where all soldiers would work under contract, officials say they can't find enough volunteers to make the experiment work. Military leaders complain about the unit's prohibitive cost, and last week a top official decreed the effort "on the verge of failure."
The mass desertion in Volgograd was a worst-case scenario for Russia's embattled generals, highlighting their biggest problem with an event of such scale that it was impossible to ignore or cover up.
The desertion was "like a slap in the face for the entire officer corps," said a high-ranking military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's beneath officers to beat their soldiers like that."
In the basement office of Mothers' Right, Tatyana Zazulenko, the group's impassioned founder, sketched out the scale of the secret underground of army deserters. Every year, she said, her group handles about 1,000 appeals from conscripts and their parents, 80 percent of which involve desertions. Most of the soldiers are desperately poor and uneducated; the wealthy or educated earn or buy university deferments. Many recruits are ill or physically handicapped and should not have been accepted into the army in the first place, she said. Nearly all complain about the notorious Russian practice of hazing by longer-serving soldiers, known as dedovschina.
Zazulenko said she receives many complaints about the 20th Motorized Rifle Division, from which the 54 soldiers ran away last week. They had been stationed at the nearby Prudboy firing range, a place legendary for the harsh treatment meted out there. Several years ago, an officer punished two recruits by throwing them into a pit; one died when the planks covering the hole caved in.
Still, she said, "even I was surprised" when the crowd of deserters crammed into her office last Monday after 7 p.m.
She had just received a call from one of the soldiers. "He said, 'There are many of us,' but I thought he meant three or four, the usual number." Only when she heard the tramp of boots on her stairs did she realize this was an entirely different sort of desertion.
The exhausted, hungry men asked for milk and bread. Neighbors poured out of the upstairs apartments bearing cookies, fruit and cigarettes as the men's tale spread. In the office, Zazulenko started collecting their stories. Eventually, it was decided the 54 soldiers would spend the night in the office, then turn themselves in to the military prosecutor in the morning.
Instead, soon after Zazulenko went home, top military officials, alerted finally to the runaways who had abandoned their post two days earlier, raided her office and took the soldiers away. She found out about it in a 2 a.m. phone call.
By the time the news got out the next morning, the military was spinning the story hard, even claiming falsely that the soldiers had been picked up while marching to the prosecutor's office. "It was an attempt to save face," Zazulenko said.
Just then, the interview was interrupted by a phone call.
On the line was a panicky railroad station employee. She was harboring a young runaway, she said, and she was afraid he would fall into the military's hands. Zazulenko dispatched an assistant to pick up the deserter.
His story was just one of the week's many extraordinary events at Mothers' Right. Andrei, who arrived at the office an hour later, was a slim 18-year-old in a T-shirt. He said he and a friend had run away from their unit in Astrakhan, about 250 miles southeast of Volgograd, about a week earlier. The pair borrowed civilian clothes from friends in the unit, then climbed over the fence, he recalled. They walked for three days, with no food or money. Then they were picked up by a truck driver, who took them as far as Volgograd.
Like many other deserters, Andrei said he fled physical abuse and blackmail. A conscript from the Stavropol region about 300 miles southwest of Volgograd, he only started serving in the army this summer. Almost immediately, an officer beat another conscript in front of Andrei, cracking his head open with a wooden chair. Then, Andrei said, a lieutenant ordered him and his friend to come up with a bribe of 10,000 rubles, about $320. He kicked them and threatened more beatings to come, Andrei said.
On Tuesday morning, Andrei was at the Volgograd railway station. When he asked a young woman working there to help him call home, she called Mothers' Right instead. Andrei didn't tell her he was the son of a high-ranking military counterintelligence officer. The fact that even a son of such a top officer could desert the army, Zazulenko said later, "is unbelievable. We simply didn't believe him."
By later that day, Andrei had called his father. "I think he'll understand why I did it," Andrei said.
In the meantime, though, the ordeal was just beginning for Zazulenko's earlier threesome of runaways: Ilya, Ruslan and Sasha. Ruslan had been dragged away in handcuffs that morning from the Volgograd post office, where he was using a public telephone to try to contact his mother. Sasha's tearful mother, Valentina, had come back to Mothers' Right seeking advice on what to do next. She had hidden the other two boys.
"What shall we do?" she cried. "If they are sent back to their unit, they will be killed."
-------- spy agencies
Pentagon official urges broader focus for intelligence
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020920-32416460.htm
U.S. intelligence agencies need to focus on terrorist groups as closely as they do nation-states, a senior Pentagon official told a congressional panel yesterday.
"For the past 50 years, U.S. intelligence has concentrated on defeating external nation-state threats," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said before the joint House-Senate panel investigating pre-September 11 intelligence failures.
"It is now clear we must apply the same level of effort to non-state actors and threats that emanate within our borders," he said.
One of the lessons from the September 11 attacks is that "when people threaten openly to kill Americans, we should take them very seriously," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
"That is true of Osama bin Laden and it is true of the regime in Baghdad," he said. "We must not assume that our enemies share our views about what is rational or irrational."
He said that intelligence funding was increased in 1999 but was cut for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
Mr. Wolfowitz appeared before the committee with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage during the second day of open hearings.
On Wednesday, Eleanor Hill, the committee staff director, revealed that intelligence reports in the months leading up to September 11 showed that al Qaeda was planning attacks in the United States and that the attacks could be carried out using hijacked airliners.
She testified that an interim staff inquiry found "mistakes" by U.S. intelligence agencies in not focusing enough on the threat from Osama bin Laden and terrorism.
Mr. Armitage said that in the months before September 11 the intelligence agencies reported that "we might have an explosion in Kenya from an explosive-laden aircraft."
"I do not specifically remember a mass-casualty event," he said. "I, in general, perceived the threat to be at our interest overseas, primarily in the [Persian] Gulf, some in Southeast Asia and most definitely in Israel."
Mr. Wolfowitz said another lesson from the September 11 attacks is that the U.S. government should not underestimate the skill of terrorists in concealing activities and deceiving the United States.
"They understand how we collect intelligence, how we are organized and how we analyze information," he said. "Just like them, our intelligence services must constantly adapt and innovate.
"We need to adapt our intelligence system to the information age," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "Old stovepipes are being broken down and must be broken down. The culture of compartmentation is being reconsidered and must be reconsidered. In all that we do, we must emphasize speed of exchange and networking to push information out to people who need it, when they need it, wherever they are."
Greater information sharing is needed to better deal with terrorism, he said.
The Pentagon, which controls the majority of the estimated $35 billion annual intelligence budget, is setting up a new undersecretariat for intelligence as a "focal point" for better information sharing, he said.
Mr. Wolfowitz said U.S. intelligence agencies do not have a full understanding of the network of Islamic terrorist groups that have conducted attacks on Americans.
"We don't have that kind of precise information about what groups are there," he said. "We don't know what countries or what groups have sleeper cells buried around the world now. We know what people have capabilities, and we know what people have declared hostile intentions towards us."
CIA spokesman Bill Harlow issued a statement yesterday disputing some aspects of Miss Hill's report, particularly suggestions that the agency did not devote significant resources to fighting terrorism before the attacks.
The agency doubled personnel in its Counterterrorism Center - the nerve center for fighting terrorism - between 1997 and the attacks, Mr. Harlow said. Before the September 11 attacks, the agency had 115 analysts looking at terrorism issues - nearly three times what Miss Hill's report stated.
-------- un
U.S, Britain Lean on United Nations over Iraq
September 20, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-un.html
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and Britain stepped up pressure on the Security Council on Friday to adopt a tough new Iraq resolution before any resumption of U.N. arms inspections, but Russia resisted the idea.
U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said his teams plan to go to Iraq on Oct. 15, setting in motion a phased timetable that will include a few early inspections designed to test Iraq's willingness to let them work freely.
U.S. military planners are on a separate countdown for a possible war to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, which President Bush has asked Congress to authorize.
British U.N. Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock met with the 10 non-permanent members of the 15-nation Security Council late on Friday to lobby for a new resolution demanding unfettered access for the arms experts and spelling out the consequences if Baghdad failed to cooperate in disarming its weapons of mass destruction as required by past council resolutions.
Greenstock ``argued for a strong resolution that would make clear to Baghdad that we are in a new situation and that non-compliance will lead to consequences,'' said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Russia, which, like Britain, China, France and the United States, has veto power on the council, has said the inspectors should go back to work without any new council mandate.
Russian President Vladimir Putin told Bush by telephone on Friday that the priority was to ``concentrate on the fastest possible deployment of U.N. inspection and monitoring missions'' in Iraq, according to a Kremlin statement.
Bush later met Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov at the White House.
The Russian foreign minister told reporters afterwards that Russia and the United States had agreed to consult further on how to make the inspections effective.
Bush, however, is in no mood to wait a long time before inspections resume. ``This is, again, why the president is focused on disarmament. That remains the key, not the process of inspectors,'' said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer when asked about Blix's timetable.
Fleischer predicted that in the end, the Security Council would reach agreement on a new resolution after further diplomatic consultations.
``DISARMAMENT, NOT INSPECTIONS''
A senior administration official said inspections might well play a role in disarming Saddam, who promised under the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire terms to scrap his nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic weapons programs.
``But the United States is withholding at this point, pending discussions and pending consultations, on what means you use to disarm him,'' the official said. ``The key here is to get an effective resolution that deals with the threat, not just to get one that might deal with weapons inspections.''
Bush has asked Congress for authority to ``use all means,'' including force, to topple Saddam and disarm Iraq unilaterally, regardless of what the United Nations decides.
Most Security Council members favor a new resolution, but no consensus has emerged on how toughly it should be worded.
Diplomats said the United States, unlikely to get direct authorization for the use of force, was seeking language finding Iraq in ``material breach'' of U.N. mandates.
In U.S. eyes, this would legalize an attack. Diplomats said this was questionable under the U.N. Charter, allowing waverers to claim they never agreed to a military strike.
Saddam has appealed to the United Nations to stop the Bush administration from attacking his country.
In a letter read by his foreign minister to the 190-member U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, Saddam denied he had any banned weapons and accused the United States of wanting to destroy Iraq in a bid to control Middle Eastern oil supplies.
Britain, Washington's staunchest ally, said Iraq had lied in saying that it was clear of proscribed weaponry.
``It retains the capacity to use chemical and other weapons of terror against its neighbors and its own people, as it has done before,'' a British Foreign Office official said.
``By pretending this is not so, Iraq has reinforced the need for the U.N. Security Council to insist on intrusive inspections with an urgent timetable,'' the official added.
France said a new council resolution was possible, but suggested it did not need to go beyond a 1999 resolution that set out terms for inspections and offered an eventual suspension of sanctions if Iraq cooperated fully.
``The international community must be very firm on the return of U.N. inspectors and they must be able to do their job without any hindrance, in line with resolution 1284. The issue could be dealt with through a resolution,'' French President Jacques Chirac's spokeswoman, Catherine Colonna, said.
The inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in December 1998, just before a U.S.-British bombing blitz designed to punish Baghdad for its alleged failure to cooperate with them.
-------- us
Military planners favor February
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020920-92651744.htm
U.S. military planners are focusing on February as the optimum time to begin a war against Iraq, and they would rely greatly on defecting Iraqi units to topple Saddam Hussein, according to senior defense officials.
Planners also will seek to design a force buildup that takes weeks, not the six months the exercise took in the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Troops would be more widely dispersed so as not to create large base camps that could be more easily targeted by Saddam's mobile Scud missiles. The Pentagon has not adopted a final time frame or military option.
The military also is looking at ways to hit as many targets from the air as possible in the opening days of the campaign. Commanders will depend on Tomahawk cruise missiles and B-2 bombers, committing 10 to 16 of the stealth aircraft, each of which can drop more than a dozen 2,000-pound satellite-guided bombs on different targets.
Once Iraq's estimated 60-plus surface-to-air missile sites are destroyed, B-52s and B-1s would join the war, also dropping precision-guided weapons on critical command centers and Saddam's known headquarters. The bombers will fly from the United States, the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and an air base in Fairford, England.
The senior defense officials said a war plan is emerging from U.S. Central Command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Joint Staff, with input from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"He is not afraid to offer his opinion," an official said of Mr. Rumsfeld.
Much of the debate centers on the size of the U.S. force - the number of ground troops, combat aircraft and Navy carrier battle groups. The officials said the U.S. troop size ranges from 75,000 to 250,000 soldiers.
Officials say Gen. Tommy G. Franks, who heads U.S. Central Command and would run the war, advocates a relatively large ground presence, although not nearly as large as the 550,000 troops deployed for Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 war. Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz are said to favor a smaller force. Mr. Rumsfeld is described as advocating a medium-strength force.
"The generals always worry about risks to the troops," said a senior defense official, explaining why uniformed officers want a large number of ground forces.
Mr. Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. military has sufficient forces to fight and win in Iraq, if President Bush ordered such an operation.
"We would not be short of troops," Mr. Rumsfeld testified. "You don't know how long something's going to last or what it's going to require. You can't know that, because the first thing that goes by the board is a plan in a conflict."
Two defense sources said that February would be the most likely time to strike, with hostilities over by no later than April. This would give United States and its allies optimum fighting weather before the oppressive heat of the Persian Gulf spring and summer sets in.
Officials said the timeline has not been approved and that Mr. Bush has not agreed to a plan. The presence of weapons inspectors from the United Nations inside Iraq could be a stumbling block and could prevent Mr. Bush from ordering an attack on his timetable.
In Afghanistan, the United States relied heavily on indigenous anti-Taliban fighters to win the war.
In Iraq, America would rely on defectors and dissidents within Saddam's army, two senior officials said.
"We know the names of every division commander," a military officer said. "The Iraqi Army and the Iraqi people want to get rid of Saddam. What they need is us as an enabling force."
Mr. Rumsfeld told the House panel that there's "no question but that there would be Iraqis who would be helping to liberate their own country."
Once U.S. cruise missiles and heavy bombers suppress Iraq's air defenses, tactical aircraft from land bases and Navy carriers would swoop in to hit military targets, such as the six-division Republican Guard.
The Persian Gulf states of Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar will allow U.S. aircraft to launch.
One defense official said that closer military ties being cemented between Washington and other Gulf states is one reason Saudi officials this week raised the possibility that the U.S. military would be able to use Prince Sultan air base for an attack. Riyadh worries that it may become less relevant to U.S. security concerns and has backtracked from its earlier position that the sprawling facility would be off-limits for any U.S. assault on Baghdad.
The official also said Mr. Rumsfeld's decision this summer to allow pilots to bomb command sites - not just radars and missile sites - in Iraq's southern and northern no-fly zones "is a prelude to war."
This official confirmed that many senior policy-makers believe a war with Iraq will be quick, won in weeks not months, if the right strategy is adopted. They based this prediction on Iraq's weakened military since 1991 and big U.S. advances in surveillance and precision-guided weapons.
In testimony on Wednesday, Mr. Rumsfeld seemed to agree with that assessment when he answered a question about whether Israel would be vulnerable to Iraqi missile attacks after a U.S. strike on Saddam's forces.
Mr. Rumsfeld said, "With respect to Israel, there is no question but that Iraq's neighbors, were there to be a conflict, would have a degree of vulnerability. And there's also no question but that that would probably not last for a very long time."
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, asked whether there was a "significant level of dissent" among the Joint Chiefs and combatant commanders about the U.S. military's preparedness to go to war against Iraq.
"Senator Warner, I'll just keep it real short: Absolutely not," said Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs chairman.
Mr. Wolfowitz, a strong advocate of military action to topple Saddam, yesterday compared the Iraqi dictator with Osama bin Laden, who ordered the September 11 attacks on America.
"When people threaten openly to kill Americans, we should take them very seriously," he told a joint congressional intelligence committee. "That is true of Osama bin Laden, and it is true of the regime in Baghdad."
--------
Air Force Test Missile Out West
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Missile-Test.html
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) -- An Air Force missile test Thursday provided a spectacular light show seen over California and much of the West, as far away as Utah and New Mexico.
The colorful contrail was seen soon after the unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile blasted off at 7:36 p.m. from an underground silo at the Vandenberg military base north of Santa Barbara.
``The smoke went up in spirals as the sun was setting and turned into an orange, amber color. It was like a flower going into bloom pretty quickly,'' said Simon Cox, who saw it from a restaurant terrace in Santa Barbara.
The missile traveled about 4,200 miles in about 30 minutes, striking a predetermined target at the Kwajalein Missile Range in the western chain of the Marshall Islands, the Air Force said.
Vandenberg spokeswoman Kelly Gabel said clear conditions were responsible for the spectacular light show.
``We do this two or three times a year, but because the weather was so perfect we decided to launch it early,'' Gabel said. As a result, people were still awake to see it, and although the sun had set, sunlight below the horizon glinted off unspent fuel particles and water droplets.
``Suddenly we're getting calls from people as far away as New Mexico who saw it and want to know what it is,'' Gabel said.
The mission was directed by the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg and the 341th Space Wing and the 341st Space Wing, from Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana.
The purpose was to test launch systems and the missile's accuracy and reliability.
-------- propaganda wars
CNN rejects ads by Jewish groups
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020920-5627940.htm
CNN has refused to air a pair of 30-second announcements from two Jewish groups, citing a company policy that prohibits it from broadcasting "advocacy ads" about countries in conflict.
The American Jewish Committee (AJC) and Israel 21 - a nonprofit group focusing on Israel "beyond the Middle Eastern conflict" - says the TV spots stress common ground between America and Israel.
"America is Israel's only real ally in the Middle East. Israel is a democracy that respects the rights of individuals and gives all citizens a right to vote. All people - Christians, Muslims and Jews enjoy freedom of religion, press and speech," states the AJC spot, which can be seen on the group's Web site (www.ajc.org).
"In Israel, unlike other countries in the region, all people - Christians, Muslims and Jews - enjoy freedom of religion, press and speech," the announcement states.
The companion spot from Israel 21 offers similar content.
"These are messages about values. We want Americans to know just how much Israel and the United States have in common," spokesman Larry Weinberg said yesterday.
The news channel does not interpret it that way.
"CNN does not take international advocacy ads concerning regions in conflict. This is the same policy we applied when turning down ads that dealt with Egypt, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia," a CNN spokesperson said yesterday.
"Calling our announcements issue advocacy is wrong, and it's a bad business decision," countered Mr. Weinberg.
"It's outrageous," said AJC spokesman Kenneth Bandler.
Meanwhile, the spots have been airing on local cable outlets in the New York, Washington and Houston markets since Sept. 12, and will do so for several weeks.
"CNN was the only network we approached. When they refused us, we went to the local suppliers," said Mr. Bandler. "Our message is now on CNN, Fox, MSNBC in some large markets, and will eventually will be on the top 100 markets around the country."
Neither group is calling CNN anti-Semitic for its refusal to air the spots.
"But their response certainly feeds the perception that CNN is hostile," said a source close to the situation.
In recent years, CNN has been criticized by such organizations as the Anti-Defamation League and the Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting In America, a pro-Israel media-watchdog group based in Boston. Both claim CNN has an anti-Israel bias and has broadcast inaccurate or offensive content.
The situation was particularly piquant in June after CNN founder Ted Turner implied that Israel had engaged in terrorism against the Palestinians, prompting Israeli officials to condemn the remarks and consider banning CNN from the country's airwaves.
CNN's message, however, seems open to interpretation.
A minister in Yasser Arafat's Cabinet "welcomed Mr. Turner's comments," Britain's Guardian newspaper said at the time. "Many Palestinians complain just as bitterly of a pro-Israeli bias in CNN's coverage - mocking it as the 'Zionist News Network.'"
CNN has collected critics elsewhere as well. Earlier this year, the Media Research Center called the network "a propaganda tool for Fidel Castro" in a study that found that CNN gave "six times as much airplay to communist spokesmen than non-communist spokesmen."
--------
GAO: Pentagon Can't Track Donations
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Military-Donations.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon can't keep track of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons and emergency aid given to friendly countries, congressional investigators found.
The Defense Department agency that's supposed to track the donations reported about $300 million worth of transfers since 1993, while records from the four military services showed close to $725 million worth, the General Accounting Office said in a report released Friday.
The Pentagon agreed it needs to create a record-keeping system for an accurate accounting of the donations to other countries, known as drawdowns.
Federal law allows a president to order the military or other federal agencies to give equipment, training or other support to friendly countries to deal with emergencies, fight narcotics trafficking or meet other needs. Drawdowns offer the president a quick way to help allies without getting congressional approval, and the use of that authority has expanded dramatically in the past decade.
The Pentagon office created to keep track of drawdowns, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, uses a 1960s-era tracking system that isn't consistently updated, the GAO report found.
For example, when President Clinton ordered 88 tanks transferred to Jordan in 1996, the DSCA reported to Congress that 50 tanks had been authorized. Although all 88 tanks were delivered, the DSCA's tracking system only shows that 5 were delivered, the GAO report said.
In another example, the DSCA's system reported that nothing was been delivered in a 1993 drawdown to Israel, while Army records showed that Apache and Black Hawk helicopters and services worth $272 million had been turned over, the report said.
The Defense Department said in a written response to the report that the DSCA lacks the money to track drawdowns properly but would try to update its systems and get better information from the military service branches.
The GAO, Congress' investigative arm, also cited other problems with the drawdown program, including:
--Impact on military units forced to give up the equipment used in drawdowns. Money for transporting and refurbishing the equipment, as well as training recipients how to use and repair it, is not covered. Those unreimbursed costs have totaled about $725 million since 1993, the report said. The military is reimbursed only for the current value of the equipment, which makes replacement difficult.
--Difficulty in maintaining the equipment by the recipients. The United States provides spare parts for only a year or two, and because much of the equipment is old, it is difficult to maintain. In one high-profile incident, Mexico returned 72 UH-1H Huey helicopters the United States donated for anti-drug efforts because of such problems.
On the Net:
Defense Security Cooperation Agency: www.dsca.osd.mil
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Bush Supports an Independent 9/11 Probe
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Intelligence.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Reversing course, President Bush said Friday he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Momentum for such a commission has grown in recent months. The House has already voted to approve a commission as part of its intelligence authorization bill.
But the White House had opposed an independent commission, citing concerns about possible leaks and tying up officials involved in the fight against terrorism.
In a letter to Capitol Hill, the president's congressional liaison said Bush wanted to focus immediately after Sept. 11 on preventing future attacks and restructuring government agencies to meet the new threats. With that effort now underway, and congressional hearings into the attacks well along, the administration thought it was time to get behind the creation of a commission,
``Now that the work of the intelligence committees is nearing its end, we must take the appropriate next steps,'' the letter said.
The White House said that before now it had been concerned that an additional inquiry or commission into the attacks would be duplicative and ``divert the attention and resources of both the Congress and relevant executive agencies away from their important work of combating terrorism.''
Asked to explain his opposition to a commission in May, Bush said that an inquiry into what took place before the attacks should be handled by Congress. ``Since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, It's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee,'' he said during a trip to Germany.
White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush decided to back the commission now in response to pressure from victims' family members who had lobbied for a review that went beyond potential intelligence lapses and also examined aviation and other issues.
The White House letter only explicitly sanctions an inquiry into such issues as ``coordination between the intelligence community and non-national security agencies, border security and visa issues, commercial aviation and the role of state and local governments.''
Stephen Push, a leader of a group of Sept. 11 relatives, said the apparent exclusion of intelligence agencies is disappointing. Additional focus on intelligence lapses has been made more urgent by this week's congressional hearings on the attacks, with their disclosures about multiple warnings of attacks before Sept. 11.
``This is disgraceful what we're learning about intelligence failures and the White House is trying to cover it up,'' Push said.
Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., who led House efforts to form a commission, said he welcomes the proposal -- but also wants the commission to look into intelligence.
``Everything should be on the table,'' he said.
The change of heart comes as hearings continue on Capitol Hill.
On Friday, a congressional investigator said in a report that FBI headquarters blocked an agent's request to aggressively pursue one of the future hijackers less than two weeks before Sept. 11. The agent warned ``someday, someone will die.''
The unidentified New York-based FBI agent had asked headquarters Aug. 29, 2001, to allow his office to use its ``full criminal investigative resources'' to find Khalid al-Mihdhar, one of two hijackers who intelligence agents had identified as attending an al-Qaida meeting in Malaysia in January 2000.
In an e-mail, headquarters denied the request because al-Mihdhar was not under criminal investigation. It cited the ``wall'' between intelligence and law enforcement.
The agent replied: ``Someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain `problems'.''
The exchange was included in a report prepared by Eleanor Hill, staff director for the House and Senate intelligence committees' inquiry into intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Hill told lawmakers that the United States failed to pursue al-Mihdhar and another hijacker, Nawaf al-Hazmi, who also attended the Malaysia meeting. Intelligence agencies ``had, but missed, opportunities both to deny them entry into the United States and subsequently to generate investigative and surveillance action regarding their activities within the United States,'' she said.
CIA interest in the Malaysia meeting faded after January 2000, gradually resurfacing after a participant was identified as being a principal planner in the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
CIA employees told congressional staff that the Malaysia meeting was seen ``as just one of many counterterrorist efforts'' at the time. But intelligence documents show it was considered important enough to be discussed in briefings with the CIA director in January 2000.
In March 2000, a cable from an overseas CIA station noted that al-Hazmi had flown into Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2000. The cable was marked ``Action required: None, FYI.''
Al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi lived openly in the United States. While residing in San Diego in 2000, they used their true names on an apartment lease and al-Mihdhar obtained a driver's license. They also took flight lessons in San Diego in May 2000.
Not until Aug. 23, 2001, were the two men put on the State Department's watch list for denying visas. By then, both were in the United States. Both al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
Hill said CIA officials told her there were no procedures at the CIA Counterterrorism Center for putting suspects on watch lists and they had received no training on watch lists.
--------
Justice Dept. Won't Release Names
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Detainees.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department argued Friday that terrorists will be able to improve their plans of attack if the government is forced to release names of detainees rounded up after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Requiring disclosure will provide terrorist groups identities of those people the government has investigated, and ``equally important, those whom it has not investigated in connection with the terrorist attacks,'' the department said in court papers filed in federal appeals court.
``This information can enable terrorist groups to alter their own plans, allow them to provide misinformation and undermine the usefulness of informants,'' the department said.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered on Aug. 2 that the detainees' names to be put on the public record, saying the government failed to prove the need for a blanket policy of secrecy for the more than 1,200 people picked up since the attacks a year ago.
Kessler rejected the government's contention that the al-Qaida terrorist network would be tipped to how much progress investigators had made if the detainees' names were released. She said al-Qaida already would be aware its operatives in the United States were missing.
In its latest appeals court filing, the department declared the lower court ruling was unworkable, saying it would require the government to contact former detainees to see if they want their names released. These people may have been deported or may otherwise be difficult to contact, the department said.
``The issue here is not whether detainees can be held incommunicado, but whether the government is required ... to disclose the identities of persons who would prefer that their connection to the investigation not be made public,'' said the Justice Department.
--------
Liberties Group Urges Court Action
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Secret-Court.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A secret appeals court should turn aside the Bush administration's effort to expand surveillance powers in the war on terror, civil liberties groups said Friday.
In court papers, the groups said expansion would jeopardize the rights to privacy and to engage in lawful public dissent and the warrant, notice and judicial review rights guaranteed by the Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
``The government should not be permitted to turn the quest for foreign intelligence into a `pro forma justification for any degree of intrusion into zones of privacy,''' the court papers, stated quoting a 1973 case on Fourth Amendment rights.
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has not publicly disclosed any of its rulings in nearly two decades, rejected in May some of the Justice Department guidelines for FBI terrorism searches and wiretaps as ``not reasonably designed'' to safeguard the privacy of Americans.
The Justice Department quickly amended its guidelines and won the court's approval. Meanwhile, Bush administration officials are appealing the restrictions, arguing that the limits inhibit the sharing of information between terrorism investigators and criminal detectives.
In their court filing, the civil liberties groups said they do not dispute that the government should be able to prosecute spies and terrorists.
But ``the government simply misses the constitutional point'' when it argues that the need to prosecute spies and terrorists justifies using the surveillance even for investigations that are purely criminal, the groups said in their court papers.
The Justice Department says the special court has incorrectly interpreted the Patriot Act, and the effect of that incorrect interpretation is to limit the kind of coordination that the Justice Department regards as vital.
The American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty program filed the brief, together with the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Center for National Security Studies, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Open Society Institute.
On the Net:
Justice Department brief before the appeals court: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/082102appeal.html
-------- terrorism
Court Filings Are Coded for Al Qaeda, Officials Say
By PHILIP SHENON
September 20, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/national/20COUR.html?ei=1&en=0dfc122febb7d2f5&ex=1033540724&pagewanted=print&position=top
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 - Federal prosecutors warned today that Zacarias Moussaoui might be issuing coded messages to other followers of Al Qaeda through handwritten court motions and urged a federal judge to bar him from filing documents that might contain secret messages.
In court documents, the prosecutors said Mr. Moussaoui, the only person charged in the United States in the Sept. 11 attacks, "is presumably attempting to communicate with fellow members of that deadly terrorist organization."
"It is widely known that members of Al Qaeda have communicated in code, and thus sealing the entirety of the defendant's messages is the only way to serve the government's compelling interest in preventing transmission of such messages," they said in the filing in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va.
The judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, has refused to make public several court filings made in recent weeks by Mr. Moussaoui, a 34-year-old French citizen who has acknowledged that he is a Qaeda member loyal to Osama bin Laden.
Judge Brinkema has said she will keep them under seal because they contained racist and threatening remarks.
In many of his handwritten court filings, Mr. Moussaoui, who is acting as his own lawyer, has used inflammatory language in attacking Judge Brinkema, his court-appointed legal advisers, the F.B.I. and Jews, among others.
In their papers today, federal prosecutors urged Judge Brinkema to go further and instruct the court clerk to refuse to accept into the court record any filing from Mr. Moussaoui that contains "threats, racial slurs, calls to action, attempts to convey messages to someone other than this court, or other irrelevant and inappropriate language."
News organizations have asked Judge Brinkema to reconsider her original order and agree to unseal the court motions that are currently shielded from public view.
They said in court papers last week that the order "does not strike the correct balance between the government's legitimate law enforcement/security interest and the public's First Amendment and common law access to judicial records."
Judge Brinkema is expected to schedule a hearing this month to hear from lawyers from the news organizations.
In their court papers, the news organizations have acknowledged that they do not have an "absolute" right of access to Mr. Moussaoui's filings. But they said the effort to block his court papers from public scrutiny singled out "speech by the defendant on the basis of its content, divorced from any compelling need for secrecy."
----
Key Dates in Hijackers' Movements
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Intelligence-Glance.html
The U.S. government learned of two of the future Sept. 11 hijackers in early 2000, but missed several opportunities to track them and prevent their entry into the United States. Had they been put on watch lists before late August 2001, they probably would have been denied entry into the country. Whether their arrests would have led to the uncovering of the Sept. 11 plot is open to speculation.
On Friday, the congressional investigation into the attacks released details of the actions by the CIA, FBI and others about the two hijackers. Here's a timeline of relevant events surrounding the two hijackers, according to the congressional report and other sources:
--December 1999: U.S. intelligence learns about an upcoming meeting of suspected al-Qaida members in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, when it intercepts telephone conversations. The phone number was provided to the United States by a suspect in the previous year's bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. The CIA alerts Malaysian authorities to watch the meeting. The CIA learns the name of one attendee: Khalid al-Mihdhar, a future hijacker.
--Dec. 14: Ahmed Ressam, while entering the country from Canada, is arrested by a sharp-eyed U.S. Customs agent in Washington state. Ressam, who is later associated with al-Qaida, had a car with a trunk full of explosives that he may have intended to detonate at Los Angeles International Airport at the height of the millennium holiday travel period.
--Jan. 5, 2000: The CIA informs FBI agents about the meeting and of al-Mihdhar, according to CIA officials.
--Jan. 5-8: Al-Mihdhar and future hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi, both Saudis, meet with a Yemeni named Tawfiq Attash Khallad and others in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysian authorities acquire photographs of the attendees, but not audio. The subject of the meeting still is not known.
--Jan. 15: Al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi fly from Bangkok, Thailand, to Los Angeles. They are not tracked.
--March: The CIA learns al-Hazmi's identity and that he traveled to Los Angeles. At some later point before Sept. 11, U.S. authorities learn the identity of al-Hazmi's brother and future hijacker Salem al-Hazmi, but little else about him. They also later discover that al-Mihdhar was on the same flight as Nawaf al-Hazmi.
--Spring: Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi are living openly in San Diego and are taking flight lessons.
--June 10: Al-Mihdhar flies from Los Angeles to Frankfurt, Germany.
--July 7: Al-Hazmi applies to extend his visa.
--Oct. 12: Suicide bombers with ties to al-Qaida attack the destroyer USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors.
--December 2000: Al-Hazmi moves to Mesa, Ariz., to live with American Airlines Flight 77 hijacker Hani Hanjour.
--Jan. 4, 2001: U.S. authorities identify Khallad as one of the masterminds of the USS Cole bombing. He is now considered a senior al-Qaida leader who remains at large. Around this time, U.S. officials also receive information suggesting he was at the Malaysia meeting.
--May: To assist in the Cole investigation, the CIA supplies the FBI with photographs from the Malaysia meeting -- including one of al-Mihdhar.
--June 11: FBI and CIA officials meet in New York in connection with the Cole investigation and the Malaysia meeting. There is some dispute over what happened at the meeting, but FBI agents said they sought intelligence information that the CIA officers declined to supply. CIA officials say they kept the FBI informed about their discoveries.
--June 13: Al-Mihdhar obtains another U.S. visa in Saudi Arabia and claims he has never been to the United States before.
--July 4: Al-Mihdhar re-enters the United States.
--July 13: A CIA officer assigned to the FBI researches Khallad's presence at the Malaysia meeting. He sends an e-mail to the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, ``This is a major league killer, who orchestrated the Cole attack and possibly the embassy bombings.''
--Aug. 21: Analysts at the Counterterrorism Center piece together some of al-Mihdhar's and al-Hazmi's movements, and raise concerns that they were in Los Angeles about the time Ressam may have intended to attack LAX.
--Aug. 23: The CIA asks the State Department, INS, Customs Service and FBI requesting al-Mihdhar, al-Hazmi and two others from the Malaysia meeting be placed on watch lists and denied access to the United States. They are placed on relevant watch lists the next day.
The CIA knew al-Mihdhar was in the United States but he now could be detained if he attempts to leave. The State Department begins the process to revoke their visas. The FBI begins looking for them.
--Aug. 29: A New York-based FBI agent asks headquarters to allow his office to use its ``full criminal investigative resources'' to find al-Mihdhar. But headquarters denies the request because al-Mihdhar was not under criminal investigation. The frustrated agent replies: ``Someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain `problems'.''
--Sept. 11: American Airlines 77, with hijackers al-Mihdhar, al-Hazmi, Hanjour, Salem al-Hazmi and Majed Moqed on board, crashes into the Pentagon, killing 189 people.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- energy
[Once again, Abraham is suggesting the "alternative" to reliance on oil is nuclear and conservation. Wind, sun, hydrogen don't seem to enter into his equation. et]
OPEC Asked to Explain Production
By Hans Greimel
AP Business Writer
Friday, September 20, 2002; 1:50 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44516-2002Sep20?language=printer
OSAKA, Japan -- Oil importers will ask OPEC to better explain its decision holding crude output steady when energy producers and consumers meet at a high-profile conference this weekend, officials said.
"We have heard from OPEC their position, but I think it's important that they explain a little bit more to us," European Union Energy and Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio said Friday.
OPEC finished a meeting on Thursday in Osaka by announcing it would keep output unchanged through the end of the year, despite fears among developed nations that their economies will suffer. That decision will likely be hotly debated at the International Energy Forum that opens Saturday in Osaka.
"In the last decades, every economic recession has been linked to dramatic increases in oil prices," de Palacio said in Tokyo, where she stopped en route to the forum.
The Osaka energy conference is intended to promote stability by opening a dialogue between buyers and sellers, but OPEC's unanimous decision Thursday to leave output unchanged, and the West's cool response, indicates a divide the two sides will not easily narrow.
U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the outcome of OPEC's latest meeting shows the need for America to seek out alternatives to oil imports, including a greater reliance on nuclear power and more drilling for domestic crude in Alaska.
"The one thing each of these deliberations demonstrates is that countries take action that is in their best interest, and that is what the United States must do," Abraham told The Associated Press following a luncheon speech in Tokyo.
"We can produce more oil and gas in Alaska and do it in an environmentally safe fashion, and it makes sense for the United States to do so for our own reasons and for global energy reasons," Abraham said.
A controversial element of President Bush's energy plan would involve opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, an idea that faces massive opposition from environmental interests.
While Abraham said America might start pumping more of its own oil, de Palacio said the European Union would talk to Russia about closer cooperation on oil sales.
Despite worries in the West that high oil prices could undermine the economic recovery, the OPEC ministers said the market seems well supplied.
And even though their top customers might be talking about alternatives, OPEC continues to supply the bulk of the oil that goes onto the global market and nothing is going to change that anytime soon.
Even Norway, the world's second-largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, said Friday that OPEC should boost output later this year if prices don't ease.
OPEC predicts only moderate economic growth for the rest of the year, and many of its ministers say the price has been pushed to around $30 per barrel only by fears the United States will attack Iraq.
"We believe so far, there's no shortage of supply," Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said Friday in defense of OPEC's decision. "We won't act if prices are up based on political reasons."
Earlier Friday, the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based industry watchdog group representing Western consuming nations, reiterated its view that OPEC should pump more.
"We hope we're all moving into a situation of an economic recovery, which could be helped by a lower oil price," IEA Executive Chairman Robert Priddle told Dow Jones Newswires.
Priddle predicted that OPEC's decision will stir up volatility in the oil markets, and added it won't do anything to assist the global economy.
----
Energy Bill Loophole Aimed at Westar
Fri Sep 20, 2002
By LIBBY QUAID,
Associated Press Writer
White House - AP Cabinet & State
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20020921/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/westar_exemption&e=2
WASHINGTON (AP) - A proposal being considered as part a broad energy bill would create a loophole that critics maintain could exempt hundreds of investment companies from federal regulation.
The provision would allow affiliates of utility holding companies an exemption from the Investment Securities Act, which was enacted in 1940 as a response to a wave of corporate business scandals and protect investors.
Rep. Joe Barton ( news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a supporter of the provision, maintains it would benefit only one company, Topeka, Kan.-based Westar Energy. Westar executives say they need the provision because they are considering splitting up their company.
But opponents to the measure, including Rep. Edward Markey ( news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., argue it would have much broader impact and allow hundreds of similar affiliates of utility holding companies to also avoid the 1940 law.
He noted that Enron Corp., was granted a similar exemption by the Securities and Exchange Commission ( news - web sites) in 1997, making it easier for the scandal-ridden company to engage in some of its questionable business dealings.
Markey tried on Thursday to strip the language from a package of electricity proposals that House members hope to make part of the broader energy bill. His effort failed on a party-line vote. House and Senate conferees are expected to take up the electricity measures next week.
Barton did not return telephone calls from The Associated Press on Friday seeking comment.
Westar executives said they, too, believed the Kansas company would be the only one affected. They said they need the exemption if they are to split up its business operations.
Part of Westar's business - burglar alarm systems and ownership in a natural gas company - is now unregulated, but the Investment Securities Act would be triggered if the company were to split, unless it is given an exemption, according to Westar officials.
"Our goal is ultimately to have the flexibility to separate the businesses," said David Wittig, Westar's chairman, president and CEO. "You would potentially have a roadblock to being able to separate the businesses."
Wittig said the company believes two entities could earn more for investors if they were traded separately.
But Markey and other critics of the provision draw parallels to today's corporate abuses, including those of Enron.
At the urging of Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1997 granted Enron an exemption from the Investment Company Act, "which it exploited to engage in activities that would have been prohibited if it had been regulated," said Markey.
"The SEC provided me with five boxes of documents containing information about the potentially hundreds of companies that could exploit this loophole," Markey said.
The energy bill cleared the House more than a year ago and won Senate passage in April, but the wide-ranging bill is mired in negotiations between the House and Senate. Still to be hammered out are major issues such as oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Associated Press writer John Hanna in Topeka contributed to this report.
-------- environment
Environment Proposed for Costa Rican Constitution
By Alejandra Herranz
September 20, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2002/2002-09-20-03.asp
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica,President Abel Pacheco is proposing to include environmental guarantees in the Costa Rican constitution. The text sent to the Legislative Assembly Monday establishes the right of the public and of individuals to a healthy environment and sets forth their environmental obligations.
To underline the importance he attaches to this proposal, President Pacheco traveled to Cartago, the city where Costa Rican independence was declared 60 years ago, to sign the document proposing the environmental guarantees.
In a statement today, President Pacheco said his proposal is intended to legalize the fundamental right to a healthy environment. It is needed, he said in a statement, due to "deterioration of the ecosystems, the lack of policies and legal instruments able to protect the environment, and the nonexistence of environmental planning."
The proposed reform sets up the public's right of recourse to the law to defend the new constitutional guarantees.
It also recognizes the right of individuals to have access to justice in case of environmental conflict. In cases of conflict, it provides that the collective interest is above that of the individual or even that of the State.
The Legislative Assembly is expected to take some 10 months to reform the Constitution in a complex process of discussion and analysis.
Provided the reform is approved by the Legislative Assembly, the Constitution would read, "The State guarantees, defends, preserves and maintains a public interest on air, water, subsoil, biological diversity and its components; as well as hydrocarbon, minerals and energy, coastal resources, patrimonial sea, economic exclusive zone and protected areas within the nation."
This same article 76 expresses that the State will regulate the public and private use and exploitation of these resources, so that it is done according to the rules of science and in the public interest.
Proposed article 78 says that "any public or private activity affecting the biochemical and genetic heritage of the country, will be obliged to deal with the law to guarantee a sustainable, ecological development."
Waterfall in Costa Rica (Photo courtesy Costa Rica Tourist Board)
A psychiatrist and television commentator before he was inaugurated on May 8, President Pacheco is a member of the Christian Social Unity Party.
At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg earlier this month, President Pacheco challenged his colleagues to convert current globalization into a process for human development and justice, with priorities such as the fight against corruption, trade with justice, access to technology, and justice in labor relations and in the relationship of human beings with nature.
A week after he took office, the Costa Rican Ministry of the Environment and Energy rejected the environmental impact study of the U.S. based oil company Harken Costa Rican Holdings to drill for oil along the Caribbean coast, citing more than 50 legal and environmental problems.
To mark World Environment Day June 5, the Pacheco administration created a new national park, lowered the boom on illegal logging operations, and placed a moratorium on new open pit gold mines.
Costa Rica is part of the Central America region, which is often shown as a paradise, but is not exempt from environmental and social problems. The region is vulnerable to the natural disasters - mainly hurricanes and floods - which make life miserable for the region's 22 million poor people, some 60 percent of the total Central American population.
The region faces environmental problems, such as deforestation at the rate of 45 hectares (111 acres) per hour in an area where just 35 percent of the original forest cover remains.
-------- human rights
War and Human Rights
Friday, September 20, 2002
Washington Post; Page A28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42095-2002Sep19?language=printer
The Sept. 13 news story "Observers: Evidence for War Lacking" noted that the White House document "A Decade of Deception and Defiance" cited Amnesty International's reports on human rights violations in Iraq.
At least one citation was inaccurate. The majority of people who "disappear" in the Middle East are from Iraq, but Amnesty does not rank countries on their violations and did not claim, as the White House says, that this is the worst record in the world.
More to the point, to use the torture, executions and repression that Saddam Hussein's government has inflicted on its own people as a justification for war without considering how that war might magnify those violations is shortsighted. Military action by the United States and Britain in 1988 and 2001 failed to protect against the indiscriminate and disproportionate killing of civilians.
Neighboring countries closed their borders to refugees who were seeking safety from these attacks. Sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council, together with the actions of Iraq, have resulted in the infliction of suffering on the most vulnerable groups in the country.
If President Bush is prepared to cite favorably our reports on Iraq, he should take with equal seriousness our reports on the many countries he identifies as allies, such as Uzbekistan, Russia and Colombia, where U.S. military aid has been approved despite the dismal failure of the Colombian government to meet human rights standards imposed by U.S. law.
WILLIAM F. SCHULZ
Executive Director
Amnesty International USA
New York
-------- ACTIVISTS
Women Strike 11-11
From: womenstrike1111@yahoo.com
http://www.womenstrike.net
A worldwide day to raise consciousness and stand up to proclaim that:
-- We CAN live together in joy and celebration without fear and deprivation.
-- We CAN stop the insanity of greed and violence which is driving humanity to its own annihilation.
-- Many of us CAN stop the destructive actions of the few.
This is a call to gather together in celebration of respect for all life and all love.
Women- Stop offering your service at work and in your communities on 11-11-02, and beyond as needed. Like-hearted men please support the women in your life to participate.
Why Women? Women contribute fully 2/3 of the work in the world with next to no voice among the leadership of the world. By this call, we can stop the world and the destructive path of the world leaders. The values of nurturing, kindness, caring, dignity, integrity, -and loving one another have been turned upside down and ignored far too long.
The themes of terrorism and retaliation are rooted in the loss of human dignity and disregard for human life. They are promoted by focusing on our differences without recognizing our interconnectedness. We all know the horrors plaguing our world. Thousands of children die daily of starvation. Too many people are homeless. Yet, the knowledge, technology and resources are available to feed, clothe and house every person on earth without harm. The global economy is collapsing as untold billions of dollars are diverted to wars and to the pockets of a few executives. Women do not give birth to watch our babies die in war and poverty and our families devastated.
This is a human call that transcends politics, cultures, and religions because we are all impacted by the insanity. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and thinking the results will be different. We have thought we were powerless, therefore we were powerless. As women, constituting over 51% of the population, we are powerful; our numbers can demand and create the changes that are desperately needed. As women, we have had to do many things in our lives when we didn't know how to do them. Yet we knew they had to be done, so we set our intention and somehow accomplished our goal.
We also know we can work together - we jump to immediate action in a crisis for our family, friends and neighbors during illness, natural disaster or direct attack. Is not the crisis of all the wars in our world sufficient to take a stand now? Is not the economic crisis created by the philosophy of greed as devastating as any natural disaster?
Let us all join together on 11-11, in the streets and in spirit, to make the transformation we know in our hearts is needed for us to survive and thrive.. The time is Now. In the spirit of celebration, we strike the tone of how we want to live. Fear is a strategy to keep us powerless. Don't fall victim to it. Let the strength of our numbers and commitment show the world we must change now.
Nobel Plea for Justice "To survive in the world ... we must learn to think in a new way. As never before, the future of each depends on the goodness of all." Nobel Laureates, Nobel Peace Prize Centennial Symposium, December 6, 2001
Suggested Actions for Women Strike 11-11
o Send this notice to everyone you know.
o Stop work for one day or more to gather and celebrate our connection (as long as it doesn't put you at personal risk or extreme economic hardship.)
o Gather peacefully in your town center, on your block or in your living room. Invite others to gather with you or if you can't gather, hold this action in your heart.
o Have all the bells of your community ring together at 12 noon in your town and ring your own.
o Choose a specific time for a connecting activity. Make it simple, human and meaningful: meet and greet each other with respect, honor and joy.
o For large public gatherings please check if you need permits.
What do we want?
A new agenda that asks different Questions
o How can we assure real peace talks in the mid-east immediately?
o What commitments can leaders make to end homelessness and poverty now?
o How can funds be diverted from military rule to humane efforts?
o How can we work towards safety, peace & harmony among all the peoples of the world?
o When will policies of terrorism, racism, corporate manipulation and government abuse of power cease?
o Add your own questions
Why 11-11 as the day for Striking & Celebration of Our Humanity? Very importantly 11-11 is Remembrance Day for Europe and Veterans Day for the United States, the day to celebrate the end of all wars, the end of World War I in 1918. Obviously, that did not happen. Let's make that happen now.
Why Participate in Women Strike 11-11? This is a simple action that everyone can do, with little funding or planning, and most importantly the only affiliation needed is to be a member of the human race who is fed up with the horrors and stupidity of war, greed and deprivation.
Our current political, social, religious, civic and economic activities and theories have not been able to stop the many horrors in our world. Women Strike 11-11 is not presenting any specific philosophy except that we are all human and we are all affected by the insanity. The very act of coming together will accomplish much: show the world just how great the numbers are who want change, provide the foundation for new ideas, meet and greet our community.
We cannot wait in fear and trembling, praying for the "powers that be" to change. We must live that change and announce it to the world. Gandhi and Martin Luther King achieved change - we are the change. A day of striking from work and gathering to celebrate will ignite this change. When people can hold the vision of a world in joy with basic human needs met, they change their lives. When enough people do this, the world changes.
Genesis of Women Strike 11-11 This idea could have come from any number of people or groups worldwide who are deeply concerned with the status of our world. However, a small group of 10 women, aged 35 to 94 were meeting bi-weekly for 2 months because of their frustration and sense of hopelessness with the world situations. These women brainstormed Women Strike. They realized that the power of the Internet and individual networking could generate the numbers to make an impact.
Reach & Impact of Women Strike 11-11 o In the first week we have contacts in 23 countries. Please extend our reach around the world. o The goal is to have individuals and groups worldwide from all walks of life, cultures, religions, political, civic, and social affiliations to spread the word and participate in the Women Strike. o The more women in communities worldwide who participate in small and large groups, and notify the press in their area, the more effective Women Strike 11-11 will be.
Please let us know what you're doing through our web site or by writing or calling.
Women Strike was birthed in the home of a 94 year old woman who remembers that when she was ten years old she was filled with the incredible joy of celebrating 11-11-1918 which was declared Armistice Day. The joy was that this was the end of the war that was promised to be the end all wars. Let us fulfill that promise!
For More Information
PO Box 3481 Santa Cruz, CA 95063 888-549-5922 womenstrike1111@yahoo.com www.womenstrike.net
Nobel Plea for Justice "To survive in the world, ... we must learn to think in a new way. As never before, the future of each depends on the goodness of all."
excerpt from Nobel Laureates at the Nobel Peace Prize Centennial Symposium, December 6, 2001 The signatories include: His Holiness The Dalai Lama, Mikhail Gorbachev, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Oscar Arias Sanchez source-- yes! a journal of positive futures, spring 2002
Hina Branah Pendle, Ph.D. UsPartners, Organizational Development and Transformation voice 831-662-2232 fax 831-662-2256 pager 800-356-6288
----
[Here's what the anti-democratic folks are preaching in D.C. To reply - mailto:letters@washingtontimes.com]
Shut down the protesters
EDITORIAL •
September 20, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020920-10518640.htm
Metropolitan Police Chief Charles Ramsey is trying to reassure us that he has, or will have, everything under control next Friday, the day the Anti-Capitalist Convergence and other hooligans plan to shut down the nation's capital. His comments make us nervous.
Chief Ramsey is urging commuters not to drive to work and school that day. If we do, he suggests that we bring "a sandwich and a good CD to listen to because you could be stuck in traffic for awhile." There is no humor in his comments.
The Anti-Capitalist Convergence (ACC) and other violence-prone groups will be in town next week to demonstrate against the annual meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. On Sept. 27, the day before the meeting, the protesters plan to block motorists from entering the city.
"The chief has a very good assessment of what to expect," ACC organizer Michael Loadenthal said. "We are planning to shut the city down."
Those unadulterated threats must not be taken lightly. Protesters are planning a massive bike rollout smack in the middle of morning rush hour at Union Station. They plan other morning disruptions near City Hall and the White House. Additional plans will be firmed up at meetings held over the next few days at D.C. public libraries. So beware - these meetings must be open to law enforcement and the general public.
The chief's plan to deal with this - don't drive, or "bring a sandwich and a good CD" - is unacceptable. That would spell victory for the hoodlums.
Clearly, what Chief Ramsey must do is thwart the protesters' plans. Shut them down before they cause trouble. For starters, the chief should look into prohibiting their bus caravans from parking. The organizers' preselected parking lots include several Metro locations - including Greenbelt, Stadium-Armory and Franconia-Springfield. Those lots, as well as others controlled by Metro, are primarily there for daily commuters. Surely, there are legal options - in the name of public safety - to prohibit private buses from using those facilities. Besides, more commuters will be utilizing those parking lots now that the chief has discouraged them from driving to work and school.
Instead of trying to play the protesters' "game," as Chief Ramsey characterized the situation, he should be steps ahead, thinking of ways to shut them down before they can cause any serious trouble.
----
Officials won't let protests shut city
By Matthew Cella
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 20, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20020920-13805840.htm
D.C. officials yesterday said they are committed to stopping anti-globalization demonstrators from shutting down the city during a day of protests next Friday.
"We will make sure the bridges and the major routes stay open," said Margret Nedelkoff Kellems, deputy mayor for public safety and justice.
Protest organizers representing the Anti-Capitalist Convergence have planned several demonstrations for the morning rush hour, vowing to target roads, bridges and even Metro subway stations to block people from coming into the city.
Metropolitan Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey on Wednesday warned that the protests, which coincide with the yearly meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, could result in gridlock.
Mrs. Kellems said the chief's comments were made, not because of any change in the approach police are taking to handle the protests, but because of changes the protesters have adopted in their tactics.
"It's because their strategy has changed," Mrs. Kellems said. "In the past, their efforts have been targeted toward the object of protest. This time, their plan is to spread out and decentralize into little cells and be disruptive. There's only so much we can do for that."
Mrs. Kellems said the city has received a commitment for $5 million from the U.S. Treasury Department to help pay for the costs of bringing in about 1,700 officers from other jurisdictions nationwide, as well as paying for the 1,600 Metropolitan Police officers who will be required to work overtime to cover the planned protests from Wednesday through Sunday.
The city has estimated the costs to be about $8.7 million.
Metro Transit Police officials yesterday said they are ready for protesters attempting to disrupt service.
"If they're blocking entrances, we'd certainly be prepared to address that situation," said Deputy Chief Jan Maden.
Chief Maden said transit police have received no specific intelligence on any planned disruptions, but transit police in riot gear from the force's civil-disturbance unit could be deployed against protesters obstructing access to subway stations.
Chief Maden said that about 200 of the force's authorized strength of 304 officers will be on duty during the demonstrations and no officers will be pulled from their beats.
Despite postings on one of the protest group's Web sites (www.abolishthebank.org) indicating plans for disrupting train service, Chief Maden said he's hopeful the weekend will be as uneventful as past demonstrations.
"We hope that all they're going to use us for is to be good customers," he said.
Longtime anti-globalization activists said the strategy shift is the result of a sense that some protest groups have lost their radical edge.
During April's protests, one frustrated demonstrator took hold of an open microphone during a rally at Edward R. Murrow Park, across from World Bank headquarters in Northwest, and complained that the traditional street theater and chanting tactics were not working. He then called on the crowd to charge the police lines. Organizers quickly recovered the microphone and disavowed the protester.
One activist said he expects the protesters, who represent a broad spectrum of environmental and social causes, to be a "smaller, more militant" group.
During past protests, Chief Ramsey has stressed police flexibility, occasionally allowing protesters to march without permits. Mrs. Kellems said police will show the same leniency if necessary to prevent larger unruliness - but only to a point.
"What you will see change," Mrs. Kellems said, "is us taking conduct that we think is a threat to public safety more seriously." She said protesters blocking critical evacuation routes would lead to arrests and prosecutions.
"I think that our prosecutorial agencies are taking this kind of action very seriously because of the potential threat they pose," she said.
During the April 2000 protests, more than 10,000 protesters descended on the city, and showdowns with police led to more than 1,200 arrests. None of those cases - mostly for failing to obey police officers - led to convictions. Most of those cases were negotiated by the city's Office of Corporation Counsel.
Channing Phillips, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Roscoe Howard, said the prosecutor's office takes each of the protests seriously, adding "our awareness and our concern are certainly heightened."
Mrs. Kellems said the city remains committed to letting protesters protest, but refuses to let them engage in unlawful conduct.
"For the small group of folks that want to be unlawful here in Washington, it's been a frustrating experience for them not to be successful here in the past," she said.
----
Security Agents Release Chinese AIDS Activist
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-China-AIDS-Activist.html
BEIJING (AP) -- Chinese AIDS activist Wan Yanhai was released Friday after being held for nearly a month by state security agents who claimed he leaked official secrets.
Wan, last seen Aug. 25 in Beijing, said he was let go after he admitted that distributing a government report on the spread of AIDS had been a ``mistake.'' He declined to give specifics about the terms of his release.
``It's not too convenient for me to say right now. However, nothing that has happened will affect my work,'' Wan told The Associated Press.
China's official Xinhua News Agency said Wan was released after he confessed to having ``delivered some illegally acquired interior classified documents of relevant state departments to overseas individuals, media sources and Web sites.'' He distributed the report on the Internet.
During his detention, China offered no information on Wan's whereabouts and his disappearance elicited an outcry from friends, the media and international health and human rights groups.
Xinhua accused the foreign media of making a ``great noise'' about the case.
The agency denied Wan had been detained for revealing information about the spread of AIDS in China and said the government was accelerating efforts to control and treat the disease.
The Xinhua report was issued only through the agency's English-language service. Other Chinese media have yet to report on Wan's detention.
Wan, a former Chinese Health Ministry official, founded the Aizhi Action Project in 1994 to fight discrimination against homosexuals and people with AIDS.
Last year, he called attention to unsanitary blood-buying practices in the central province of Henan that infected thousands of poor villagers.
Wan said he was investigated because he publicized and distributed a report on AIDS in Henan, where health officials have been accused of trying to hide the spread of the disease.
Wan said he was mailed the report anonymously and did not realize he was breaking the law by publishing it on the Internet.
Joanne Csete, an AIDS specialist with New York-based Human Rights Watch, said international groups that fund health care programs will be watching China's attitude toward Wan and other activists. China has said it is hoping to receive international funding for its programs.
``How Dr. Wan is treated and allowed to continue his activities will be a barometer for how the international community gauges China's seriousness'' in dealing with AIDS, Csete said.
Wan said he was in good health and had not been abused, but wouldn't say where he had been detained.
Xinhua said Wan's confession and agreement to help agents investigate had won him lenient treatment.
``In view of Wan's attitude ... the Beijing Municipal Bureau of State Security admonished him and released him on Sept. 20 after he wrote a statement of repentance, as he deserved leniency in accordance with the law,'' Xinhua said.
China has begun to release information about AIDS after denying for years that it was a problem. The Health Ministry said this month that China has about 1 million people infected with the AIDS virus. It said the figure could reach 10 million by the end of the decade without proper prevention measures.
Human Rights Watch's Csete said she hoped Chinese officials would realize Wan was ``their best friend in battling the challenge of AIDS.
``Suppression of information about AIDS never works. AIDS always wins,'' said Csete, who accompanied Wan's wife Su Zhaosheng when she collected an award from a Canadian health group on his behalf earlier this month. Su is a student in Los Angeles.
----
Venezuela Police Fire Tear Gas, Break Up Protest
September 20, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-venezuela.html
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan police fired tear gas on Friday to disperse anti-government demonstrators in Caracas and foes of President Hugo Chavez accused him of deliberately seeking violent confrontation with his military and civilian opponents.
With coup rumors once again sweeping the world's fifth largest oil exporter, opposition leaders said the former paratrooper turned president, who survived a brief coup in April, was looking for a pretext to assume emergency powers and tighten his left-wing rule.
A group of about 100 anti-Chavez protesters, many carrying national flags, gathered on Friday outside state oil company offices near the La Carlota military air base in east Caracas.
National Guard troops in riot gear, backed by two armored vehicles, sealed off the air base. They ordered the protesters to disperse and, when they refused, fired tear gas.
Choking in a thick white cloud of gas, the demonstrators scattered. Some fainted and were helped away. The troops fired several more gas canisters as the protesters advanced again.
In an apparent preventive measure against anti-government protests, the authorities decreed no-go security zones around military installations and state television headquarters.
One of the organizers of Friday's demonstration, anti-Chavez political activist Alejandro Pena, was freed by police on Friday after spending the night in detention.
He was seized by police on Thursday after calling for the country's armed forces to act against the president.
Chavez, who was democratically elected in 1998, has pledged to carry out a self-proclaimed ``revolution'' in Venezuela to redistribute wealth and help the poor.
His opponents say his real intention is to install a left-wing authoritarian regime modeled on Communist Cuba.
They accused the president on Friday of ordering violent attacks against anti-government marches and a campaign of police intimidation against military officers accused of involvement in the April 11-14 rebellion.
OPPONENTS FEAR CRACKDOWN
``The president is trying to provoke the armed forces, to provoke some kind of desperate action so that he can justify in the eyes of the nation and the world introducing a state of emergency and massive repression,'' Luis Manuel Esculpi of the small opposition party Union told a news conference.
He and other opposition leaders said Chavez, who was restored to power in April by loyal troops, was seeking a pretext for an ``auto-golpe.'' A ``self-coup'' in Spanish, the phrase refers to a scenario in which a ruler, invoking a national crisis, uses emergency measures under the constitution as a strategy to crush his foes and increase his own powers.
Government officials denied any crackdown against the opposition. Speaking at Santa Elena de Uairen on Venezuela's border with Brazil, Chavez renewed a call for dialogue. ``Let's discuss our differences and seek consensus,'' he said.
Lawyers and family members of some 300 military officers under investigation for their role in the April coup against Chavez said some officers have been detained, raising tensions in the armed forces. Other officers complained they and their families were being harassed by government security agents.
The latest flare-up in political tensions came as the oil-rich nation was experiencing one of its worst recessions in recent years. The economy contracted seven percent in the first half of the year; inflation and unemployment are rising.
Investor confidence has evaporated. Moody's Investors Service further downgraded Venezuela's foreign currency debt ratings on Friday, saying increased political risk in the troubled country could ultimately hurt its bondholders.
The growing political confrontation and renewed coup rumors have alarmed the United States.
Washington is relying on Venezuela as a major provider of crude oil at a time when it is studying a military attack on Iraq that could disrupt Middle East oil supplies.
The U.S. government said this week it was worried about the resurgence of coup rumors in Venezuela and urged both the government and opposition to shun violence.
----
Tear Gas Used on Venezuelan Protest
September 20, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Venezuela-Dissent.html
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- National Guardsmen fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse scores demonstrators who rallied in support of an opposition leader accused of inciting rebellion.
Nearly 200 people protested the arrest of opposition leader Alfredo Pena Esclusa on charges of inciting a coup. Pena was released Friday after a day in custody, but remained under investigation.
Pena Esclusa's group, ``Solidarity Force,'' published a newspaper ad Monday demanding, ``Military Officers: Act Now!'' and called for a demonstration at the air force base. Pena has accused President Hugo Chavez of trying to impose a Cuban-style communist revolution.
Clouds of tear gas engulfed the entrance of the Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. building in eastern Caracas, and a nearby mall, both of which border an air force base.
Chacao district Mayor Leopoldo Lopez told Globovision television that 30 people suffered the aftereffects of tear gas.
Rumors of another military rebellion have been circulating in this crisis-ridden South American nation.
The government heightened security outside several military commands, the state-run television and radio stations, and the presidential residence.
U.S. Ambassador Charles S. Shapiro said Friday the U.S. government had no information regarding any possible coup in Venezuela, one of the world's five largest oil exporters.
The U.S. Embassy warned Venezuelans this week to avoid violent effort to topple the ``constitutional and democratically elected government of Venezuela.''
----
IMF protests will test antiglobalization movement
Friday, September 20, 2002
By Laura MacInnis,
Reuters
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/09/09202002/reu_48482.asp
WASHINGTON - Thousands of protesters demanding a better deal for the world's poorest countries are expected to converge on Washington next week during the IMF annual meetings in what may prove a litmus test for the antiglobalization movement in the aftermath of Sept. 11.
Between 5,000 and 25,000 people are expected to join rallies, traffic blockades, and attempts to "quarantine the IMF and World Bank" during the meetings of the global lenders and a gathering of finance ministers from the Group of Seven wealthy countries, said Police Sgt. Joe Gentile.
Organizers said they are under pressure to prove that the antiglobalization movement - which gained momentum from the protests outside global trade talks in Seattle in 1999 to the demonstrations that led to the death of one protester in Genoa, Italy, last year - had survived a cooling-off period after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
If the numbers are as large as demonstrators hope and police are bracing for, it would mark the first major U.S. protest since a slowdown after the attacks that struck at the heart of America's financial and military might.
"The big question is, is the movement in it for the long haul or was it a flash in the pan?" said David Levy of the Mobilization for Global Justice coalition group. He said Sept. 11 and the subsequent "war on terrorism" by the United States had splintered the movement just as it was gaining critical mass.
"Sept. 11 was a challenge to the movement because a lot of activist attention became diverted," Levy said, citing new concerns over civil rights, the Middle East, and Iraq. "We don't have the same level of anger and excitement that came right off Seattle. We've had to bring peoples' attention back," he said.
Before Sept. 11, 2001, it seemed like the movement would keep growing in intensity. Washington police had expected last September's IMF/World Bank meetings to draw the largest U.S. street protests since the Vietnam War, with about 100,000 demonstrators from across the country. After the attacks, however, the meetings were moved from Washington to Ottawa, and large-scale protests were abandoned in favor of a more modest anti-war march.
Next week's planned demonstrations include a day-long traffic disruption and a rally outside the IMF and World Bank headquarters, where officials from more than 180 countries will be meeting to discuss international lending.
Washington will bring between 1,800 and 2,000 extra police officers from Virginia and Maryland to cover the protests, working with federal agencies like the Secret Service, Deputy Mayor Margret Kellems said.
Sgt. Gentile said police would blockade the IMF and World Bank buildings with fencing, and the area would be screened for bombs or other security threats. "It would present something of an opportunity for those seeking to use terror," he said of the crowds. "In light of recent events we have to rethink how we approach it."
MOVEMENT 'HIT PAUSE BUTTON'
Protest organizers said while the Sept. 11 attacks put a damper on antiglobalization debates for months, news of corporate scandals at energy trader Enron and humbled telecommunications giant WorldCom had reignited the spark. "We were quite conscious in hitting the pause button after 9/11," said Rob Weissman of Essential Action, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group. "But we are seeing a very broad opposition to corporate globalization, especially since Enron."
Zein el-Amine of the Anti-Capitalist Convergence, which is planning next Friday's traffic blockades, said the proof of corporate corruption bred an "I told you so" sentiment among protesters. "The corporate scandals showed there was some truth to our message, there was substance there," he said.
Consumer advocate and 2000 presidential candidate Ralph Nader will join No Logo author Naomi Klein to address activists in a separate forum before the protests start.
Criticisms of the World Bank from Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs and former presidential advisor Joseph Stiglitz have also fueled activists, said Soren Ambrose of the 50 Years is Enough network. Ambrose said declining protest numbers could signal the maturing of the antiglobalization movement.
"We are dealing with the global economic system. It's a huge, huge task to try to change it," he said. "People are digging in for a more long-term struggle on this and not relying on fireworks every few months."
--------
Vatican will not support American war on Iraq
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. Rome,
National Catholic Reporter,
September 20, 2002
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/092002/092002f.htm
A growing chorus of Catholic bishops from around the world, including five senior Vatican officials, has spoken out against the possibility of an American-led military campaign against Iraq.
Among other things, the comments suggest that if the United States moves forward, it will likely do so without the moral support from the Vatican its offensive in Afghanistan enjoyed in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001.
The most direct statement of Vatican thinking came in a Sept. 10 interview with Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, a Frenchman who is in effect the pope's foreign minister, with the Italian Catholic newspaper L'Avvenire.
Tauran insisted that any action against Iraq "should happen within the framework of the United Nations." He added that consideration must be given to the consequences for the civilian population of Iraq, as well as the repercussions for the countries of the region and for world stability.
Tauran's bottom line, though diplomatically expressed, seemed negative.
"One can legitimately ask if the type of operation that is being considered is an adequate means for bringing true peace to maturity," he said.
In a later interview on Vatican Radio, the host said a war with Iraq seemed probable. Tauran responded, "Let's hope it is not probable, because it would be a defeat for all humanity."
Four other Vatican officials spoke either directly or indirectly against the idea of war in Iraq at a Sept. 1-3 summit of religious leaders in Palermo, Italy, sponsored by the Sant'Egidio community. They were Cardinals Roger Etchegaray (French), Ignatius Moussa I Daoud (Syrian), and Walter Kasper (German), along with Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (Irish).
Etchegaray, who functions as an informal papal diplomatic troubleshooter, and who has long been critical of the United Nations sanctions against Iraq, said he was "happy to see growing opposition" in the international community. "The threat coming from Washington is something that is simply unthinkable. There is no war, least of all today and least of all in the Middle East, that can resolve something," Etchegaray said.
Kasper, meanwhile, said there are neither "the motives nor the proof" to justify a war. Both men spoke in response to questions from reporters.
The criticism from Martin and Daoud was more indirect, and came in the context of prepared remarks on other topics.
Commenting on the response of the United States to the attacks of Sept. 11, Daoud said: "Every part of the earth suspected of complicity in terrorism has fallen under threat. Iraq now finds itself on the waiting list.
"Where will this campaign finish? Will it succeed in stabilizing an order of peace, preventing war with war, violence with violence, demanding the arms of the enemy through the use of arms?" Daoud asked. His conclusion seemed negative.
"In the end, the arms remain in the hands of a part of the world, and their presence expresses in itself an explosive situation," he said.
Martin, the pope's representative to the United Nations in Geneva, argued that a successful "war against terrorism" has to be focused on development and social justice. He made no direct reference to Iraq.
"The great weapon of the war will have to be that of trust and respect toward other people," Martin said. "The war against terrorism will not be won with some 'quick fix' that resolves tensions for the moment, disregarding a sustainable future for all."
A final comment, also indirect, came Sept. 7 from John Paul II himself in remarks to the new English ambassador to the Holy See, Kathryn Frances Colvin.
"As an essential part of its fight against terrorism, the international community is called to undertake new and creative political, diplomatic and economic initiatives aimed at relieving the scandalous situations of gross injustice, oppression and marginalization which continue to oppress countless members of the human family," the pope said.
"History in fact shows that the recruitment of terrorists is more easily achieved in areas where human rights are trampled upon and where injustice is a part of daily life," John Paul said.
Taken collectively, the comments seem to signal that the Vatican would oppose armed intervention in Iraq, especially if it is not sanctioned internationally. This would mark a turnaround from last September, when Vatican spokesperson Joaquín Navarro-Valls, speaking during the pope's trip to Kazakhstan, offered support for military action against the sources of terrorism.
"It is certain that, if someone has done great harm to society and there is danger he may be able to do it again, you have the right to apply self-defense for the society which you lead," Navarro-Valls said on Sept. 24.
In an Oct. 12 interview with the French newspaper La Croix, Tauran had likewise defended U.S. action.
"We must recognize that Operation Enduring Freedom is a response to the terrorist acts of aggression against innocent civilians on Sept. 11," Tauran said. "Today we all recognize that the American government, like any other government, has the right to legitimate defense, because it has a duty to guarantee the security of its citizens."
The Vatican's more dovish stance on Iraq seems to mirror sentiments expressed by a growing number of Catholic bishops worldwide.
On Sept. 5, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of the Catholic church in England, published an opinion piece in the London Times suggesting the proposed military action fails the tests for legitimate use of force set out in Catholic theology.
"I am convinced that the might of generous self-sacrifice, rather than the might of arms, is the only way to construct a more just and more peaceful world," he wrote.
At the Sant'Egidio gathering, two other senior Catholic prelates expressed similar sentiments.
"We must assign criminals to international courts without subjecting entire populations to bombardments," said Cardinal Etsou-Nvabi-Bamungwabi of Kinshasa in the Congo.
"Let's hope that world public opinion will put more pressure on those hawks in America who want to have this war with Iraq for reasons that we don't yet understand," said Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Nigeria.
On Sept. 10, a group of seven Australian Catholic bishops joined 31 other church leaders in calling on Prime Minister John Howard to use his influence to try to dissuade the U.S. from an attack.
"It is a cause of deep distress that the threat of military action seriously devalues the lives of all people in countries such as Iraq, who are already suffering severely from harsh leadership and the economic impact of extreme sanctions and bombardments," the letter said.
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR Vatican correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@natcath.org
Full texts of the comments by Tauran, Daoud Martin, and Murphy-O'Connor are on the NCR Web site www.natcath.org/ncr_onli.htm under "documents."
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.