Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
German Nuclear Dump Faces Protest
Iraq Inspector Girds for a Test, and Spotlight
Security Council backs U.S. on Iraq
U.S. ready to hit Iraq 'quickly'
U.N. Orders Iraq to Disarm
Resolution 1441
Iraq Puts Brave Face on UN Demands as Clock Ticks
Gaps Cloud Iraq Nuclear Assessments
Japan, U.S., S.Korea Fail to Agree on Oil for N.Korea
Second Storm Hammers Northern California, Nevada
Ex-Lockheed uranium workers subpoenaed
U.S.-German Chill Eases
Homeland Security Legislation Becomes Republican Priority
How Powell Lined Up Votes, Starting With His President's
MILITARY
D.C. likely to get two counterterror labs
Colombia Extends Emergency
Iraq to Respond to U.N. Ultimatum
'Bush's Iraq plans: Reincarnation of failed 1930s British policy'
Nato states 'waste billions'
Bulgaria credits hard work for NATO prospects
Commentary: NATO: American or Atlantic
Pakistan Religious Want U.S. Out
Pentagon Plans a Computer System
Cuba hits expulsion of envoys by U.S.
US says missile strike in Yemen legal, may be emulated in Asia
US tanks ready to roll on Baghdad
Military Faces Planning Dilemma
Coast Guard's multifaceted mission
Army's High - Speed Laser Hits Shell
U.S. Plans 250,000 Troops for Iraq
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Case Could Break Legal Ground
Nine groups added to foreign terror list
US Official: Yemen Attack Was Legal
ENERGY AND OTHER
Shaken Power Market May Face More Cuts
Duke Gets Subpoena Over Calif. Market
Rights Group Cites African Leader
ACTIVISTS
Rights Group Questions Attack
War with Iraq About Oil - San Francisco Activists
Iranian Students Stage Largest Protest in 3 Years
Half - A - Million March in Anti - War Rally in Italy
Throng in Florence protests Iraq war
Subject: Faith Community March on White House 12/10
Zones hinder free speech
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- germany
German Nuclear Dump Faces Protest
November 9, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Germany-Nuclear-Waste.html
GORLEBEN, Germany (AP) -- Several thousand anti-nuclear activists joined about 100 farmers on tractors Saturday to protest a forthcoming shipment of nuclear waste to a dump in northern Germany.
The demonstrators, whistling and beating drums, gathered for a rally a few hundred yards from the dump at Gorleben, where the shipment of 12 containers of waste from a reprocessing plant at La Hague in France is expected to arrive in midweek after a trip across France and Germany that starts Monday.
Police estimated that 2,200 people took part, while organizers put the figure at more than 4,000.
Anti-nuclear activists argue that neither the waste containers nor the dump, at a disused salt mine, are safe.
The latest shipment is the first since last November, when demonstrators repeatedly defied police to stage sit-down protests on the rails and the road along the shipment's route through Germany.
As on previous occasions, authorities have banned demonstrations along the final stretch of the route to Gorleben during the shipment itself.
Spent fuel from Germany's 19 nuclear power plants is sent to France and Britain for reprocessing under contracts that oblige Germany to take back the waste.
Germany resumed waste shipments last year after a three-year break imposed by the previous government after radioactive leaks were discovered in some containers.
Also last year, the government and power companies signed an agreement to phase out nuclear power within about 20 years. Anti-nuclear activists hope that protests against the shipments will push up the security bill and force a quicker shutdown.
-------- inspections
Iraq Inspector Girds for a Test, and Spotlight
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 9, 2002; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30395-2002Nov8?language=printer
Hans Blix, the low-key, 74-year-old Swedish diplomat, is about to step into an unaccustomed world spotlight, taking on the most controversial mission of his career, one in which the outcome could mean war or peace.
As executive chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Blix will have a major role in the ultimate decision of whether there will be a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq or a prolonged period of monitoring and inspection of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's factories and military installations to determine whether he has hidden or developed chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
A Swedish-educated lawyer who did graduate work at Columbia University in New York and earned a Ph.D. from Cambridge in England, Blix holds the philosophic view that arms inspections alone cannot provide the Iraqi government a clean bill of health. As he said in a speech in Moscow last month, "There can always be some little bug or proscribed item hidden somewhere. There will be a residue of uncertainty [about total disarmament], and it should be frankly reported."
The goal, he said, should be a very thorough and professional inspection that provides "a high degree of assurance that there are no significant proscribed items or activities."
Although he worked his way up in the Swedish foreign service, becoming his country's minister for foreign affairs in 1978, and beginning in 1981 served 16 years as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the Iraq job could be the summit of his career.
It also could silence the critics who have said Blix is too soft to handle Hussein. It was while Blix headed the IAEA that Iraq and North Korea violated their nonproliferation agreements and secretly worked on producing nuclear weapons.
Blix has defended his actions by saying IAEA inspectors are permitted to go only to declared sites and that Baghdad and Pyongyang deceived his agency as well as U.S., British and other intelligence services with their clandestine operations.
When the programs were discovered, Blix led the teams that determined the full extent of operations. He also oversaw the monitoring and verification systems put in place in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Having dealt with Hussein before, Blix has repeatedly said he would not put up with the "cat and mouse game" the Iraqi leader played with earlier U.N. inspectors.
Nonetheless, when U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan wanted someone to take over renewed inspections in Iraq he turned first to Rolf Ekeus, a Swedish diplomat who ran the first Iraq U.N. inspection group. That organization ended its work in 1998 when the inspectors withdrew after repeated confrontations with Hussein.
It was only after Iraq's supporters on the Security Council turned down Ekeus that Annan turned to Blix. Ironically, the two Swedes have a long-running competitive relationship going back to their days together in the Swedish foreign service. Today, Ekeus is quick to point out areas in which he thinks Blix may not be tough enough, and Blix, in turn, notes where his approach is going to be more effective than that of Ekeus.
Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have publicly stated they believe inspections will not disarm Hussein and their aides have privately questioned Blix's capabilities. Aware of those attitudes, Blix supported some key parts of the U.S. and British U.N. Security Council resolution on renewed inspections and talked tough to Iraqi negotiators. Blix also breezed through meetings with senior administration officials in Washington last week that included listening to President Bush pledge support for the U.N. effort during a 10-minute session in the Oval Office.
Even Cheney, with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell present, talked to Blix about the inspection plans, primarily questioning him on how long it would take to come to conclusions.
But Blix also made clear in Washington that the inspections will be a U.N. -- not American -- operation. He would accept U.S. intelligence on where he should look but would not consider it to be orders of where to go and what to do. As of this week, the 31 Americans on his 220-person staff are the largest country contingent, but they all are U.N. employees.
Blix will have responsibility for chemical and biological weapons, plus missiles and other delivery systems; Mohammed El Baradei, an Egyptian who succeeded Blix at the IAEA, will handle the nuclear side. After the two met Bush and others at the White House, El Baradei went on al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language network that covers the Middle East, and spoke positively about the inspection process.
While savoring a chance to make the U.N. inspections work, no matter how they turn out for Hussein, Blix has admitted to friends that he is unprepared for the media frenzy that inevitably will be generated by the return of inspectors to Iraq.
At least one well-known network personality has had a friend arrange a New York dinner party for Blix. This is far different from the 16 years at the IAEA, when he sent printed copies of his speeches to friends around the world in hopes they would read them.
----
Security Council backs U.S. on Iraq
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 9, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021109-15474968.htm
NEW YORK - The U.N. Security Council unanimously presented Iraq with an ultimatum yesterday to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and disarm or face certain military action.
The 15-0 vote, a powerful and unprecedented endorsement of the Bush administration's tough line against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, capped eight weeks of increasingly complex negotiations between Washington and other world capitals.
"The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test, a final test," President Bush told reporters at the White House just moments after the council vote.
Indicating Washington's willingness to put military might behind the diplomatic demands, Mr. Bush added, "The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily, yet we are prepared for the alternative. In either case, the just demands of the world will be met."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters in London that the message of the U.N. vote to Iraq was: "Disarm or you face force. Be under no doubt whatsoever of that."
The Iraqi government had no immediate comment on the vote, and Baghdad's state-run television did not report the news.
"Iraq will certainly study the resolution and decide whether we can accept it or not," said Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri.
Immediately after the vote, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said he would lead an advance team to Baghdad on Nov. 18.
Diplomats said they were pleasantly surprised to find that persistent holdouts Russia and Syria agreed to join the resolution, which was co-sponsored by Britain.
The 15-0 vote both reaffirms the central role of the United Nations in resolving conflicts and potentially shores up the relationship between the organization and the Republican administration in Washington, U.N. and foreign diplomats said. Mr. Bush repeatedly challenged the organization to act or risk losing "relevance" in the face of Iraq's repeated defiance of U.N. mandates.
The unanimous vote also deals a stronger hand to U.N. weapons inspectors, who in the past have been subject to Iraqi harassment, deception and threats.
"We were very pleased that the resolution was adopted by unanimity that strengthens our mandate very much," Mr. Blix said.
The final resolution, six pages of carefully crafted diplomatic language, demands complete and immediate access to all Iraqi facilities, and sets out a strict timetable for weapons inspections to begin. It also holds out the implicit threat of force at nearly any stage.
The Iraqi government has until Friday to formally accept the terms of Resolution 1441.
Baghdad must then file before December 7 a complete declaration of its chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs. This document will provide the starting point for U.N. inspections and is the first substantive test of Iraq's commitment to cooperate.
"For 11 years, without success, we have tried a variety of ways, including diplomacy, inspections and economic sanctions to obtain Iraqi compliance," said U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte after the vote yesterday.
"By this resolution, we are now united in trying a different course. That course is to send a clear message to Iraq insisting on its disarmament in the area of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems or face the consequences," he said.
In response to French and Russian demands, the resolution calls for the council to immediately "consider" inspectors' complaints of noncompliance. However, U.S. officials and other diplomats made it clear that they are not obligated to wait for council permission to act militarily if Iraq does not cooperate.
"This resolution does not constrain any member-state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant U.N. resolutions, and protect world peace and security," Mr. Negroponte said.
But in their public comments during a dramatic morning debate, several Security Council nations remained leery of the prospect of unilateral force, despite American diplomats' efforts to assure them that the resolution contained no "hidden triggers."
France, Russia, China, Ireland and Mexico were among those nations urging restraint yesterday, referring to the language in the resolution that calls on the council to convene immediately to discuss any infractions and decide how to proceed.
"The resolution strengthens the role and authority of the Security Council," said French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte. "We had reflected that objective in our request for a two-stage approach so as to ensure that the Security Council maintains control of the process at each stage."
Those assurances, combined with high-level arm-twisting, apparently were enough for Syria, the only Arab nation on the Security Council.
"My country voted in favor after receiving reassurances that the resolution would not be used as pretext to strike Iraq," said Syria's Deputy U.N. Ambassador Faysal Mekdad, who noted that last-minute phone calls from American, British, French and Russian leaders swayed Damascus' vote.
Syria has repeatedly questioned why the United States would go to war to readmit weapons inspectors but defend Israel over what it called repeated human rights violations. Syria's vote could be an important source of leverage when Washington tries to build regional support for war.
U.S. and British officials worked the phones incessantly for the past week, diplomats said, to soothe concerns and meet objections from France and Russia, both of which could have vetoed the final measure.
Washington worked especially hard to win Moscow's support, including refusing to condemn publicly the army's lethal use of gas to end a recent hostage standoff and agreeing to add some Chechen groups to international terrorist lists.
Yesterday, Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov expressed satisfaction with the outcome.
"Implementation of the resolution requires goodwill of all involved," Mr. Lavrov said in an apparent message to Washington and Baghdad. He called on the parties to "concentrate on moving forward and not [yield] to unilateral interpretation of the resolution."
In the two months since Mr. Bush challenged the United Nations to uphold its own resolutions, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has postponed foreign trips and has labored during international meetings to win support for key U.S. demands.
In the end, council members said, Baghdad was unquestionably obligated to cooperate with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.
----
U.S. ready to hit Iraq 'quickly'
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 9, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021109-4499673.htm
The U.S. military would be prepared to strike Iraq within weeks if Saddam Hussein violates the terms of a new U.N. resolution that was approved yesterday, military officials say.
"If the president decides that military action is an appropriate course of action, then the U.S. military will be prepared to move and to move quickly," Victoria Clarke, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said yesterday.
Hans Blix, who heads the weapons-inspection team, plans to enter Iraq on Nov. 18 and start work around Nov. 25. The unanimously approved resolution calls on him to "immediately" report "any interference by Iraq," which the United States could cite as justification for an attack.
If interference by Saddam occurs this winter, then the Pentagon will quickly build up a sizable force near Iraq ready to carry out Army Gen. Tommy Franks' battle plan. Gen. Franks, who heads U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., has presented President Bush with several war options.
"We'd be in place by about the first or second week in December," said retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis. "That's given the assumption the president is going to activate the Reserve and Guard to provide domestic security.
"Saddam has plenty of agents inside this country, and they are ready to create domestic disturbances to detract attention from what's going on over in Iraq. That won't be activated until Saddam sees hostilities are imminent."
Military sources say war options range from 50,000 to 200,000 troops. All plans would rely on lightning-fast air and ground assaults, some indigenous forces and assurances that some Iraqi generals will turn on Saddam.
By December or January, the United States could have four carrier battle groups in the region, giving Gen. Franks roughly 260 aircraft and hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Air Force is positioning B-2 stealth bombers in England and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Military sources said as many as 16 of 21 B-2s would participate in the war's early stages, dropping satellite-guided bombs on key command and communications centers.
A major aim would be speed and stealth to achieve victory as soon as possible, thus keeping civilian casualties at a minimum.
On Thursday, Mr. Bush said of his war plans: "I also want to remind you that should we have to use troops, should it become a necessity in order to disarm him, the United States, with friends, will move swiftly with force to do the job. You don't have to worry about that. We will do what it takes militarily to succeed."
Pentagon civilian policy-makers, the hard-liners who have pushed the administration to confront Saddam, have little confidence in Mr. Blix, a career diplomat. They say he will be fooled by Saddam's long-standing denial and deception techniques. They also say Mr. Blix is not likely to stand up to Iraqi forces or report to the Security Council as required when Baghdad blocks his team's work.
"Blix is not a hard-nose guy. He's a diplomat," said Col. Maginnis, a Washington military analyst. "Saddam is going to put weapons in residential neighborhoods. Vans cart stuff around. They have perfected the art of sanitizing these areas."
An important date in the new U.N. resolution, the 17th on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, is Dec. 8. By then, Saddam is required to account for all his prohibited weapons of mass destruction, materials to make such weapons and delivery systems, such as ballistic missiles and unmanned vehicles.
"That list is not going to be worth the paper it's written on," Col. Maginnis said.
A bogus list could prompt Mr. Bush to act, or the administration may wait for a series of violations, take its case back to the Security Council, then start an attack to disarm Saddam, with or without U.N. approval.
All the while, the buildup will continue. The United States continues to move supplies into the region. There are now enough tanks, armored vehicles and supplies to equip four Army brigades.
Units likely to head to Kuwait are the 101st Airborne Division and 1st Cavalry Division based in the United States, and the 1st Armored and 1st Infantry divisions based in Europe.
"We're not going to put a big footprint over there until we know we're going to do something," Col. Maginnis said.
U.S. planners are eyeing February as the best time to start a war. This would give the military time to oust Saddam, stabilize the country and begin a transition to a new government before Iraq's oppressively hot summer begins.
----
U.N. Orders Iraq to Disarm
'Serious Consequences' Threatened if Baghdad Does Not Comply
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 9, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30317-2002Nov8?language=printer
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 8 -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a tough new disarmament mandate for Iraq today, warning President Saddam Hussein he must scrap his weapons programs or face "serious consequences" that almost certainly would be a U.S.-led war against his government.
The 15 to 0 vote represented a significant achievement for the Bush administration. It has spent nearly eight weeks working to satisfy the demands of Russia, France and other nations that the United States pursue its Iraq policy under U.N. auspices, even as it refused to abandon its ultimate goal of confronting Hussein -- through force if necessary.
The resolution was endorsed not only by Russia and France but also by Syria, a council member that until the final minutes had said it would oppose the measure directed against its neighbor and fellow Arab state. Syria's deputy U.N. representative said his government agreed to support the resolution only after receiving "high level" assurances from Washington, London, Paris and Moscow "that this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq."
Speaking in the Rose Garden minutes after the vote, President Bush renewed his warning -- set out in his Sept. 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly -- that Iraq must dismantle chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs or face the prospect of war.
"With the resolution just passed, the United Nations Security Council has met important responsibilities, upheld its principles and given clear and fair notice that Saddam Hussein must fully disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction," Bush said. "His cooperation must be prompt and unconditional or he will face the severest consequences."
The adoption of Resolution 1441 set the stage for the return of an advance team of U.N. weapons inspectors to Baghdad on Nov. 18, resuming a disarmament process that ended in late 1998 when inspectors withdrew shortly before the United States and Britain launched airstrikes against Iraq to protest Hussein's intransigence.
Armed with a strong new mandate and backed by a unified council, the inspectors face a challenge of squeezing a complicated and ambitious disarmament effort into a tight schedule. They must report back to the United Nations on Iraq's hidden weapons program within just over three months.
The rare display of unity in the council will increase pressure on Hussein to grant the inspectors unprecedented access to suspected weapons facilities.
"I urge the Iraqi leadership -- for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world security and world order -- to seize this opportunity, and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said after the vote. "If Iraq's defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibility."
Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Douri, said his government would study the resolution and decide "whether we can accept it or not." But he told Reuters that he is "very pessimistic."
"This resolution is crafted in such a way to prevent inspectors to return to Iraq," Douri said.
There was no official reaction in Baghdad. A commentary read on an Iraqi satellite television channel said "the resolution represents the dream" of U.S. policies, "which have pushed the world to the edge of war and violated for 12 years international laws and norms."
Bush's closest foreign ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, repeated the president's threat, warning Hussein that he will face military action if he violates the terms of the resolution.
"Defy the U.N.'s will and we will disarm you by force," Blair said outside 10 Downing Street, his official residence, shortly after the vote.
Although the resolution falls short of the automatic endorsement of military force that the United States initially sought, U.S. officials maintained that it preserves the president's authority to strike Iraq if the United Nations fails to disarm it. The final deal on the text was struck only after the administration provided assurances that it would give the council a chance to consider any Iraqi violations before undertaking military action.
"One way or another . . . Iraq will be disarmed," John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote. "This resolution doesn't constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq."
Senior U.S. officials said the resolution preserved the three main elements sought by Bush. It finds Iraq in "material breach" of its disarmament requirements, defines Iraq's obligations and threatens "serious consequences" if it fails to comply -- a phrase the administration interprets as an endorsement of military action. Other council members differ.
France, Russia and other countries that oppose U.S. military action said the resolution diminishes the likelihood of war and establishes a pivotal role for the Security Council in deciding what kind of response Iraq will face if it flouts the resolution.
"The resolution deflects the direct threat of war," Russia's U.N. ambassador, Sergey Lavrov, told the council. "As a result of intensive negotiations, the resolution that has just been adopted does not contain any provision about automatic use of force."
Jean-David Levitte, France's U.N. ambassador, said the resolution "strengthens the role and authority of the Security Council," in determining whether Iraq will face military action. But he made it clear that even the council's patience is limited.
"War can only be a last resort," Levitte told the council. "The rules of the game set by the Security Council are clear and demanding. If Iraq wishes to avoid confrontation, it must understand that the opportunity it has been given is the last."
The unanimous adoption of the resolution represented a personal victory for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who had advised Bush to pursue Iraq's disarmament through the United Nations.
Powell was convinced as early as Oct. 30 that he had secured the nine votes required for adoption of the resolution. But he decided to press ahead in the hope of unifying the council behind Washington's policy -- a course whose outcome was not determined until just before the 15 Security Council members sat down to vote.
France had led efforts to water down the resolution, but embraced the measure after a telephone conversation Thursday between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac. Powell followed with a phone call to French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and worked out a final compromise that strengthens the role of inspectors in determining Iraqi violations.
Bush was unable, however, to extract a commitment from Russia President Vladimir Putin to follow suit. But Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov phoned Powell at 9 o'clock this morning -- an hour before the scheduled vote -- and "said they would be voting yes," a senior U.S. official said.
That left Syria. "We were still not sure about the Syrian vote," the official added.
On Thursday night, Syria's deputy U.N. representative, Fayssal Mekdad, told the council it might be "impossible" to vote for the resolution. But under intense pressure from the United States, France and Britain, he informed Negroponte minutes before the vote he would back the resolution.
After eight weeks of often difficult negotiations, the vote was over in an instant. Chinese Ambassador Zhang Yishan, the council's current chairman, sat down in the buzzing chamber, called the meeting to order and asked for a show of hands.
Fifteen rose around the table -- those of the permanent five (the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China), as well as Syria, Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway, Singapore, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea and Mexico.
The resolution reinforces U.N. inspectors' rules of engagement in Iraq. It provides them with the authority to demand "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to any site, including eight presidential compounds that have been subject to special procedures that rendered surprise inspections impossible.
Iraq is required to confirm within seven days that it intends to comply. It has an additional 23 days to provide a "currently accurate, full and complete declaration" of the status of its civilian and military biological, chemical and nuclear programs.
The inspectors will have up to 45 days to begin their inspections, and 60 additional days to report to the council. However, Hans Blix, the chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said he can report a violation to the council at any stage of the inspections.
Blix and Mohammed El Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will lead an advance group of U.N. inspectors to Iraq on Nov. 18. A team of about 12 inspectors will arrive a week later to begin the first inspections. U.N. officials said they would build up a team of 80 to 100 inspectors over the following weeks.
The resolution adopted today declares Iraq in "material breach" -- a term previously invoked to justify military action against Baghdad -- of its disarmament obligations. It warns Iraq that it has one "final opportunity" to scrap its deadliest weapons. And it threatens to consider undefined "serious consequences" if Baghdad continues to defy weapons inspectors.
Correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Cairo contributed to this report.
----
Resolution 1441
Reuters
Saturday, November 9, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30264-2002Nov8?language=printer
Following are excerpts from U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 adopted yesterday:
"THE SECURITY COUNCIL, . . .
ACTING UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS,
1. DECIDES that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. DECIDES, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council;
3. DECIDES that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC [United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission], the IAEA, and the council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. DECIDES that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 AND 12 below;
5. DECIDES that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the council 60 days thereafter;
6. ENDORSES the 8 October 2002 letter from the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. DECIDES FURTHER that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:
• UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
• All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
• UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
• UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
• Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient U.N. security guards;
• UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
• UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
• UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
• UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. DECIDES FURTHER that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution;
9. REQUESTS the secretary-general immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. DIRECTS the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. DECIDES to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. DECIDES to remain seized of the matter."
----
Iraq Puts Brave Face on UN Demands as Clock Ticks
Reuters
Saturday, November 9, 2002
By Hassan Hafidh and Patricia Wilson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31938-2002Nov9?language=printer
BAGHDAD/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq put a brave face on the passing of a U.N. resolution giving it a last chance to disarm, insisting on Saturday that the international community had thereby foiled a U.S. plot to wage war.
But there was no immediate sign Baghdad would automatically bow to a document threatening "serious consequences" unless it opens its territory to tough new weapons inspections. It has one week to comply, and the clock began ticking on Friday.
"Iraq will study the resolution then take the appropriate position on it," Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said in Cairo, after meeting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher.
"The United States' use of the Security Council as a cover for aggression against Iraq was foiled by the international community because the international community does not share the appetite of the evil administration in Washington for aggression, murder and destruction."
President Bush, in contrast, claimed the passage of the resolution after eight weeks of tortuous negotiation at the U.N. as vindication of his uncompromising policy on Iraq.
"The world has now come together to say that the outlaw regime in Iraq will not be permitted to build or possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons," Bush said in a weekly radio address.
"And my administration will see to it that the world's judgement is enforced."
Co-sponsored by the United States and Britain, the resolution was agreed after France, Russia and others persuaded Washington to remove from its wording an explicit authorization to use force and a call to back U.N. inspectors with troops.
The document's ambiguity allows all sides to call it victory. U.S. officials emphasized that nothing in it prevented them from taking military action, but Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said it had "made a real threat of war go away."
More than 250,000 protesters marched through the Italian city of Florence on Saturday, waving a sea of banners denouncing any possible U.S. attack on Iraq. Organizers said the crowds could swell to as many as one million people.
The Iraqi News Agency called the resolution "bad and unjust" but added: "The leadership of Iraq is studying it calmly and will take the necessary decision in the next few days."
Babel newspaper, owned by President Saddam Hussein's son Uday, said Saddam would not give the U.S. an excuse to attack.
"Iraq has nothing to conceal and U.N. weapons inspectors are welcome," Babel said.
The 15-member Security Council voted unanimously on Friday to endorse the resolution, which calls for U.N. inspections of sites anywhere in Iraq suspected of being used to develop biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
REGIME CHANGE?
Secretary of State Colin Powell called Maher and other Arab officials to ask them to impress on Iraq that the resolution was a "final opportunity." Egyptian media said Maher told Powell he would do so.
In an interview, Powell again hinted that Saddam's government might be allowed to survive -- further evidence of Washington's apparent shift from a position earlier this year which seemed to offer the Iraqi president no future but overthrow through "regime change."
"If the Iraqi regime got rid of its mass destruction weapons and cooperates with inspectors, this will be considered a full change in the regime," Powell told al-Jazeera television.
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said he and an advance team would be in Baghdad on November 18 after a four-year absence. This group will set up logistics for the inspectors, who are expected to arrive about November 25.
The inspectors have up to 45 days to begin work, and must report to the Security Council 60 days later on Iraq's cooperation. They are obliged to report to the council any serious Iraqi violations before then.
U.N. inspectors were first sent to Iraq in 1991 after the Gulf War, when a U.S.-led coalition drove Baghdad's occupying troops from neighboring oil-rich Kuwait. They pulled out in 1998, saying Iraqi officials were thwarting their work.
"This time there is no readiness to accept any cat and mouse play," Blix told the BBC.
He said the inspectors had in their sights up to 700 locations in Iraq known from inspections in the 1990s. "Then there are lots of places mentioned to us by your prime minister (Tony Blair) and intelligence," he added.
"And there are lots of targets I will not tell you about."
SADDAM'S PALACES
Saddam's top-secret palaces were on the list, he said. Inspectors would "go to the presidential sites just as we'll go to many of the sensitive sites."
"The principle is to be a no-notice inspection. We will get out of our headquarters in the morning and then we'll tell them we're going in this direction. Only when we get to the target will they be told this is the target," he said.
"We are unarmed, we are not an army. They (the Iraqis) will accept because they feel it is in their interests to do so."
On the streets of Baghdad, Iraqis condemned the U.N. vote.
"This is a prejudiced and unjust resolution. It is an evil resolution," said Mifleh Hassan, 65. "The United Nations is now a tool in the hands of America. If America tells the United Nations to go right, they go right; if they tell them to go left, they go left. They are America's puppets," he added.
Many said the vote was a "preamble for war" because it set conditions they saw as impossible for Iraq to comply with. Syria said it had worked to amend the resolution and voted for it to "save Iraq from a military strike and to safeguard its interests," a Syrian official told Reuters.
But Iraq's Babel newspaper criticized Damascus. "The resolution was accepted even by those who were previously rejecting it. Even you, Syria, have accepted it!" it said.
Iran said it hoped neighboring Iraq would offer full cooperation to U.N. inspectors and so deprive the U.S. of a pretext to intervene in the region. It said it would provide temporary shelter for Iraqi refugees in the event of war "only if it is established that their lives are in danger."
Turkey said it hoped Baghdad would comply quickly with the resolution. France called it a "last chance for peace." Kuwait and Israel welcomed it, while Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat said he hoped it would not be "a prelude to war."
--------
Gaps Cloud Iraq Nuclear Assessments
November 9, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Fog.html
In tens of thousands of words, many of them ``may,'' ``could'' and ``probably,'' intelligence agencies and private analysts have sketched out a portrait in uncertainty and called it the Iraqi quest for doomsday weapons.
A close review of recent in-depth reports shows that at times U.S. and British intelligence organizations and other specialists contradict or fail to support each other's assertions on Iraq and nuclear weapons, assertions that are often unsubstantiated.
A key passage in the U.S. intelligence report, for example, says Iraq ``may'' have acquired technology to substantially speed production of atomic bomb material. But no concrete evidence is offered, and the British intelligence report suggests the opposite -- that U.N. sanctions have kept such equipment out of Iraqi hands.
The British, for their part, refer vaguely to ``African'' uranium sought by Iraq. But they don't say in which decade this might have happened, and no other report mentions it.
What isn't in the documents can be as significant as what is: In early September, President Bush declared that satellite photographs proved Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. In their subsequent reports, however, neither the U.S. nor British government agencies even mention those photos.
The Baghdad government has further obscured the reality with its own detailed rebuttal, in which it doesn't acknowledge its past obstruction of searches by U.N. weapons inspectors or that it has barred inspection teams for four years.
This nuclear fog over Iraq clouds public debate at a critical moment.
The ambiguities led Washington's two newspapers to headline starkly different conclusions from one major assessment, by London's private International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS). ``Iraq Lacks Material for Nuclear Bomb, Study Says,'' reported The Washington Post, while The Washington Times headlined, ``Report: Iraq Close to Nuclear Reality.''
The U.N. inspectors, armed with a tough Security Council resolution adopted Friday, plan to return to Baghdad on Nov. 18 to resume investigating whether Iraq is developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in defiance of the council's edicts.
They may take months to reach conclusions, however, and until then -- while the world ponders war against Iraq -- the reports by the U.S. and British agencies and the prestigious IISS; the Iraqi rebuttal; and follow-up analyses by specialists at such organizations as Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will remain the most thorough public look at the question.
It's a look that, time and again, is conflicting and confusing. Iraq's ``aluminum tubes'' are a case in point.
The Iraqis reportedly sought to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes in the past two years. The 25-page CIA summary of Oct. 4 says the tubes are banned and adds that ``most intelligence specialists'' believe they were intended as core cylinders of centrifuges to enrich uranium for bombs.
But the 50-page intelligence dossier released by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Sept. 24 said ``there is no definitive intelligence'' that the tubes were intended for a nuclear program. Moreover, buying such tubes is not banned under anti-Iraq sanctions, but is subject to U.N. approval and monitoring because the tubes have dual uses -- both non-nuclear and nuclear.
The Iraqi government scoffs at the tubes issue in its 6,000-word rebuttal, saying such centrifuges don't use aluminum. Primitive designs do, in fact, but Iraq was already using more advanced materials as it tried to master centrifuges before the 1990-91 Gulf War, after which inspectors dismantled what they found of Iraq's nuclear program.
Physicist David Albright, a former U.N. inspector, is not convinced the tubes were meant for centrifuges. ``The Iraqis could do much better,'' he said.
In a detailed analysis, Albright's Washington research group, the Institute for Science and International Security, notes that Iraq has long imported such tubing for non-nuclear uses. He says experts are more worried about centrifuge components that are more sophisticated and harder to get than cylinders.
It was the Iraqis' former centrifuge site -- and photos of new construction there -- that Bush said showed the nuclear bomb program had been resurrected.
``I don't know what more evidence we need,'' the president said Sept. 7 as he sought to muster support for potential U.S. military action against Iraq.
The reconnaissance photos give no clue to the new building's function, however. Dozens of foreign journalists later visited the site, al-Furat, under Iraqi escort and did not report seeing centrifuges, and the photos were notably absent from the U.S. and British intelligence reports.
``These photos provide weak support for any military action,'' said Albright.
The CIA report, after speculating the Iraqis ``may have acquired uranium enrichment capabilities'' to speed bomb production, says that since December 1999 they have engaged in more than 100 deals to buy dual-use items that would be useful for nuclear or other weapons programs.
But the report doesn't go on to explain that such contracts are under close U.N. scrutiny, approved or disapproved by inspectors who often mandate follow-up checks to ensure the items aren't used for nuclear purposes in violation of U.N. sanctions. Those checks are carried out by some of the 158 U.N. observers currently in Iraq.
The British report takes a tack opposite to the Americans', saying London's Joint Intelligence Committee ``assessed that U.N. sanctions on Iraq were hindering the import of crucial goods for the production of (nuclear) material.''
In their key conclusions, the British, U.S. and IISS reports all find that Iraq is unlikely to be able to produce bomb-grade uranium for five or more years. But each also points to what the IISS calls a ``nuclear wild card'' -- that Iraq might fashion a bomb sooner if it somehow obtains enough highly enriched uranium on the black market.
Their time frames vary. The IISS and a Carnegie Endowment report suggest this could be done in mere months; British intelligence forecasts it might take two years.
None, however, ties this wild card to what experts know: Even if the Iraqis managed to get hold of the 50 to 100 pounds of bomb-grade uranium needed, they would take much longer to develop a warhead-and-missile combination that could deliver such a nuclear strike effectively beyond their borders.
The Iraqis are forbidden by U.N. resolutions to possess missiles with greater than a 90-mile range. But the IISS, British and U.S. reports suggest they retain some old, inaccurate Scud missiles, with ranges up to 400 miles -- ``about a dozen,'' ``up to 20'' or ``a few dozen,'' the various reports say.
However, these reports fail to note that U.N. inspectors said in 1997 that all but two of 819 such missiles had been used by Iraq or destroyed -- an accounting previously acknowledged in CIA reports.
Iraq is also developing prohibited longer-range missiles, contend the U.S. and British intelligence dossiers. Among other things, they cite reconnaissance photos showing a new, larger test stand at a site where liquid-propellant engines have been tested.
Iraq's rebuttal counters with what it calls ``strong technical evidence'': that the test stand is horizontal, not vertical, and therefore unsuited for large liquid engines.
The Iraqis are ``technically correct,'' says Tim McCarthy, a researcher at California's Monterey Institute of International Studies and a former U.N. missile inspector in Iraq. McCarthy speculates, however, that Iraq might be able to test larger engines on the stand using solid propellants.
On such fine points hinge the uncertainties about Iraq, pending exhaustive new inspections by hundreds of U.N. specialists.
The IISS report's editor, former White House official Gary Samore, said after issuing his institute's assessment in London on Sept. 9 that the state of Iraq's nuclear program is a ``tremendous unknown.''
Hans Blix agreed. The chief U.N. inspector said early in the recent U.N. debate over Iraq that there are ``many open questions'' about its weapons programs.
``But this,'' Blix said, ``is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction.''
EDITOR'S NOTE -- Charles J. Hanley has reported on nuclear weapons issues for 20 years.
-------- korea
Japan, U.S., S.Korea Fail to Agree on Oil for N.Korea
November 9, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-japan-usa-korea-north.html
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan, the United States and South Korea repeated their call on Saturday for North Korea to scrap its nuclear development program, but couldn't agree on whether to keep supplying Pyongyang with fuel oil under a 1994 agreement.
After a one-day meeting of senior officials, the three countries issued a joint statement reaffirming a commitment to seek a common position on forcing North Korea to abandon its uranium enrichment program.
``The three delegations once again called upon North Korea to dismantle this program in a prompt and verifiable manner,'' the statement said.
North Korea's shock admission to the United States in October that it was enriching uranium for a nuclear weapons program has thrown the 1994 Agreed Framework pact into doubt.
But at the meeting, the countries did not reach an agreement on how to handle the breach of the 1994 agreement, which required North Korea to freeze its nuclear program in return for deliveries of fuel oil and for two light-water nuclear reactors.
``Each country will discuss the issue among their own government and seek a decision in time for the KEDO meeting,'' a Japanese official told reporters.
The three countries and the European Union will hold a meeting of the executive board of the Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), which is building the nuclear reactors under the 1994 agreement, in New York around November 14.
AT ODDS
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, who headed the U.S. delegation in Saturday's talks, said on Tuesday there seemed to be little support in Congress for continuing the fuel shipments next year, even if Washington approved this month's shipment.
In contrast, Tokyo believes stopping the oil flow will only give Pyongyang an excuse to ignore the 1994 agreement and push ahead with its nuclear program.
``We explained our long-held position that the Agreed Framework is vital in preventing a nuclear program,'' said the Japanese official who attended the meeting.
South Korea is widely believed to share Tokyo's view.
But the Japanese official said he was optimistic the three countries will reach common ground on the issue.
``We gained a certain amount of confidence that we can reach a common position,'' he said.
The latest shipment of fuel oil left Singapore for North Korea on Wednesday. It will take 10 to 12 days to reach the Stalinist state, but the KEDO executive board can recall the vessel while it is at sea, diplomats have said.
In addition to Kelly, Saturday's meeting was attended by Hitoshi Tanaka, director general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau and Lee Tae-sik, South Korea's deputy foreign minister.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- california
Second Storm Hammers Northern California, Nevada
By Justin Pritchard
Associated Press
Saturday, November 9, 2002; Page A09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30323-2002Nov8?language=printer
... Along the coast, 12-foot waves pummeling Southern California were a boon to surfers. But waves reached 30 feet farther north and officials powered down the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in San Luis Obispo, fearing seaweed tossed up by the surf would clog the intake pipes of the cooling system....
-------- kentucky
Ex-Lockheed uranium workers subpoenaed
Grand jury looking into whether laws broken in Paducah
Associated Press
Saturday, November 9, 2002
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2002/11/09/ke110902s310267.htm
PADUCAH, Ky. -- Lockheed Martin Corp. confirmed that some of its former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant employees have been subpoenaed to determine whether environmental laws were violated when the company operated the plant.
The employees will appear before a federal grand jury meeting in Paducah.
Tom Jurkowsky, a spokesman for Lockheed, said he didn't know the names of the former workers or the content of their subpoenas.
''We have not been informed if the company is the target of the investigation,'' Jurkowsky said. ''We are cooperating fully.''
Lockheed operated the plant for the U.S. Department of Energy from 1982 until 1992, when the uranium enrichment operation was privatized and taken over by U.S. Enrichment Corp. The workers were then transferred from Lockheed to USEC.
USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said Thursday that she didn't know whether any of those subpoenaed are still working at the plant.
The grand jury began meeting Wednesday, and one of those to testify was Harold Hargan of Pulaski County, Ill., who worked at the plant for almost 40 years. He retired in 1992.
Hargan said he was asked about how workers handled trichlorethylene, a highly toxic chemical that was used to clean radioactive material and other chemicals from processing equipment. He said he testified that workers in the 1980s did not follow long-standing procedures, which resulted in TCE spills on the floor of the C-400 building that were washed into drains.
Investigations have revealed that TCE from the building leaked into a drainage ditch, causing contamination not only from the TCE, but also from radioactive material that had been cleaned from the equipment.
One of the major problems around the plant is groundwater contamination.
Hargan said workers dipped the processing equipment into huge vats filled with TCE. He said that if the equipment was properly rigged, all the TCE would drain back into the vat after the equipment was removed.
''They didn't do it right, and TCE would run onto the floor,'' Hargan said. He estimates that at least 5,000 pounds of the chemical were washed into the building's drains over a 10-year period.
In a Courier-Journal article two years ago, Hargan described how he developed bladder cancer in the 1990s along with lung disease -- the result, he believes, of working at the plant.
The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating claims made in a whistleblower suit filed in June 1999 that the hundreds of millions of dollars in operating fees that Lockheed received were improperly earned because it was filing false environmental reports.
''Lockheed denies the allegations that it failed to operate the facility properly and will defend the civil action,'' Jurkowsky said.
The suit asks that the operating fees be returned to the federal government. If successful, those who filed the suit -- three current and former workers and an environmental group -- would receive up to 25 percent of the proceeds.
-------- us politics
U.S.-German Chill Eases
Schroeder Calls Bush; Rumsfeld Says Ties 'Unpoisoned'
By Mike Allen and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 9, 2002; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30324-2002Nov8?language=printer
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared the administration's frosty relations with Germany to be "unpoisoned" last night after Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder moved to make amends with President Bush.
Schroeder telephoned Bush yesterday for the leaders' first talk since Schroeder ran a reelection campaign marked by anti-American rhetoric.
Afterward, a senior administration official issued a statement that was conciliatory but not warm. "The president is interested in getting down to the business of moving forward on issues of common interest with Germany," the official said.
White House officials said Bush is rarely as furious as he was at Schroeder, whose justice minister was quoted just before the election as comparing Bush's pressure on Iraq with tactics used by Adolf Hitler.
The minister resigned the day after Schroeder's narrow reelection, but relations between the countries remained the worst in decades. The rift dismayed policymakers on both sides and came as Bush was trying to build support for confronting Iraq.
By last evening, there were signs that relations had healed considerably. Schroeder's call, which lasted about 10 minutes, coincided with a visit to Washington by Peter Struck, the German defense minister. He appeared last night with Rumsfeld, who joshed with him about the chill. The lectern in the Pentagon briefing room was bracketed by U.S. and German flags.
When a reporter asked about a U.S. official's earlier description of relations between the country as "poisoned," Rumsfeld jovially declared them "unpoisoned," without elaborating.
Struck laughed, too, saying, "That's very good. That's a very good answer."
Six weeks ago, Rumsfeld had refused to meet with Struck during a NATO defense ministers' meeting in Warsaw.
Despite the renewed amicability, Struck reiterated German opposition to the use of military force in Iraq.
Rumsfeld said each country will respond to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "in their own way, in a way that's consistent with their constitutions, that's consistent with their political circumstance and as far I'm concerned, that's just fine."
A senior administration official said the German government began trying to set up the call a few days ago and said the two leaders discussed the war on terrorism. "Iraq did not come up," the official said.
Bush had pointedly not called to congratulate Schroeder on his reelection, and a senior administration official told reporters on Air Force One that Schroeder "and his government have a lot of work to do to repair the damage that he did by his excesses during the campaign."
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice made the administration's anger plain, telling the Financial Times that some statements in the German campaign were "beyond the pale."
"How can you use the name Hitler and the name of the president of the U.S. in the same sentence?" Rice said. "An atmosphere has been created in Germany that is in that sense poisoned."
Bush and Schroeder plan to attend a NATO summit in Prague in two weeks.
----
Homeland Security Legislation Becomes Republican Priority
Leaders Tell Bush They Will Seek Passage Next Week
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 9, 2002; Page A05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29900-2002Nov8?language=printer
House and Senate Republican leaders told President Bush yesterday they will try to pass legislation he has demanded to create a Department of Homeland Security when Congress returns for a post-election session next week.
They discussed strategies for breaking the deadlock that stalled the proposal in the Senate last month, including procedural tactics as well as a compromise on job protections for employees of the new department. But they gave no indication they had a solution. The showdown could be an early test of Bush's strength on Capitol Hill following the GOP's Senate takeover and House gains. Many Democrats and Republicans attribute the results largely to Bush's popularity and campaigning.
GOP leaders were clearly ready to do Bush's bidding. He told a news conference Thursday it is "imperative" that Congress pass the bill before it adjourns for the year. He also urged action on stalled appropriations bills and terrorism insurance legislation.
"The president of the United States is the leader of our country, and he feels very strongly about this," said Senate Republican leader Trent Lott (Miss.), who with House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) met with Bush over lunch to discuss the "lame duck" session. "He feels that it is important that the Congress work to see if we could get this done, and I agree."
Only two days earlier Lott expressed doubts that any major legislation, including the homeland security bill, could win passage until the 108th Congress convenes in January. He said he hoped the post-election session could be concluded by the end of next week.
But, unless there is a quick breakthrough on the homeland security issue, the session could take longer than a week, possibly continuing into December. Many lawmakers, including some who are planning foreign trips the week after next, are not happy about the prospect of continuing the session into the holiday season, especially if there is little prospect of success.
Lott will serve as majority leader when the session opens Tuesday if independent Sen. Dean Barkley, who was appointed temporarily to succeed the late Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (D-Minn.), agrees to organize with the Republicans. If not, Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) will continue in the post, at least for a week. Some Democrats believe Barkley is likely to align with the Republicans, but Barkley said yesterday he has not decided. Republican Norm Coleman, who won Tuesday's Senate election in Minnesota, will fill the seat when the new Congress convenes in January.
While nearly all Democrats oppose the degree of hiring and firing flexibility that Bush wants for the Homeland Security Department, Republicans hope they will be more willing to strike a deal now to keep the issue from hurting Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) in her runoff election Dec. 7. The issue was seen as a factor in Tuesday's defeat of Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) by Rep. C. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).
Daschle said at a news briefing earlier in the day he wants to finish the homeland security measure this year. He said Republicans, not Democrats, were holding up passage. ""Win or lose, I'll take whatever votes we can get," he said.
----
How Powell Lined Up Votes, Starting With His President's
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
New York Times,
November 9, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/international/09POWE.html?ei=1&en=3cb3a8cb95d6167c&ex=1037855612&pagewanted=print&position=top
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - In late August, from the Situation Room at the White House, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made one of the most important presentations of his tenure, arguing via video screen to President Bush at his ranch in Texas that the administration needed to go to the United Nations for another round of weapons inspections in Iraq.
Also in the room were Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who had made little secret of their disdain for his line of action. Yet when Secretary Powell completed his argument, both supported him, an administration official said.
It was the first victory in what became an arduous three months that saw the secretary of state make 150 telephone calls to colleagues around the world and at the United Nations to craft the resolution adopted today by an extraordinary 15-to-0 vote in the Security Council.
Last Saturday evening he was on the phone discussing permutations of the words "material breach" with the French foreign minister 20 minutes before walking his daughter down the aisle for her wedding.
Today Mr. Bush pointedly turned to Secretary Powell in the Rose Garden and warmly hailed his "leadership, his good work and his determination."
But the secretary's approach has yet to be vindicated, many officials say, and his seeming triumph now may yet turn sour.
Among conservatives inside and outside the administration, there is heightened concern about the possibility of a muddled, slow and inconclusive inspection effort in coming weeks.
Despite the administration's professed confidence in the inspectors, there is a deep-seated unstated fear that President Saddam Hussein of Iraq will only seem to cooperate and the inspectors will find little or nothing incriminating. That would leave the administration with insufficient evidence to persuade the Security Council, its potential allies - or even Americans - that a war is necessary.
If that happens, they say, the secretary's stock in the administration may plummet.
For the moment, admirers and many critics are praising his negotiating skills. "This is a tremendous victory for Powell," said a Republican senator close to him. "When you look at Rumsfeld's position and Cheney's position on going to the United Nations, there's no doubt that Powell won."
Looking back on the last three months, diplomats involved in the negotiations on Iraq say his efforts were sometimes undercut by words and actions of the Bush administration.
Those diplomats cite the continuous American calls for "regime change" in Iraq - not mentioned, they added, when negotiations got intense - as well as lingering bad feelings in Europe over Mr. Cheney's and Mr. Rumsfeld's criticism of the value of inspections, and confusion over allegations of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Also creating problems for the administration was its decision to release a national security strategy in September calling for pre-emptive strikes against American enemies.
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany cited the pre-emption strategy when he criticized Mr. Bush in his re-election campaign. French unease over the strategy gave President Jacques Chirac pause before supporting Mr. Bush on Iraq, diplomats said.
"The issue all along with the Europeans was: were we looking for an excuse to start a war, or a resolution to solve the problem?" said an administration official. "We had to convince people that if we wanted to go to war, we didn't need an excuse. We had to make the case that the stronger the resolution was, the more likely a war could be avoided."
Although the United States wanted a strong resolution, Secretary Powell made important concessions to the French and others to get their support.
First, the administration dropped its insistence on calling for "all necessary means" to enforce its terms, code for military force. In addition, the Americans sought to accommodate the French demand for a two-stage process in which the Security Council would have to be convened to discuss what to do if Iraq rebuffed the inspectors or was shown to have illegal weapons.
Washington met the demand by agreeing to such a meeting, as the approved resolution says, to "consider" how to respond to Iraqi intransigence, though Secretary Powell said the United States would not be "handcuffed" by what the Council did or did not do. A French diplomat said this concession was the turning point.
In return for these concessions, the United States got what an official called "a lot of little triggers" for possible future action by the Security Council and future military action by the United States.
The most important was the use of the phrase "material breach" to describe past and possibly future misdeeds by Iraq. The two words were considered crucial because the resolution being "breached" was the declaration of a cease-fire at the end of the last Iraq war in 1991, in which Baghdad promised to disarm. A "breach" would thus automatically imply an end to the cease-fire.
Equally important is a provision in the resolution saying that any "false statements or omissions" by Iraq in its own disclosure of weapons sites would itself constitute "a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
There were some difficult moments, especially with the French. Overcoming them was not helped by the fact that Mr. Bush and Mr. Chirac have a relationship described as respectful but not warm.
At one point, for example, the French threatened to circulate their own version and seek support for it in the Council. American officials made it clear that such a move would be viewed as provocative, and the French backed off.
The French also surprised the United States by their own aggressive courtship of other nations on the Security Council, especially Ireland, Mauritius, Cameroon and Mexico.
Initially the fear in Washington was that France might veto a Security Council resolution if it did not agree. The Americans were surprised and upset when France actually rounded up enough votes on the Council to block the resolution without having to exercise a veto.
Then last weekend, the Americans surprised the French by wooing several other nations back and declaring that they had a majority on the Council, with or without France.
On the American side, Secretary Powell had to persuade the so-called hawks on Iraq that inspections could work by being aggressive enough to make Mr. Hussein's defiance obvious, thereby serving as a potential pretext for war, and that there had to be deference to United Nations procedures and the twists and turns of diplomacy there.
An important step occurred when the secretary brought Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations inspections team, to Washington last month to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and the administration's most ardent advocate of a confrontation with Iraq.
Officials say Mr. Wolfowitz and Ms. Rice asked tough questions of Mr. Blix at that session. Ms. Rice was said to have pressed Mr. Blix hard to agree to take American and other inspectors and security guards with him, and not to rely solely on his own team. Mr. Blix argued that such a move could backfire by undermining the inspectors' perceived neutrality.
Mr. Blix was also said to have argued that his team, recruited from 45 countries and trained over the last years, would be very aggressive. The Americans then dropped their demand for the outsiders to go along, and they now say that Mr. Blix has Mr. Bush's full confidence.
Throughout the discussions, administration officials said, Secretary Powell did a great deal of his business by negotiating with his French counterpart, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. Each time Secretary Powell worked something out with Mr. de Villepin, he would check back with Ms. Rice or Mr. Bush, while the French diplomat would check with Mr. Chirac.
"Powell and Villepin were the ones who came up with the most of the fixes," said an administration official. "Their relationship was the glue that kept this together."
Once the secretary completed the final negotiations with Mr. Villepin on Thursday, he called the Russian foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, to tell him about a last-minute change in the resolution's language. Mr. Ivanov said he would take it to President Vladimir V. Putin, and called back this morning.
"Khorosho?" asked Mr. Ivanov, using the Russian word for O.K. Then he answered himself, "Da." Shortly afterward, the United Nations Security Council handed Secretary Powell his victory.
-------- MILITARY
-------- biological weapons
D.C. likely to get two counterterror labs
By Tom Ramstack
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 9, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20021109-54088960.htm
At least two of the approximately 10 laboratories the federal government plans to build to counter risks of terrorists unleashing deadly diseases will be in the Washington area.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is building the labs under a biological warfare defense budget that is six times greater than a year ago, or $1.8 billion this year.
Some residents near the proposed labs are concerned the world's most deadly microbes could creep into their homes. Officials for the laboratories say the concerns are unfounded.
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the risks to the community are "vanishingly little if any. The whole purpose of the containment is to protect the facility as well as the community. There's very little if any risk."
One of the labs is planned for the NIH campus in Bethesda on Rockville Pike, Route 355. Another will share facilities with the U.S. Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md.
The Bethesda laboratory will be a BioSafety Level 3 facility, which requires precautions such as containment of air flow and monitoring everything entering the area that could be contaminated.
The Fort Detrick laboratory will be a BioSafety Level 4 facility, which represents the greatest hazard level. Dr. Fauci describes Level 4 as an area "where people essentially walk around in space suits."
Another BioSafety Level 4 laboratory will be built at Rocky Mountain, Mont. About seven more are planned but their locations and biosafety levels have not been determined, Dr. Fauci said.
The laboratories will study methods for defending against deadly microbes rather than how to make them, which is another reason the risk to the community is small, Dr. Fauci said.
"This is study of biodefense, developing vaccines, developing drugs," he said." We're not manufacturing bioweapons, we're doing research to study biodefense. That's a misperception in the community when they think of the danger."
Nevertheless, some Bethesda residents say unforeseen risks create hidden dangers.
"So what happens if somebody blows up a lab or something," said Michelle Radcliffe, a Bethesda resident who lives near NIH. "Before 9/11 something like this would have been such a long shot. But since then, people worry about these things."
Said Ed Stern, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration program analyst and resident of the NIH neighborhood, "Such a laboratory is a target that invites danger to NIH and to the community."
The Bethesda laboratory has been planned since the mid-1990s. However, the federal government has expanded its biodefense efforts in recent months, including plans for the national network of laboratories.
Plans for the Frederick laboratory were announced last month.
The September 11 terrorist attacks prompted NIH to build a 9-foot-high metal fence around its 322-acre campus. It will have an ornamental design but be strong enough to prevent intrusions by people or vehicles.
"It's not a fence intended to stop a big, heavy vehicle," Mr. Stern said.
Allen Myers, president of the Maplewood Citizens Association, a group of residents near NIH, said the environmental impact study for the Bethesda laboratory was completed in the mid-1990s.
"It certainly can't consider what exists today," Mr. Myers said. Terrorists could fire a missile at the laboratory from Rockville Pike, he said.
"If someone has some sort of device that they would want to shoot at it, they certainly could," said Mr. Myers, a Federal Communications Commission employee.
The Maplewood Citizens Association plans to meet with NIH representatives Nov. 20 to discuss their concerns.
NIH officials say they are taking adequate precautions against terrorism. In addition to the protective fence, access points are guarded and surveillance cameras are in strategic locations.
"This building would not be anymore a terrorist target than any other building at NIH," spokesman Don Ralbovsky said.
Local officials say the economic benefits outweigh the terrorism risks.
Federal safety regulations are strong enough to stop any release of deadly microbes, said Scott Sloat, spokesman for the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development.
"We're not concerned about that," he said. "It's just like any other biotech project. From an economic standpoint, we're always looking for new biotech research projects."
Bethesda lies at the south end of the I-270 Technology Corridor, which is lined with biotech companies such as Celera Genomics Group, Human Genome Sciences, EntreMed and Gene Logic.
Frederick Mayor Jennifer Dougherty expressed similar confidence in federal regulators.
"I do believe they have very good scientific restrictions on where the very dangerous microbes can be," Miss Dougherty said.
The greatest risk if terrorists detonated a bomb in or near the biodefense laboratory would be the explosion rather than the health threat, she said. Nevertheless, some residents are worried.
"It is a little controversial here," she said.
-------- colombia
Colombia Extends Emergency
Reuters
Saturday, November 9, 2002; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30330-2002Nov8?language=printer
BOGOTA, Colombia, Nov. 8 -- President Alvaro Uribe today extended for 90 days a state of emergency as he steps up a military campaign against illegal armed groups fighting in the country's 38-year-old civil war.
The decree, which was widely expected, allows state security forces to continue making arrests without warrants and imposing restrictions on movements in "special combat zones."
Uribe declared a state of emergency after leftist guerrillas greeted his inauguration ceremony in August with a deadly mortar attack. He said authorities needed the emergency powers to continue fighting rebels and paramilitary groups that are funded by the booming cocaine trade.
-------- iraq
Iraq to Respond to U.N. Ultimatum
November 9, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Iraq now faces its first test after a unanimous ultimatum from the United Nations to disarm or confront almost certain war: whether to accept or reject the tough new blueprint for weapons inspections.
In the first indication of when it would respond, the official Iraqi News Agency on Saturday said Iraq's leaders were studying the ``bad and unjust'' resolution and are expected to respond in the ``next few days.'' The agency quoted an unidentified official source.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed to Arab states meeting in Cairo this weekend to ``encourage and urge Iraq to comply'' with the tough resolution which the United States wrote and pushed through the council on Friday with an unexpected 15-0 vote.
Under its strict timeline, the clock started ticking immediately giving Iraq until Nov. 15 to accept the resolution which would send U.N. inspectors back to Baghdad after nearly four years with broad new powers to go anywhere at any time backed by the threat of force.
President Bush said the resolution ``presents the Iraqi regime with a final test'' and warned that if Saddam Hussein fails to cooperate the United States will not hesitate to take military action to eliminate its suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs.
``The opportunity is there and the opportunity is final,'' said Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, whose country cosponsored the resolution.
The resolution has a built-in compliance schedule and U.S. officials believe they will get an early indication of Iraq's intentions.
``We will all ... be watching extremely carefully for full compliance by the government of Iraq in meeting its obligations under this resolution,'' U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said after the council vote.
A U.S. official said if Iraq attaches any conditions to its acceptance, that would be ``a signal.'' How forthright it is in its declaration of any illicit weapons programs would be another signal, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Iraq must make such a declaration in 30 days.
The council's approval of the resolution was a diplomatic coup for the Bush administration, crowned by the surprise unanimous vote. That was the result of a last-minute reversal by Syria, which had staunchly opposed the plan during eight weeks of intense international lobbying spearheaded by Washington and London.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri disputed the idea that the passage of the resolution was a triumph for Washington.
``America's aggressive goal of using the Security Council as a cover for an aggression on Iraq was thwarted by the international community,'' Sabri said in Cairo, referring to the revisions made to secure Russian, French and Chinese approval of the resolution.
However, Iraq's Babil newspaper, owned by Saddam's son, said: ``The American administration succeeded in making the United Nations its tool to influence policy.''
U.S. diplomats pushed for support until the final moments before the vote, providing Damascus, Moscow and others with critical assurances: The resolution wouldn't be used to launch war on Iraq, and the Bush administration would work through the United Nations to reach a peaceful settlement to 12 years of international conflict with a derelict Iraq.
Syria's deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said Damascus voted ``yes'' after assurances from Washington and Paris ``that this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq.'' The resolution also reaffirmed ``the central role of the Security Council'' and Iraq's sovereignty, key issues for Syria, he said.
France, Russia and China, later issued a joint interpretation of the resolution, stating that it excludes any automatic use of force and that the council would only discuss Iraqi violations reported by weapons inspectors.
U.S. officials could not immediately comment on the joint statement but Negroponte said earlier that countries also had the right to report violations, and that any violation would ``be considered and discussed within the council.''
And he emphasized that the resolution preserved Washington's right to strike if the council appeared lax in the face of any Iraqi violation. The Pentagon, which already has tens of thousands of troops in the region, prepared Friday for a fresh troop call-up.
``This resolution doesn't constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq,'' Negroponte said.
But Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov declared: ``What is most important is that the resolution deflects the direct threat of war'' and opens the road to ``a political diplomatic settlement.''
The resolution places much of the onus on U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to immediately report Iraqi violations. The council would then assess the violations and decide how to respond.
The resolution leaves it up to inspectors to decide what constitutes a violation. Blix says he wouldn't consider minor delays in access to sites or information to be serious breaches.
Blix said the unanimous vote ``strengthens our mandate very much'' and announced that an advance team of inspectors will arrive in Baghdad on Nov. 18.
The resolution gives inspectors until Dec. 23 to begin work, though Blix has promised to start earlier.
Iraq, which denies it has weapons of mass destruction, announced Sept. 16 that it would finally allow the unconditional return of inspectors barred since December 1998.
The resolution gives the inspectors sweeping new powers to carry out surprise inspections anywhere in Iraq including Saddam's presidential sites, conduct private interviews with any Iraqi citizen, and seal off swaths of Iraqi territory during inspections.
Blix's teams will concentrate on efforts to expose any biological or chemical weapons while the atomic energy agency searches for signs of a renewed nuclear program.
----
'Bush's Iraq plans: Reincarnation of failed 1930s British policy'
Saturday, November 09, 2002
Guest Editorial By Issam Nashashibi and Abdelatif Rayan
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnists (United States)
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=843
(YellowTimes.org) - By all U.S. media accounts, Saddam Hussein's days are numbered. Moreover, Pentagon pundits predict a massive U.S. victory over Saddam's rusty military machine.
Will Bush's Iraq policy bring a real victory to crown America's hegemony in the Middle East and elsewhere? Could history be our guide?
Bush's Iraq policy is reminiscent of the 1930s British "re-occupation" of Iraq. By March 1921, almost four years after they invaded Mesopotamia, the British created Iraq as a new entity managed by "a suitable Arab" who was a member of the Hashemite clan, King Faisal I. In addition, the British supported and promoted narrowly based groups - such as tribal leaders - over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement.
In pursuing this policy, the British were attempting to achieve their military objectives of securing their route to India and controlling strategic oil sources. By the mid-1930s, Iraq exported oil via a pipeline to refineries in Haifa, Palestine.
Palestine, at that time, was in turmoil. Palestinian Arabs were rioting against the Zionist-promoted Jewish immigration to Palestine. Faisal was alarmed about Jewish immigration and expected that "bloodshed would certainly result" from such a demographic change. However, his concern was mostly centered on the negative effect of any bloodshed in Palestine on Iraqi-British relations as confirmed by the August 1936 British Foreign Office's "Report on the Repercussions in Iraq of the Creation of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine."
Although public sentiment supported Arab Palestinians against such foreign encroachment, Iraqi governments were careful not to shatter Iraqi-British relations while repeatedly warning Britain about the destabilizing effect of Iraqi public opinion's pro-Palestinian sentiments. Their official policy on Jewish immigration to Palestine resembled walking a tight rope: it avoided offending British sensibilities without inflaming public opinion.
To mollify public sentiments, Iraqi governments fostered unofficial support for the Arab cause in Palestine. As a result, Iraq became the center of pan-Arab anti-British activities and a mecca for Egyptian, Syrian and Palestinian nationalists.
Despite these strong nationalistic anti-British public sentiments, the British managed to coerce the Iraqi government into entering WWII in support of Britain. The immediate effect of this British political pressure was riots in Baghdad and the killing of several hundred people, mostly Jewish Iraqis.
Perceived as a threat to their interest, the riots were countered by British military intervention and the resignation of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Rashid Ali, in favor of a new "suitable Arab." With British blessing, martial law was established and the new government started to act against the "subversive" nationalist forces that dominated Iraqi public life.
Thus started what the nationalists described as the "second British occupation of Iraq," which also included efforts of "re-structuring" Iraq with complete British and American supervision as reported by the New York Times. The British resumed full control of the education system while the Americans dominated the media. All nationalist and militaristic materials were banned and deleted from textbooks. In addition, the army was purged or neglected.
Clearly, there is nothing new in the current U.S. military scenarios to invade Iraq especially what Administration officials allude to in their post Saddam plans. Such policies confirm the Administration's intention to conquer and occupy Iraq. They also call for disarming Iraq and "downsizing" its armed forces while getting Iraq ready for a "democratic transition" and the removal of senior officials of the governing Ba'ath Party. "Much of the bureaucracy would carry on under new management," a U.S. official added.
These officials were silent about their quest for a "suitable Arab" to implement their post Saddam plans, perhaps another member of the Hashemite clan currently ruling Jordan. They also concealed their intention to pull Iraq from its Arab roots and make it a NATO member by altering nationalist and religious forces in Iraqi society.
Iraqi opposition groups have signed on to the Administration's plans and are fully cooperating with their Washington handlers to create a "federal, non-Arab demilitarized Iraq" as Kanan Makiya, the group's ideologist, envisioned post Saddam Iraq in his speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) symposium two weeks ago.
Makiya further detailed the thinking of "some Iraqi circles" that are "working closely with some agencies of the [U.S.] government" in planning for post Saddam rule. He argued for a "federal" Iraqi government, which "cannot be thought of any longer, in any politically meaningful sense of the word, as an Arab entity." He went on to say that a democratic Iraq has to be "a non-Arab Iraq."
That is the Iraq that "can bring Western civilization" and "values" into the Middle East, added Serif Egali, of the Turkish-USA Business Council, another participant of the AEI symposium.
For President Bush, who has not conveyed any convincing argument to justify waging war against Iraq, the success of his Iraqi adventure must be more than eliminating Saddam and his cronies. It is nothing less than crafting a new Iraq that is divorced from any Arab concern, especially the Palestinian cause. For him and his hard-line advisors, removing Saddam presents the U.S. "with a historic opportunity" that is "as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the entry of British troops into Iraq in 1917," expounded Makiya.
It is an opportunity to create Middle East realities where newly re-constructed "entities" will have neither basis for shared political culture, unity of emotions and aims; nor shared sufferings and hopes.
If history is our guide, the Iraqi people will defy this plan just as they resisted the British 1930s plans that failed to maintain a "suitable Arab regime" because the original British sin, creating the Palestine problem, is still with us.
Issam Nashashibi, an Arab-American political activist, is a US-based Director of Deir Yassin Remembered. . he can be reached at RAYAN22124@YAHOO.COM
[Issam Nashashibi, long-time activist for Palestinian human rights, is a U.S.-based Director of Deir Yassin Remembered (http://www.deiryassin.org), an organization of Jews and non-Jews whose objective is to build a memorial for the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre. Abdelatif Rayan is a Washington-based Middle East consultant and journalist.]
Issam Nashashibi encourages your comments: inashashibi@hotmail.com Abdelatif Rayan encourages your comments: rayan22124@yahoo.com
YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication.
-------- nato
Nato states 'waste billions'
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
09/11/2002
Saturday 9 November 2002
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/09/wnato09.xml
Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary-general, launched a scathing attack on its European members yesterday, dismissing the £95 billion they spend each year on defence as "a waste of money" because of their inability to deploy swiftly during a crisis.
Their failure to co-ordinate their military capabilities meant that the bulk of the money was "squandered" on troops and equipment unable to deploy in time, leaving America to pick up the pieces, Lord Robertson said.
The Nato chief was speaking in Brussels before this month's Nato summit in Prague at which America is expected to insist on the alliance setting up a multi-national rapid reaction force and on what Lord Robertson described as a "dramatic overhaul" of the transatlantic relationship.
Continental Europe's conscript armies have been too slow to adapt to a changed world where the main threat is from terrorists and rogue states.
Lord Robertson said: "We need modernised forces able to go wherever they are needed, whenever they are needed and to stay for as long as required."
The problem is so bad that when Britain withdrew its units from Nato's ACE mobile force this year to deal with the war on terrorism, the alliance was forced to disband the force because there were no replacements available.
Lord Robertson said: "There are two million troops in uniform in Europe, half a million more than the Americans, but only a fraction are deployable. That is a waste of money.
"There are 2,800 attack aircraft compared to half in the US armed forces. Each of the US planes can fly day and night but only 10 of the huge European fleet can perform in that way. This is waste of money as well.
"The US has 250 wide-bodied extra-large planes, which can take troops to where a crisis is. In the whole of Europe we have 11 planes that can do the same."
His comments on the lack of transport aircraft appeared to be directed particularly at Germany, which has singularly failed to keep promises on joint defence projects.
----
Bulgaria credits hard work for NATO prospects
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 9, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021109-918348.htm
SOFIA, Bulgaria - The Bulgarians, never very good at lobbying the great powers or championing their causes on the world stage, had their own way of convincing NATO that they would be a worthy ally - hard work.
Two weeks before the alliance is set to announce its second round of expansion since the end of the Cold War, NATO officials say there is consensus that Bulgaria, along with six other former communist states, will receive a membership invitation.
Of all the candidates, this Balkan nation of 7.6 million, which used to be the Soviet Union's most trusted satellite in Eastern Europe, has found it most difficult to find a Western mentor like its neighbor, Romania, has with France.
"So what we decided to do was to first become less of an enemy and then, as quickly as we could, a true ally of the West," Bulgarian Defense Minister Nikolai Svinarov told The Washington Times.
Politically, Bulgaria has been acting as a de facto ally since NATO's 1999 war with Serbia over Kosovo, when it offered the use of its airspace, Mr. Svinarov said.
It did the same soon after the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan began in October 2001. In addition, U.S. tanker planes that refueled combat aircraft used an air force base at its Black Sea port of Bourgas. Last winter, a Bulgarian platoon joined the multinational force in Afghanistan.
Militarily, the country has fulfilled all basic requirements for accession, NATO officials said in interviews at the alliance's Brussels headquarters. It is downsizing its armed forces from 100,000 to 45,000, with the military expected to become fully professional by 2010.
It has just destroyed nearly 100 Soviet-made SS-23, Scud and Frog missiles and adopted tough arms-trade laws. It is also spending well over 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, a key NATO condition, said Deputy Foreign Minister Lubomir Ivanov.
All this, current and former Bulgarian officials said, was a result of the realization that only hard work would achieve what diplomacy and close relations with powerful countries do for others.
"We are working really hard, and we are fully committed to becoming a NATO member," said Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. "We are a country of peace with all its neighbors that has contributed to stability in Southeast Europe."
But it took Bulgaria more than seven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to unambiguously declare its orientation toward the West.
Former President Petar Stoyanov was the first politician to run an election campaign in late 1996 on NATO membership as a top priority. The government of Ivan Kostov, Mr. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's predecessor, formally applied to join the alliance in 1997.
"Since then, I've been making the case that NATO membership is Bulgaria's civilization choice," Mr. Stoyanov said recently. "For us, the alliance is the best expression of trans-Atlantic cooperation."
The road to Prague, where NATO is expected to issue seven invitations on Nov. 21-22, was painfully hard, he said. The economy was in a shambles and organized crime and corruption were as widespread as unemployment. The country's military readiness was at best questionable.
Today, with help from international financial institutions, as well the European Union and NATO, the economic situation is much more stable, although living standards are nowhere near Western levels. Corruption is still deeply rooted in society, in spite of the official fight against it, said foreign diplomats in Sofia, the capital.
"The population is really frustrated by the continuing economic problems, the crime and corruption," one senior Western diplomat said. "The lack of a functioning, independent judicial system is another major hurdle. People get arrested for drug smuggling, and no one goes to jail."
Vessela Tabakova, a political scientist at the University of Sofia, said she is concerned that many Bulgarians have unrealistic hopes that their lives will almost instantly improve when the country becomes a NATO member.
"The government is doing little to explain to the people that membership carries serious responsibilities," she said.
In a peculiar way, while the drive to join NATO and the EU has had a positive effect on the economy, meeting some of the accession requirements has imposed a heavy social burden.
The high unemployment rate, which official figures put at nearly 20 percent, has been worsened by the tens of thousands of layoffs in the military. In many cases, those discharged are not at all prepared for the civilian job market.
But a growing number of ex-officers have found new employment through special centers established in 1999 to teach job interviewing and research skills, to advise on relocation and even put job-seekers directly in touch with potential employers.
"We also offer help on how to start your own business, because there is really no movement of the labor force in Bulgaria, and in some places setting up your own company is the only option," said Efrem Radev, director of the resettlement program.
He said that four centers with staff of 35 and dozens of regional representatives cover 139 cities. Half of the centers' trainees have found jobs so far.
Despite the serious economic and social problems still plaguing the country, Western officials see a basis of a stable allied state at the strategically important crossroads between Europe and the Middle East.
"The Bulgarians have a clear sense of identity, good social structures and a stable political system," the senior Western diplomat said. "There are no signs of ethnic tensions and no extreme parties. There is vigorous democratic political debate."
The most recent display of political passion came in public protests against dismantling the old Soviet missiles. Though people had no love of for the missiles, they feared environmental hazards, such as pollution and radiation.
The missile-destruction effort was temporarily suspended last month after a blast at a military plant injured four workers, causing worries that the process was unsafe.
But in a statement, the government said: "Overcoming some serious hurdles, Bulgaria destroyed the warheads of the missiles, guaranteeing safety and environmental protection."
The missiles' dismantling was seen by many Bulgarians as a bow to the United States, which insisted on it more than any other NATO member and helped pay for the process.
Bulgaria has also used its seat on the U.N. Security Council to score valuable points with Washington.
In a vote to support extending the mandate of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina in June, only two nations withheld support. The United States voted against the measure to protest the council's refusal to grant immunity to U.S. peacekeepers from the new International Criminal Court (ICC). Bulgaria abstained.
"That vote didn't go unnoticed," a State Department official said. Mr. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha said there was obviously no consensus in the council and his country "didn't want to take sides."
U.S. officials say they are satisfied with public support for NATO membership in Bulgaria, another factor the alliance is considering as it makes its final decision on enlargement.
About half of Bulgarians are in favor of joining NATO, said Mira Yanova, executive director of MBMD, one the country's premier polling organizations. The level of support has dropped about 6 percent since last spring and about 15 percent since the summer of 2001, mainly because of people's economic desperation, as well as the uncertainty of NATO's future, she said.
Mr. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha said an invitation in Prague would be a well-deserved reward for nation that has worked tirelessly and yearns to see its efforts recognized.
When he went to see President Bush at the White House in April, Mr. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha warned that NATO's failure to invite Bulgaria could result in an anti-Western backlash.
"Some may even say that our relationship with the East is more reasonable, as in the old days of communism," he said.
----
Commentary: NATO: American or Atlantic
By Ira Straus
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
November 9, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20021108-063052-7936r.htm
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- It was a lovely autumn afternoon in Washington, D.C., Oct. 6. Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat, was leading a floor fight in Congress to get Slovakia into NATO. It was truly a glorious moment for Stupak. The Milwaukee-born Stupak is of Slovak descent. Slovakia, long oppressed, was finally coming into the American orbit. There was no opposition. One by one, people spoke in favor of Slovakian membership in NATO.
Next, a floor fight over winning NATO entry for the three Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia ensued, with similar results. That day on Capitol Hill was like a folk festival, a parade of speeches for one ethnic group after another.
Stupak was clear that he loved Slovakia, but was not entirely clear about what wanted to get Slovakia into. That became evident when he tried to spell out the acronym NATO and came up with the "North American Treaty Organization" instead of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The error was comic, but not unique. It follows a pattern, one that has a deep meaning for NATO. Americans have only the most superficial conception of what NATO is. One person at a NATO expansion lecture thought that it would make more sense to bring in Mexico, not the Eastern Europeans. It emerged that he thought NATO was the North American Trucking Organization.
The "trucking" part was accidental, but the slippage from "Atlantic" to "American" was not. People no longer appreciate the "Atlantic" term in the name of NATO; to most Americans, it has only a formal geographical significance. They have lost the instinctive appreciation of Atlanticism that was felt in the bones by the founders of NATO: the perception of Atlanticism as a culture and an identity, one of the defining characteristics of the alliance and of the civilization that it unites, and a significant part of the identity of their own country.
For its Founders, NATO was no mere Cold War invention; it was the continuation of the transatlantic alliances of World War I and World War II. Those struggles were the formative experiences of their lives. Americans had fought side by side with Atlantic Coast Europeans for the survival of freedom. In the course of these struggles, "Atlanticism" became a part of their shared identity, renewing in a more modern form the Atlantic element that had entered into their identity centuries earlier in the era of colonization.
"Atlanticism" was therefore developed as a way of thinking about the future of the world, a modern democratic incarnation for the identity of Western civilization. Ideas of Atlantic Union were developed during World War I and in the interwar years. A public movement for Atlantic Union emerged at the end of the 1930s. Among its supporters were some of the people in high places who went on, a decade later, to get the Marshall Plan and NATO underway.
NATO was born in this atmosphere of active Atlanticist striving. It gave institutional expression to the Atlantic idea. Equally important, it provided a permanent peacetime structure for the alliance that had been developing sporadically over the previous half-century.
Thanks to this institutionalization, the growth of the Atlantic alliance became faster, deeper, and cumulative. Once the institution was established, a former life-threatening enemy such as Germany could be brought into the alliance within a matter of just a few years. In the previous round after a World War had ended -- in the years after 1919 -- this had proven impossible, and the price had been paid in a second world war.
Nowadays people have forgotten this history. In Western public discourse, Atlanticism has faded into the mists of time. NATO gets treated as nothing more than a Cold War invention. On this premise, the admission of small Eastern European states follows, but only for sentimental reasons, as a punctuation mark to their independence and to the victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Russia is eternally excluded. Future relevance for the alliance is next to zero anyway: the Cold War is over.
Such an approach to NATO, and the resultant approach to NATO expansion that was actually followed in the 1990s, has nothing to do with facing the new threats to Western security. It has everything to do with why a Cold War atmosphere was resurrected in the '90s.
People seemed more interested in rubbing Russia's nose in the dirt than in building the alliance with Russia that was needed for America's future security. The West lost 10 years when it could have been dealing with the emerging threat of global terrorism. It went out of its way to alienate Russia rather than build cooperation with it in the struggle against the new danger.
Seen in the larger context, NATO is not something whose raison d'etre was ever to punish Russia. Rather, it is a part of the progressive development of an objectively-rooted Atlantic alliance. Far from needing to perpetuate its old enemy relations, it has in each new generation brought in its enemies of the previous generation. It has in this way transcended the previous enmities and dramatically improved the security situation of its core Atlantic coast members.
A genuine expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance today would be one that focuses on bringing in Russia, the only potential new member that can dramatically improve the situation for North Atlantic security. It would also bring in small states, but alongside Russia, not against Russia. And it would refurbish NATO decision-making for the challenge of managing with more members and more complex responsibilities.
To his credit, NATO's British secretary-general, Lord George Robertson has tried to get NATO to shift its priorities partway in these directions. To NATO's loss, the effort began only in 2001, not 1991 when it was first needed. It is still only in its initial stages.
NATO suffered in the last decade. It necessarily took on new members and new tasks, and got involved in faster-moving situations than it had to deal with in the Cold War era, yet it remained stuck with decision-making processes that dated from that old era.
Reforms are beginning in NATO internal processes, but adequate reforms are not yet in sight. NATO's military structures are also only beginning to adapt to the new challenges of the era of mass terrorism, but the prospects are somewhat better in this sphere, where the attention of the media and of national budgetary authorities is attracted more easily.
Meanwhile the Alliance's political structures are plowing ahead with expansion plans that were inherited unchanged from the 1990s: plans according to which, by the end of November, NATO will be inviting in half a dozen new members, despite the absence of commensurate reforms in decision-making procedures, and despite the implicit relegation of Russia to a singularly isolated position.
This is an approach by which NATO is putting at risk both its internal functionality and its main external geopolitical gain from the end of Communism.
Ira Straus is former Fulbright professor of political science at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. Comments to: irastraus@aol.com.
-------- pakistan
Pakistan Religious Want U.S. Out
November 9, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Pakistan-US-Politics.html
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- A leader of Pakistan's religious right, coming off the bloc's best election showing in the country's 55-year history, demanded Saturday that the U.S. military leave the country.
``We were opposed to their war in Afghanistan before and we are opposed now. The vote of the people was clear. They want them out of Pakistan,'' Fazl-ur Rahman told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday.
Last month's general elections, the first since military rule was imposed here in 1999, gave the religious right 59 seats out of 342 in parliament. The pro-military party won 103 seats, far short of the 172 seats needed to form a government.
Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's party controls 80 seats, and may ally with the religious bloc.
``People want good relations with the United States, but they want their sovereignty,'' he said. ``They will have to respect the will of the people of Pakistan.''
The six-party alliance of religious parties, of which Rahman's party is a dominant partner, campaigned almost exclusively on an anti-American platform. It demanded U.S. soldiers leave Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, criticizing President Pervez Musharraf's support for the war on terror.
His voice soft, his head swathed in his trademark orange turban, Rahman chose his words carefully.
He said he did not want to answer questions about the Taliban and al-Qaida, or about them finding sanctuary here under a government that included the religious right. ``These are issues we will speak about in detail after the government is formed,'' he said.
But his lieutenant, Mir Hussain Gillani, a squat white-bearded cleric who sat at his side, said his party's policies are clear.
``Absolutely the Americans will be told to go. Leave Pakistan. This is our country,'' said Gillani.
He also said that it was the religious duty of every Muslim Pakistani to protect and offer sanctuary to Taliban and al-Qaida. He said Osama bin Laden was not a terrorist, but ``Osama is one of the biggest followers of Islam. And what has he done? What has the United States and the West proven that he has done?''
Gillani is vice president of Rahman's Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam, or Party of Islamic Clerics. He said that the Taliban were attacked by the U.S.-led coalition because ``America is an enemy of Islam. It is our duty to give protection to the oppressed Muslims and America is the biggest oppressor.''
Last week the religious bloc and a pro-democracy alliance, which includes Bhutto's party, reached a tentative agreement that would give them enough seats to form the new civilian government in Pakistan.
They then said Rahman would be their likely candidate for prime minister, though negotiations continue.
The pro-military party still says it can form a government. Rahman is talking to them but they don't want him as prime minister. He says that's not negotiable. Some of the parties within the pro-democracy alliance, including Bhutto's party, may break away. Some are questioning Rahman as prime minister and threatening to give their support to the pro-military government.
With all this confusion, the president postponed the convening of Parliament while the politicians wrangle for power.
Analysts say the religious bloc, whether in the government or in opposition, will be a powerful force and that their platform will have to be considered and their supporters accommodated.
That could mean an increasing number of religious right followers in key ministries, like the Interior Ministry, which controls security and police and is the supposed watchdog for fleeing Taliban and al-Qaida.
Rahman's religious right compatriots gained control of the two provinces that border Afghanistan, a region that is strategically crucial to the U.S. campaign.
U.S. intelligence suspects that top Taliban and al-Qaida leaders are hiding in both the North West Frontier Province and southwestern Baluchistan.
Rahman said there are no Taliban hiding there. But most of Rahman's supporters sympathize with the Taliban. At Rahman's election rallies, supporters waved posters of bin Laden.
Rahman accused the United States of trying to keep the religious right out of power in the frontier provinces.
``We are getting the impression that America is trying to prevent us from forming the government, putting hurdles in our way. This would be a mistake, a lost opportunity,'' he said.
``We should learn about each other, so that they can understand us and we can understand them,'' Rahman said, sitting in a modest government-operated housing unit. ``We should not waste this chance.''
-------- spies
Pentagon Plans a Computer System That Would Peek at Personal Data of Americans
By JOHN MARKOFF
November 9, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/politics/09COMP.html?ei=1&en=2c953778a582ee6b&ex=1037854354&pagewanted=print&position=top
The Pentagon is constructing a computer system that could create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe - including the United States.
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
Historically, military and intelligence agencies have not been permitted to spy on Americans without extraordinary legal authorization. But Admiral Poindexter, the former national security adviser in the Reagan administration, has argued that the government needs broad new powers to process, store and mine billions of minute details of electronic life in the United States.
Admiral Poindexter, who has described the plan in public documents and speeches but declined to be interviewed, has said that the government needs to "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence agency analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers.
"We must become much more efficient and more clever in the ways we find new sources of data, mine information from the new and old, generate information, make it available for analysis, convert it to knowledge, and create actionable options," he said in a speech in California earlier this year.
Admiral Poindexter quietly returned to the government in January to take charge of the Office of Information Awareness at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa. The office is responsible for developing new surveillance technologies in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
In order to deploy such a system, known as Total Information Awareness, new legislation would be needed, some of which has been proposed by the Bush administration in the Homeland Security Act that is now before Congress. That legislation would amend the Privacy Act of 1974, which was intended to limit what government agencies could do with private information.
The possibility that the system might be deployed domestically to let intelligence officials look into commercial transactions worries civil liberties proponents.
"This could be the perfect storm for civil liberties in America," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington "The vehicle is the Homeland Security Act, the technology is Darpa and the agency is the F.B.I. The outcome is a system of national surveillance of the American public."
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has been briefed on the project by Admiral Poindexter and the two had a lunch to discuss it, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
"As part of our development process, we hope to coordinate with a variety of organizations, to include the law enforcement community," a Pentagon spokeswoman said.
An F.B.I. official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, said the bureau had had preliminary discussions with the Pentagon about the project but that no final decision had been made about what information the F.B.I. might add to the system.
A spokesman for the White House Office of Homeland Security, Gordon Johndroe, said officials in the office were not familiar with the computer project and he declined to discuss concerns raised by the project's critics without knowing more about it.
He referred all questions to the Defense Department, where officials said they could not address civil liberties concerns because they too were not familiar enough with the project.
Some members of a panel of computer scientists and policy experts who were asked by the Pentagon to review the privacy implications this summer said terrorists might find ways to avoid detection and that the system might be easily abused.
"A lot of my colleagues are uncomfortable about this and worry about the potential uses that this technology might be put, if not by this administration then by a future one," said Barbara Simon, a computer scientist who is past president of the Association of Computing Machinery. "Once you've got it in place you can't control it."
Other technology policy experts dispute that assessment and support Admiral Poindexter's position that linking of databases is necessary to track potential enemies operating inside the United States.
"They're conceptualizing the problem in the way we've suggested it needs to be understood," said Philip Zelikow, a historian who is executive director of the Markle Foundation task force on National Security in the Information Age. "They have a pretty good vision of the need to make the tradeoffs in favor of more sharing and openness."
On Wednesday morning, the panel reported its findings to Dr. Tony Tether, the director of the defense research agency, urging development of technologies to protect privacy as well as surveillance, according to several people who attended the meeting.
If deployed, civil libertarians argue, the computer system would rapidly bring a surveillance state. They assert that potential terrorists would soon learn how to avoid detection in any case.
The new system will rely on a set of computer-based pattern recognition techniques known as "data mining," a set of statistical techniques used by scientists as well as by marketers searching for potential customers.
The system would permit a team of intelligence analysts to gather and view information from databases, pursue links between indivi