Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
CIA Analyst on Iraq
Uranium Plant Plans Debate Continues
Blix Gets Aid on Iraq Missile Issue
Hussein Denies Having Banned Weapons
Israel Won't Comment on Mandela Charges
Radioactive Material Found in Japan
U.S. Official Sees Talks With North Korea on Nuclear Program
Pyongyang Says U.S. Plans to Dominate Peninsula
S. Korean official says 'fear' motivates North
N.Korea Sees 'Evil' as U.S., IAEA Move on Crisis
'A Sea of Fire,' or Worse?
Nuclear arms labs would get more work under Bush budget
Ky. Uranium Workers Strike Over Wages
A Sentence of Death For Deadly Md. Tower
Commercial projects slated for test site still in limbo
NEVADA TEST SITE: No layoffs expected
DOE seeks flexibility on Yucca funding
Officials Quarrel Over Plan for Indian Point Emergency
War Powers
Drunken sailor economics
Budget Sharply Boosts Defense
MILITARY
Bush requests $6 billion for bioterror protection
Blair, Despite a Dubious Public, Sticks to Firm Stance on Iraq
United shows gains despite Crusader loss
Firms tied to NASA lose value
Markets extend gains amid concerns of war
French President Still Opposes Iraq War
British commanders told to prepare for Iraq occupation
Diplomats leave Baghdad as US-led war looms
Saddam's Iraq is not Nazi Germany
Israeli, U.S. Troops Finish Exercises
Hosting of U.S. Navy flight drills voted down
Ankara Parliament Expected to Take Up U.S. Troop Issue
SOYUZ New Burden for a Poor Russian Space Program
CIA, Allies Tracking Iraqi Agents
The Exotic but Fallible Spy Machines Behind America's Case for War
General: Spy Suspect Saw Sensitive Data
Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally'
U.S. Bombers Put on Alert For Deployment in Pacific
U.S. Bombers on Alert to Deploy as Warning to North Koreans
Spending on High-Tech Weapons Remains at Low Level
Rumsfeld's budget favors weaponry of tomorrow
Pentagon investigating head of Central Command
How much edge technology gives in war
Pentagon 'leaks' signal start of mind games
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Registration plan nets six terror suspects
ENERGY AND OTHER
Bush budget has little renewable energy new money
Spanish wind power capacity rises 44 pct in 2002
Bush budget has little renewable energy new money
Opec plans oil production cuts
White House wants to cap USDA 'green' payment plan
Sewage Sludge Touted for Waste Management
Global warming may worsen mercury pollution - UN
Ozone Could Kill Pests in Grain
U.S. Delays Challenge to Europe's Ban on Modified Food
ACTIVISTS
Doug Rokke and Leuren Moret DU tour
Greenpeace blocks UK ship loading army equipment
Greenpeace ship hauled away from UK military port
Building a buzz for peace
Harmony couple promoting peace
Public Schools brainwashing our children on Iraq
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- depleted uranium
CIA Analyst on Iraq
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003
From: Leuren Moret <leurenmoret@yahoo.com>
I just met Dr. Stephen Pelletiere on a speaking tour on the East Coast with Major Doug Rokke. Doug and I were speaking about depleted uranium and introducing the new report on low level radiation by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (www.euradcom.org).
Dr. Pelletiere gave a riveting speech on Iraq and blew holes in the excuses that Bush has given for invading Iraq.
Leuren
--------
Uranium Plant Plans Debate Continues
Jay Korff
WKRN News 2 at 5
02.04.03
Nashville, Tennessee
http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=1114771&nav=1ugFDmUJ
Fear of environmental problems elsewhere worries critics of a plan to bring the nuclear industry to Middle Tennessee.
The controversial plan to bring a uranium enrichment plant to Middle Tennessee is once again under fire. Another county needed to sign-off on the deal has come out against the facility, and environmental groups against the plant are marshalling forces on capitol hill to make it harder for the facility to build in Tennessee.
Environmentalists announced Tuesday that lawmakers are drafting bills that could make it harder for L.E.S. to build its proposed uranium enrichment plant in Hartsville.
"I think we'll have a bills introduced that will call for a referendum in all five counties."
Along with the referendum proposal, Will Callaway of the Tennessee Environmental Council said lawmakers are considering holding hearings on L.E.S.'s plan and taxing uranium.
What to do with depleted uranium, the plant's waste, is what concerns Terry Sweeton the most.
"The people are concerned about tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of tons of highly toxic and radioactive waste piling up on the banks of the Cumberland," Sweeton said.
"The only people here who are concerned about building a safe plant is L.E.S. The others just don't want it built," said John VanMol.
John VanMol, a spokesperson for L.E.S., said the issue of waste is an issue that the company takes as seriously as any.
"If it is not a safe plant, it will not be built. If there is not a plan for the management and the disposal of the waste, the plant will not be built."
A majority of five counties has to vote to allow L.E.S. to buy the land needed to build the plant. Officials in Smith and Macon have voted against the plan, although the Macon County Commission has to vote a second time before it's official.
Votes in Sumner, Wilson and Trousdale counties are pending. The project also needs state and federal approval before moving forward.
-------- inspections
Blix Gets Aid on Iraq Missile Issue
Scientists to Help U.N. Determine if Weapons Violate Disarmament Pact
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 4, 2003; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21047-2003Feb3?language=printer
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 3 -- Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, will invite a panel of international rocket scientists here as early as next week to help determine whether two of Iraq's most important missile programs represent violations of Iraq's disarmament obligations, according to diplomats. The findings could strengthen Washington's case for military action against Baghdad.
The scientists will investigate whether Iraq's production of the Al-Samoud 2 and Al-Fatah missiles, which, in tests, both have violated a U.N. prohibition on rockets with a range greater than 93 miles, represent a "material breach" of Nov. 8 Security Council resolution that threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" if it refused to meet all its disarmament requirements. It could also set the stage for a confrontation with Iraq if it refuses to allow the inspectors to destroy two of its most prized missile systems.
Although the Bush administration continues its military buildup in the region, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been trying to persuade President Bush to delay military action and give Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Blix several more weeks to test Iraqi cooperation and to build a more convincing case in the council that Iraq has no intention of disarming. Blix's presentation could aid that case.
Blix told the 15-nation council at a closed-door meeting a week ago that he would present it with a judgment on the missile question at his Feb. 14 briefing at the United Nations, nine days after Powell shows the council intelligence that Iraq allegedly has refused to abandon its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program.
"It could be a big deal," said a Security Council diplomat. "If those missiles are found to be in breach, and therefore their destruction is ordered, it would be very difficult for the Iraqis to swallow. They put a lot of money and pride into these weapons."
Blix has so far resisted pressure from the United States to declare Iraq's production of the two missile systems in violation of U.N. rules, saying he was still weighing Iraqi claims that the two missiles would not exceed the U.N. limits once they were weighed down with conventional explosives and guidance systems.
But the Swedish arms control expert hinted during the closed-door council session last month that he was considering a finding that Iraq was in breach. "This is a serious matter," he told the council, according to a diplomat present at the meeting. "The Iraqis have invested a lot in this program. I want to be sure of my judgment."
Blix has ordered the Iraqis to freeze the two programs until he makes a determination.
The decision to convene a group of outside experts suggests that Blix is seeking an independent judgment. John S. Wolf, the Bush administration chief liaison to the U.N. inspectors, told Blix on Jan. 23 that the United States considered the missiles to be in clear violation of Iraq's obligation.
Other council members, including Britain, differed from the administration on how serious a finding would be that the Iraqi missile programs constituted a violation of the U.N. resolution, particularly since Baghdad admitted in a recent declaration to the council that it had developed the rockets. "The fact that they had developed these things would not" alone represent a cause for military action, said a European diplomat. "But if they were found in breach and resisted destruction of the missiles, that would be a serious issue."
Blix told the council last week that Iraq's development of the two missile programs "might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems." The Al-Samoud 2 -- a liquid fuel missile that has a 760mm diameter and is powered by a surface-to-air rocket engine -- traveled more than 93 miles 13 times in 40 tests, reaching a distance of 113 miles in one test. The Al-Fatah has reached 100 miles in a test. But Blix said that "some further considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion."
Former and current U.N. inspectors said Iraq was formally warned both in March 1994 and in November 1997 that it could not build a missile with a diameter larger than 600mm or with surface-to-air rocket engines because they would likely exceed the U.N.-imposed 93-mile limit.
Under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire ending the Persian Gulf War, Iraq is barred from producing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles with a range of more than 93 miles. The prohibition was designed to prevent Iraq from producing long-range missile capable of threatening its neighbors, including Israel, while allowing it to defend itself from a foreign attack. Missile experts say the range of the two new missile programs does not significantly increase Iraq's threat to its neighbors, falling well short of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, but it does underscore its propensity for ignoring U.N. requirements.
"This is not a militarily significant issue," said Timothy McCarthy, a former U.N. missile expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies' Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "The issue is related to Iraqi compliance. We sent letters to the Iraqis saying you can't do this. The history goes back."
-------- iraq
Hussein Denies Having Banned Weapons
February 4, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq.html
LONDON/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - President Saddam Hussein denied Tuesday that Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction or any links to the al Qaeda terror network, on the eve of a key U.S. address to the U.N. Security Council on Iraq.
In an interview with British Socialist politician Tony Benn in Baghdad, Saddam said the United States and Britain were intent on war with Iraq to control oil in the Middle East.
The interview, made in Baghdad Sunday, was due to be aired on British television's Channel Four news at 7 p.m.
The broadcast came on the eve of a speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Security Council at 3:30 p.m. GMT on Wednesday, in which he has said he will show that Iraq is concealing banned weapons programs from U.N. arms inspectors in defiance of the world community.
Diplomatic activity was in high gear ahead of the speech, but British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- Washington's key ally -- failed to win the backing of French President Jacques Chirac for an early war.
After their one-day summit at Le Touquet, Chirac told a news conference: ``There is still a lot that can and needs to be done on disarmament through peaceful means.''
The United States and Britain have said Iraq was violating its U.N. obligations, as the countdown to a possible war continues with troop buildups in the Gulf.
Oil prices rose Tuesday, with jittery traders unnerved by the differences between Blair and Chirac. Financial markets reeled ahead of Powell's speech, with gold -- traditional safe haven in times of trouble -- rising to a 6-1/4-year high, bond prices higher and stocks battered further.
NO TIES WITH AL QAEDA, SADDAM SAYS
In his interview with former Labor party cabinet minister Benn, Saddam declared: ``''We have no relationship with al Qaeda'' -- the network headed by Osama bin Laden blamed for the devastating attacks on the United States in September 2001.
``If we had a relationship with al Qaeda and we believed in that relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it,'' Saddam added.
He reiterated Iraq's stance that it has no banned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, despite U.S. accusations to the contrary.
Kuwait, which Baghdad invaded in 1990 at the start of the last Gulf war, closed off its northern areas bordering Iraq to unauthorized personnel from February 15.
Thousands of U.S. troops backed by aircraft and naval forces are already in the Gulf concentrated on Kuwait, and are being joined by British forces ahead of a possible war.
The leaders of Iraq's neighbors Saudi Arabia -- the world's biggest oil producer -- and Jordan met in Riyadh Tuesday to discuss ways to avert a conflict, with Arab nations fearing a devastating spin-off costing their economies billions of dollars in the event of war.
Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who had talks with President Bush in Washington last week, said he thought a decision on taking military action against Iraq was less than a month away.
Britain said it would begin loading tanks from Germany onto 20 to 30 ships this week, indicating a possible mid-March start date for a ground war against Iraq.
BUSH, PUTIN TALK
The Kremlin said Bush telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin Tuesday to discuss the latest developments, adding that Putin had stressed U.N. arms inspectors had a key role to play ``in defining further steps over Iraq.''
Moscow hardened its stance toward Baghdad on January 28 and many analysts say it will not use its veto on the U.N. Security Council to block U.S. military action formulated in any new Council resolution or even abstain.
The High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) warned that about half of the estimated 600,000 Iraqis who could flee any U.S.-led invasion were expected to head for Iran.
Ruud Lubbers and other U.N. sources said that despite a U.N. appeal for more than $37 million for aid operations in Iraq, no funds had been received so far from donors.
-------- israel
Israel Won't Comment on Mandela Charges
February 4, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Mandela.html
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel refused to comment Tuesday on remarks by former South African President Nelson Mandela, who assailed the U.S. policy on Iraq and complained that Israel was not being forced to surrender weapons of mass destruction.
Mandela made his remarks Thursday at the International Women's Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa.
The former South Africa president had repeatedly condemned U.S. behavior toward Iraq and demanded that President Bush respect the authority of the United Nations. But his comments last week were far more critical.
``One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust,'' the Nobel Peace Prize laureate said.
``Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?'' he asked. ``All that (Bush) wants is Iraqi oil,'' he said.
Mandela, 84, also charged that while the Americans insist that Iraq rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, ``their friend Israel has got weapons of mass destruction, but because it's their ally, they won't ask the United Nations to get rid of them.''
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that it would have no comment on Mandela's remarks.
But U.S. officials responded quickly last week, pointing to a letter by eight European leaders expressing support of Bush on Iraq.
``The president expresses his gratitude to the many leaders of Europe who obviously feel differently'' than Mandela, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. ``He understands there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust.''
In New York, the Zionist Organization of America denounced Mandela's statement. ZOA National President Morton Klein said in a statement, ``We deplore Mandela's outrageous and immoral attempt to portray the terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein as an innocent victim of American aggression, and to put Israel on the same level as Saddam.''
During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel, causing considerable damage but few casualties. All had conventional warheads. Israel is preparing for the possibility that if there is a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, Saddam might try to hit Israel with chemical or biological weapons in retaliation.
Israel has never acknowledged having weapons of mass destruction, though foreign experts consistently have concluded that Israel has nuclear weapons.
-------- japan
Radioactive Material Found in Japan
February 4, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Japan-Radioactive.html
TOKYO (AP) -- Dozens of containers filled with radioactive material dating back as far as the 1950s were found in storage at a Japanese military college near Tokyo.
Officials were investigating how the materials ended up at the National Defense Academy, which wasn't authorized to have radioactive materials on campus, Education Ministry spokesman Masaharu Ishida said Tuesday.
The school discovered 48 bins -- some sealed -- containing radioactive uranium, thorium, iodine, cesium and cobalt isotopes in two storage rooms on Dec. 9 and 10.
It didn't report the finding to the government until last week, Ishida said. It wasn't clear why the academy delayed.
Many of the containers were labeled with dates from 1950 to the late 1960s, said Shingo Kimata, a National Defense Academy spokesman.
Kimata said he didn't know what the materials were for, but ruled out the possibility of their use in an atomic weapons development program.
Founded in 1953, the government-run National Defense Academy educates Japan's top military officers and bureaucrats. It is in Yokosuka city, 30 miles southwest of Tokyo.
-------- korea
U.S. Official Sees Talks With North Korea on Nuclear Program
February 4, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Koreas.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department's second ranking official said Tuesday he has no doubt that the United States and North Korea will open a dialogue on Pyongyang's nuclear development programs.
``Of course we're going to have direct talks with the North Koreans,'' Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
He said the initiative would be carried out in concert with other nations so that North Korea's weapons program is not perceived as strictly a U.S.-North Korean problem.
Armitage went further than the administration had previously in discussing the likelihood of U.S.-North Korean talks.
Last fall, the administration's position was that there would be no dialogue with North Korea in response to its violations of commitments not to develop nuclear weapons.
Armitage ruled out U.S. acceptance of North Korea's demand for negotiations leading to a nonaggression treaty.
Noting that treaties require Senate ratification, Armitage said there was ``zero chance'' of a proposed treaty receiving the required two-thirds majority support for Senate confirmation.
Committee Chairman Richard Lugar said he favors direct talks with Pyongyang.
``While the United States is and should be prepared to use force related to North Korea's weapons of mass destruction,'' the Indiana Republican said, ``we must guarantee to the American public and to Americans serving in Korea that all diplomatic options are being pursued.''
As the hearing was taking place, Secretary of State Colin Powell was meeting with Chyung Dai-chul, a senior adviser to President-elect Roh Moo-hyun,
Afterward, Chyung told reporters the United States should open a dialogue with North Korea in the context of international backing.
He also said the United States and South Korea must reinforce their defense alliance.
``Korea and the United States should become one,'' Chyung said. ``President Bush and future President Roh should become one as well.''
There is growing alarm in both countries about North Korea's apparent attempt to increase its arsenal of nuclear weapons. Bush says he believes a diplomatic solution can be reached.
The Pentagon is weighing the possibility of bolstering U.S. forces in the region. Armitage said plans were being made in case ``North Korea would in some fashion try to take advantage of our focus on Iraq.''
``As far as I know, nothing has moved forward. It's an alert to be available to move forward,'' he said.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush's belief in a diplomatic solution ``doesn't mean the United States won't have contingencies and make certain those contingencies are viable.''
Roh will take office on Feb. 25, replacing President Kim Dae-jung, whose administration attempted to reach out the North in the interests of peace. Like Kim, Roh does not believe that a policy of belligerence toward the North is the way to ease tensions.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld held a 45-minute meeting at the Pentagon with Chyung on Monday.
They discussed both sides' interest in modernizing the U.S.-South Korea military alliance.
A senior official familiar with the talks said Tuesday Chyung presented a statement from the president-elect expressing his interest in making the alliance a ``true partnership.''
The Pentagon and the South Korean military worked out an agreement last year to consolidate U.S. military installations in South Korea, over a 10-year period, to reduce the presence of U.S. forces in urban areas. Rumsfeld and Chyung agreed that they must expand and accelerate that plan, the senior defense official said.
American officials disclosed Friday that spy satellites had detected what appeared to be trucks moving spent fuel rods from a North Korean nuclear facility. It was viewed as a possible sign that Kim Jong Il's government might be preparing to process the rods to produce nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration is hopeful that pressures from Europe, China and Russia -- all opposed to Pyongyang's nuclear programs -- will induce officials there to reconsider their nuclear policies.
----
Pyongyang Says U.S. Plans to Dominate Peninsula
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By DON KIRK
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/international/asia/04cnd-kore.html
SEOUL. South Korea, Feb. 4 - North Korea accused the United States today of plotting "to dominate the Korean Peninsula," while United States military planners contemplated moves to counter what they perceived as an increased North Korean nuclear threat.
The North's print and broadcast news media poured out a steady stream of invective after disclosures by American military officials of plans and recommendations to build up American military strength in the region.
At the center of much of the diatribe the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, whose most important title is that of chairman of the national defense commission. It was a military official accompanying Mr. Kim on a visit to a base who reportedly declared North Korean soldiers and ordinary citizens' "readiness to cope with U.S. imperialist warmongers' indiscriminate military and political moves under their strategy to dominate the Korean Peninsula."
The same official, as quoted by Radio Pyongyang, said that "soldiers and people have entrusted their future" to Mr. Kim while the party newspaper Rodong Sinmun, said the purpose of American policy was "to stifle the D.P.R.K.," the initials for Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in order "to strangle the D.P.R.K. by force."
North Korean oratory was not accompanied by any sign of movement or buildup of North Korean units above the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas, but North Korea's party newspaper added to concerns by advising the country's 1.8 million reservists to rally around the North Korean leader. North Korea has approximately 1.1 million full-time troops.
The United States command here added to the news from Washington of a buildup of forces by announcing that 2,900 American soldiers might not be able to go home at the end of their tours here. The reason, said the command, was to make sure that every unit would be "at 100 percent of its aggregate strength."
The command denied that what it called a "Stop Move" was a device for adding to the 37,000 troops already in Korea.
Gen. Leon LaPorte, commander of American forces in Korea, promised to consult with South Korean defense officials if more troops were needed "to ensure deterrence and preserve the peace of the Korean Peninsula."
South Koreans were consumed not by the nuclear crisis, or reports of an American buildup, but by the issue of a possible payoff to North Korea in return for agreeing to the June 2000 inter-Korean summit meeting.
The opposition Grand National Party said it would introduce legislation authorizing a special prosecutor to investigate the scandal, in which government auditors have confirmed that $200 million was channeled to North Korea through Hyundai Merchant Marine, a private company, before South Korea's president. Kim Dae Jung, flew to Pyongyang to meet Kim Jong Il.
Park Jie Won, the aide responsible for arranging for the talks with North Korean officials, denied that the money was a payoff. Rather, he said, the purpose was to win contracts for projects in North Korea.
----
S. Korean official says 'fear' motivates North
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 4, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030204-12188360.htm
The United States will have to agree to direct talks with North Korea on guaranteeing its security if the Korean nuclear crisis is to be resolved, the chairman of South Korea's parliamentary defense committee said yesterday.
Chang Young-dal, a member of President-elect Roh Moo-hyun's Millennium Democratic Party, said in an interview at a Washington hotel that the North was motivated to revive a prohibited nuclear arms program not from strength but from fear.
"At heart, the North would like to have their regime guaranteed," said Mr. Chang, speaking through an interpreter. "I think the actions they have taken lately have come because they fear for their survival, because of the weakness of the regime and the difficult economic conditions.
"At the same time, the United States must be prepared for a comprehensive dialogue with North Korea so a package settlement on the nuclear issue and the Korean Peninsula situation can be resolved in the near future."
Top Bush administration officials are expected to hear a similar message during this week's visit by a top envoy from Mr. Roh, who takes office Feb. 25. Mr. Roh's election campaign saw unprecedented questioning of the U.S.-South Korean security alliance and of the role of some 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in the South.
The visits come as the Pentagon considers boosting its assets in the region to deter any hostile moves by North Korea while the crisis in Iraq plays out.
Defense officials said yesterday that some B-52 bombers, F-16 fighter jets and naval assets have been put on alert and could be sent to Western Asia in the coming days.
The presidential envoy, Chung Dae-chul, met with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday and was scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and White House officials today.
The envoy is carrying a letter from Mr. Roh calling for a peaceful settlement to the Korean crisis. Mr. Chung said before leaving Seoul that he would argue against imposing sanctions on the North and ask the United States to continue to support the "sunshine policy" of rapprochement with the North pioneered by South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.
The standoff over Pyongyang's nuclear program, ignited when the North admitted in October that it was violating a 1994 pledge to the United States not to develop nuclear weapons, showed no sign of abating.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, announced plans yesterday to meet on Feb. 12.
The IAEA is likely to refer Pyongyang's behavior to the U.N. Security Council. That opens the door to international sanctions, which North Korea has said it would consider an act of war.
Pyongyang ousted IAEA monitors from a suspect power plant in Yongbyon on Dec. 31 and 10 days later said it was pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
U.S. officials said last week that surveillance satellites had picked up suspicious activity around the Yongbyon site, raising fears that technicians were preparing to convert spent nuclear fuel rods into bomb-grade plutonium.
"I've exhausted all possibilities within my power to bring North Korea into compliance," said IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei. Both he and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said no decision had been made on whether to impose sanctions.
"When we get to the Security Council, we'll see what we propose there," Mr. Boucher said. "But we have not talked about sanctions at this point."
Mr. Chang, chairman of the National Defense Committee in South Korea's National Assembly, said in the interview that news accounts had overstated the level of anti-Americanism behind Mr. Roh's victory.
Tensions during the campaign were sharpened considerably by the acquittal of two U.S. servicemen in a traffic accident that killed two South Korean teenage girls.
"Mr. Roh was very unfamiliar to many in the United States when he was elected," Mr. Chang said. "But when we heard there were concerns in Washington about him, we just laughed. I think he will be able to develop a stronger relationship than ever in the past."
An aide to Mr. Roh has suggested since the election that the South could serve as a mediator between Pyongyang and Washington on security issues. Mr. Chang makes clear that Mr. Roh owes his election to a younger generation of South Koreans who want a "more equal and mature relationship" with Washington.
"There will be a lot of demands on him to represent their views," Mr. Chang said, "and that might be a difficult task."
He said revelations that a 2001 summit between Kim Dae-jung and North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-il might was fueled by a $186 million cash payment to the North could cause a small dent in the popularity of the "sunshine policy," but would cause no long-term damage.
----
N.Korea Sees 'Evil' as U.S., IAEA Move on Crisis
February 4, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-korea-north.html
SEOUL, South Korea (Reuters) - North Korea accused the United States of pursuing a ``policy of evil'' Tuesday, after U.S. aircraft and warships were put on alert for possible deployment near the Korean peninsula, now gripped by a nuclear crisis.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog, booted out of North Korea last month, took steps to refer the communist state's nuclear weapons program to the Security Council.
The flurry of international attention to the four-month-old face-off came as Washington prepared to make its case for war against Iraq. Last year, President Bush bracketed Iraq with North Korea and Iran in an ``axis of evil'' for their suspected weapons development programs.
In Washington, a South Korean envoy told the Bush administration it should more actively seek dialogue with Pyongyang and indicated Seoul was in no hurry to see a U.N. debate on North Korea's nuclear programs.
Chyung Dai-chul, an envoy from South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, told reporters he had passed on that message in talks with Secretary of State Colin Powell.
``We also expressed our hope that the United States ... plays a more proactive role in engaging in dialogue with North Korea, but also with an international setting, with a multilateral approach,'' Chyung said.
Earlier Tuesday, North Korea's official Rodong Sinmun newspaper accused the United States of pursuing a ``policy of evil against the Korean nation, its reunification and peace.''
The ruling party daily dismissed U.S. offers of dialogue on the impasse as ``a camouflaged peace hoax to cover up its nuclear blackmail against the DPRK (North Korea).''
Monday, U.S. defense officials said the Pentagon was considering reinforcements in the western Pacific in order to deter any North Korean aggression in case of war in Iraq.
They said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had yet to issue any final orders to move B-52 bombers, F-16 fighter jets or naval units closer to the Korean peninsula.
RUSSIA OPPOSES EXPANDING U.S. FORCES
Russia said Tuesday it opposed any U.S. military build up around the Korean peninsula. A foreign ministry statement said any expansion of U.S. forces in the area of Korea would play a ``negative role because it won't bring a desirable solution of the problem by talks but ... may provoke a response.''
Military alliance officials are monitoring developments and would consult with South Korea's Ministry of National Defense ``if additional forces are required on the Korean peninsula for the accomplishment of our mission,'' the commander of U.S. Forces in Korea, General Leon J. LaPorte, said in a statement.
North Korean state radio said the reported reinforcement proposals showed the United States was ``plotting to boost forces in Japan and South Korea as one link in its scheme to stifle our country through military means.''
Pyongyang's Korean Central News Agency said North Korean leader Kim Jong-il toured a naval unit Monday, praising sailors for upholding ``the spirit of becoming human bombs and the spirit of blowing oneself up as their invariable faith.''
In Vienna, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency said Monday its governing board would hold an emergency session on Feb. 12 on the nuclear crisis.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei told Reuters the IAEA board was likely to hand the issue over to the U.N. Security Council. ``Under our charter, we will report to the Security Council,'' he said in an interview.
``I've exhausted all possibilities within my power to bring North Korea into compliance,'' ElBaradei said.
The crisis erupted last October when Washington said Pyongyang had admitted to enriching uranium in violation of a 1994 accord, under which it froze its nuclear program in exchange for two energy-generating reactors and free fuel.
Since December, North Korea has expelled IAEA inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), restarted a mothballed nuclear complex capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium and threatened to resume missile tests.
NO INTENTION TO ATTACK, POWELL SAYS
Washington has said repeatedly it intends to settle differences with Pyongyang peacefully and officials stressed the possible deployment did not include any ground forces to join the 37,000 U.S. troops now stationed in South Korea.
The Pentagon refused to confirm any movement of forces -- the goal of which, the U.S. defense officials said, was to maintain the region's military balance.
Secretary of State Colin Powell reaffirmed last week the United States had no intention of attacking North Korea and was ready to convey that assurance in an unmistakable way.
North Korea says the only way to resolve the crisis is talks with Washington leading to a non-aggression pact.
ElBaradei said North Korea was wrong to portray the stand-off as just a bilateral issue with Washington.
``The U.S. disagrees with that, almost everybody disagrees with that, and I disagree with that,'' he said. ``I think it's an international issue that has a lot to do with peace and security ... an issue of concern to the world at large.''
ElBaradei said he did not expect the 15-nation Security Council to opt for economic sanctions or military action but to seek a diplomatic solution.
Asked in Washington what South Korea thought of IAEA and Security Council action, Chyung said: ``The basic position of the Roh Moo-hyun administration would be that, yes, the IAEA could bring this issue to the U.N. Security Council.''
``But the solution to this should be sought in a gradual and step-by-step manner,'' the envoy added.
Pyongyang has said it would view sanctions as an act of war. Most experts on North Korea believe even a surgical strike on its nuclear facilities would provoke Pyongyang into an all-out attack on South Korea, whose capital Seoul lies within range of 10,000 artillery pieces deployed on their border.
--------
'A Sea of Fire,' or Worse?
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/opinion/04KRIS.html
The North Korean nuclear crisis is far more perilous than many people realize.
The White House, wanting to keep the focus on Iraq, did not even bother to tell us that satellite images show North Korea apparently taking steps toward reprocessing plutonium. It was left to my Times colleague David (Scoop) Sanger to alert the public a few days ago.
Can you imagine if it were Iraq that had been spotted moving nuclear fuel around? The news that the Pentagon is reinforcing its preparedness on the Korean Peninsula suggests that it doesn't believe the White House lullabies either.
When North Korea has reprocessed its plutonium and built five more nuclear weapons, probably by summer, it'll try to pressure us into a new package deal. To understand how dangerous the Korean Peninsula could become, consider one worst-case scenario:
Feb. 14: The C.I.A. confirms that North Korea is reprocessing plutonium, making a pre-emptive U.S. military strike more difficult because of the risk of radiation leakage.
Feb. 15: "This is not a crisis," the White House declares.
March 17: North Korea announces that it will resume missile tests. Stocks plunge in Tokyo and Seoul.
March 26: North Korea test-fires a two-stage Taepodong 2 missile. It soars over Japan, knocking 9 percent off the Tokyo stock market. C.I.A. analysts warn that a three-stage version of the Taepodong 2 could reach the U.S. mainland.
March 27: "This is not a major crisis," the White House declares.
April 7: On the birthday of the late Great Leader Kim Il Sung, North Korea resumes construction of a nuclear reactor in Taechon that will be capable of producing plutonium for 44 warheads annually.
May 1: The U.N. Security Council approves sanctions. Without Chinese enforcement they mean little.
June 29: North Korea completes reprocessing, and the plutonium is dispersed to be made into warheads.
July 10: North Korea tests a nuclear device. Stocks tumble worldwide, leading a big Japanese bank to the edge of bankruptcy.
July 12: North Korea formally declares itself a nuclear state, proudly asserting that the "Korean Bomb" will be used on behalf of all Koreans to combat Japanese and American aggressors. Stocks plunge worldwide, triggering a Japanese banking crisis and a global recession.
July 13: "This is not a monumental crisis," the White House says.
July 15: Tokyo's mayor, Shintaro Ishihara, launches a campaign for prime minister on a platform of building nuclear weapons.
July 20: With its plutonium safely hidden, North Korea begins to pressure the U.S. to negotiate a package solution to the crisis. Its troops spray machine-gun fire across the DMZ. South Korean and Japanese stock markets fall 7 percent.
Aug. 1: A sealed vial of anthrax is found in an Osaka subway car. No one is hurt, but some commentators suggest it is a message from North Korea to the U.S.: "You'd better talk to us."
Aug. 5: Iranian and Libyan nuclear buyers are spotted shopping in Pyongyang.
Aug. 6: "We shouldn't exaggerate this crisis," the White House says. "As we've said from the beginning, we're always ready to sit down with North Korea and talk."
Aug. 13: Donald Rumsfeld offers three military options to President Bush. The minimal one calls for a cruise missile strike on North Korea's known nuclear facilities (but because the plutonium has been reprocessed and the warheads hidden, we cannot take out its nuclear arsenal). The maximal one also destroys the North's air defense system and much of its artillery.
Aug. 16: Intelligence intercepts suggest that North Korea will respond to even a minimal U.S. military strike by launching conventional missiles at Japan, and to a broader strike by turning Seoul into "a sea of fire." The C.I.A. warns that if the North finds itself losing a conventional war, it will use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons against Japan and U.S. forces in South Korea. All sides brace for a new Korean war, which the C.I.A. estimates could kill one million people.
Aug. 17: Colin Powell is told by President Bush: "If only we'd listened to you two years ago about the need to engage North Korea! Even this February, if only we had started negotiations. I'm sorry, Colin, we blew it." Then Mr. Powell wakes up and realizes he was dreaming.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Nuclear arms labs would get more work under Bush budget
By Dan Stober
San Jose Mercury News
Tue, Feb. 04, 2003
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5101064.htm
The Bush administration wants to pump more money into nuclear weapons, gradually restoring facilities to produce nuclear warheads that had been shut down at the end of the Cold War.
At the same time, the administration intends to pursue a controversial program of research on the development of battlefield nuclear weapons to destroy underground bunkers.
The Energy Department budget for 2004, released Monday, proposes a 9 percent increase in nuclear weapons related funding, bringing spending to $6.4 billion.
The Energy Department budget means more money for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which would get $1.17 billion for weapons-related work. Together with funding from other agencies, this would push the Bay Area lab's total annual operations budget past $1.5 billion.
``As the Nuclear Posture review issued by President Bush acknowledges, a nuclear capability is going to be a key element of our national defense in the foreseeable future,'' said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Agency, the Energy Department organization that runs the weapons program.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and ranking NNSA officials told reporters Monday that they aimed to rebuild the U.S. bomb manufacturing capability. The administration will push ahead with plans to manufacture a small number of plutonium pits -- the radioactive spheres at the heart of nuclear weapons -- at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. At the same time, site selection is moving forward to construct a full-scale factory to make bomb cores.
NNSA is also moving ahead with studies at Livermore and elsewhere aimed at strengthening existing bombs and missile warheads to withstand a high-speed penetration of earth, concrete and rock. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is proposed to bury itself in the ground, where its explosion might destroy buried enemy command bunkers or storage sites for weapons of mass destruction.
Studies have suggested that such weapons could be used to attack deeply buried bunkers storing chemical or biological weapons in countries such as Iraq or North Korea.
The seriousness of this effort was underscored last week when the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency last week announced it was seeking proposals for a computer-based system to predict how effective nuclear weapons would be in destroying specific underground targets, and what the effects of the resulting radioactive fallout might be.
The Pentagon is seeking companies to supply a computer system that would model geography, construction techniques and nuclear effects to determine, among other things, the most effective angle for a nuclear warhead to slam into the ground if it is to destroy the target.
Experts from Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory would help interpret the computers' predictions.
The system must produce a ``3-D visual presentation of the results,'' according to the Pentagon's request for proposals. The $1.26 billion program is scheduled for completion is 2006.
Arms-control advocates oppose the Bush initiatives. ``You put all these pieces together and the administration is moving in the direction of creating a new type of nuclear weapons that would probably require nuclear testing,'' said Daryl Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association in Washington.
The arms-control community fears that a resumption of testing by the United States would encourage non-nuclear nations to join the nuclear club.
The United States stopped live tests of nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert in 1992. ``This is a slow-motion slide backward to the Dr. Strangelove days,'' Kimball said.
The Bush budget proposal includes funding to reduce the time it would take to prepare for the resumption of testing, from three years to 18 months.
But a ranking NNSA official, who spoke to reporters on the condition that he not be identified, said testing would not be resumed unless an existing weapon develops safety or reliability problem that can't be fixed any other way.
``Those situations do not exist today and I have no reason to believe they will exist in the foreseeable future,'' the official said.
Other highlights of the proposed weapons budget:
• Increased anti-terrorism funding, including cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency to secure radioactive substances that could be used to make so-called dirty bombs.
• A renewed effort to work with the Russian government to protect its stored nuclear materials and weapons from theft, and to buy bomb-grade Russian uranium to keep it safe. The uranium will be ``blended down'' to make it usable as fuel for nuclear reactors.
• A continued emphasis on super-computer simulation of weapons and large-scale machinery, such as Lawrence Livermore's stadium-sized laser, the National Ignition Facility. The so-called Stockpile Stewardship Program is intended to maintain the nation's nuclear arsenal without resorting to renewed testing.
• Refurbishment of existing weapons, such as the B-61 hydrogen bomb and the W-76, W-80 and W-87 missile warheads. Contact Dan Stober at dstober@sjmercury.com or (650) 688-7536.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- kentucky
Ky. Uranium Workers Strike Over Wages
February 4, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Uranium-Plant-Strike.html
PADUCAH, Ky. (AP) -- Half the workers at the nation's only plant that enriches uranium for commercial nuclear power walked off the job Tuesday in a protest over wages, health care and pension issues.
About 620 workers went on strike at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in this western Kentucky city. The facility's operator said it would keep the plant running with management taking over some of the tasks.
United States Enrichment Corp., which operates the plant for the Energy Department, will meet customer demands ``safely and reliably'' with salaried workers, company spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said.
``We will continue all essential work at the plant,'' Stuckle said.
Kevin Choate, a 15-year worker at the plant, said he wonders how that will be possible if the strike continues more than a few days.
``You have 600 people maintaining it -- with them gone, you can figure it out,'' Choate said.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors will be at plant for the first 72 hours of the strike to ensure the plant operates safely, commission spokesman Jan Strasma said. Extra inspections are possible to shut down the plant or issue orders if necessary.
USEC, a privatized federal corporation in Bethesda, Md., took over management of the plant's enrichment operations in 1993. The last strike at the plant was in 1979, when it was run by Union Carbide Corp.
Hourly workers in Local 5-550 of the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International went on strike after rejecting USEC's latest offer for a five-year contract.
``We have expressed a willingness for the last eight weeks that this has been going on to reach a mutually acceptable resolution,'' said Leon Owens, the local president. ``The problem has been the company's unwillingness to address union issues.''
Stuckle said USEC has ``made a very fair and competitive offer.'' The company has offered to meet with a federal mediator and is willing to work with the union, she said.
Owens said the union and management are too far apart for a mediator to be useful. Union leaders seek better pension benefits and say the company's proposed salary increases will not offset increases in health care costs.
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said he supports the union's decision to strike, though he wants the dispute settled quickly.
``I thought the union people were pretty reasonable in their requests,'' Bunning said during a teleconference Tuesday morning. ``It seems to me that USEC is playing hardball with the union.''
Naturally occurring uranium contains only small amounts of the isotope uranium-235, which is needed to support chain reactions in nuclear reactors and weapons. The metal must be refined to boost the concentration of that isotope, a process called enrichment.
Most nuclear power plants require uranium containing about 5 percent U-235 to other isotopes of uranium; nuclear weapons need about 90 percent.
On the Net:
United States Enrichment: http://www.usec.com
Union: http://www.paceunion.org
-------- maryland
A Sentence of Death For Deadly Md. Tower
Demolition Planned at Bioweapons Site
By David Snyder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 4, 2003; Page B04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21344-2003Feb3?language=printer
An icon of the nation's long-defunct biological weapons program -- a seven-story tower in Frederick that once produced anthrax slurry by the gallons -- has been slated for demolition after standing vacant for more than three decades, officials at the National Cancer Institute said yesterday.
Since it was shut down in 1969, Building 470 has become something of a lightning rod for suspicion. Talk of demolishing the building, the largest of dozens on the campus of Fort Detrick once used for biological weapons research, has for years spurred concerns that the biological horrors within could contaminate Frederick, which surrounds Fort Detrick.
But officials with the National Cancer Institute, which took the building over from the Department of Defense in 1988, say it has been decontaminated numerous times and cleared for human habitation or demolition.
Plans have been drawn up for the demolition, possibly this year, officials said yesterday. Dismantling cannot begin until money is approved by the National Institutes of Health, which oversees the cancer institute.
"There is no evidence of any viable, living [anthrax] spores in the building," said George W. Anderson, a decontamination expert with the Southern Research Institute who is overseeing plans to dismantle the structure. "At this point, we feel that it's more risky to vaccinate people [against possible anthrax infection] and send them into the building than to not vaccinate them."
Once NIH gives the financial go-ahead, demolition is expected to take about 10 months, officials said. The building will be taken apart section by section, and the gargantuan stainless steel fermenting vats moved and dismantled.
Protective mesh will cover the building to prevent debris from falling and to cut down on dust, officials said. Of greater health concern than latent biological agents, Anderson said, is asbestos on the vast plumbing network inside the building and lead paint on the walls.
Building 470 -- a dark, looming structure loaded with a tangled network of fermenting vats, decontamination pipes and other lab paraphernalia -- has been vacant since shortly after President Richard M. Nixon declared an end to the nation's biological weapons program.
Since then, it has been declared safe to enter several times and sometimes has been used for storage, but never occupied full time. Production of biological agents at the building ended in 1965.
The building's mythology seemed to spread through the 1970s and 1980s, said Norman Covert, a retired Fort Detrick public affairs officer who wrote the installation's official history.
"People have been afraid of it for all these years," Covert said. "Locally and nationally, people euphemistically called the building the Anthrax Tower, the Tower of Doom."
Opened under intense secrecy in 1954, at a time when Cold War fears of Soviet biological weapons were at a peak, Building 470 is one of the few remaining symbols of biological weapons production in the United States.
Dark and ominous -- and one of the tallest buildings in Frederick County -- the tower has garnered an image of dark mystery, an image that was only heightened by the building's continuing vacancy.
There was a massive spill of anthrax slurry in 1958, when a lab worker accidentally damaged a valve on a 2,500-gallon fermenter used to brew anthrax. No one was killed, and the building was thoroughly decontaminated at the time. It continued to function as a laboratory and production facility for 10 more years, without incident, officials said.
Officials said they hope the building's destruction will help eradicate the mythology, still popular in Frederick and beyond, that Building 470 still has undivulged secrets.
Fort Detrick has housed dozens of laboratories for peacetime uses since the weapons program was dismantled, but its reputation as a factory for bioweapons persists -- fed in part by the FBI investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks.
The FBI has several times searched the former apartment of onetime Fort Detrick scientist Steven Hatfill, and just last week, agents returned to a forested area not far from the Army installation to search for clues.
As for Building 470, said Cheryl D. Parrott, program analyst with the National Cancer Institute: "It will be good to put it to bed."
-------- nevada
Commercial projects slated for test site still in limbo
Group's chairman hopes disaster won't further stall plans
By MATTHEW CROWLEY
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Las Vegas Review-Journal
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Feb-04-Tue-2003/news/20617248.html
Two commercial space ventures targeted for the Nevada Test Site should continue in memory of the shuttle astronauts who died Saturday, a local official said Monday.
The two ventures, one by Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Md., and the other by Kistler Aerospace Corp. of Kirkland, Wash., were in limbo even before the space shuttle Columbia tragedy because of money problems.
But Troy Wade, chairman of the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business, a Southern Nevada trade group that represents contractors and technology companies, said he hopes both projects will come to the test site one day.
"The greatest disservice we could do to the families of the seven astronauts who died and to this nation is to shut down these sorts of shuttle programs," Wade said.
Wade said he expected some reshuffling of priorities because of Saturday's accident; officials may now rethink how much manned space flight America really needs.
Nevertheless, he said as long as space stations exist, America will need shuttles to serve them.
"I believe a lot of the future of this planet depends on our ability to navigate in space," Wade said. "I'd hate to see tragedy like this, as awful as it was, delay things."
In 1998, the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, became one of several U.S. sites competing for a Lockheed Martin program to develop vehicles to deliver hardware into space on unmanned flights.
Sen. Harry Reid, D.-Nev., at the time valued the program at $3 billion and said it would bring as many as 2,000 jobs to Nevada to construct the space planes, then priced at between $500 million and $1 billion each, to replace the current rocket-launched space shuttles. As a precursor, Lockheed, in cooperation with NASA, developed the X-33, a scaled-down version of its VentureStar project.
That same year, Kistler Aerospace officials announced they hoped to one day use the test site to develop a reusable launch vehicle for telecommunication satellites. The vehicle was designed to launch and land at the test site or at another site in Australia.
Lockheed Martin and Kistler officials have said in the past they considered the test site ideal for both projects because of its 5,600-foot launch elevation and 6,500 square miles of secured area with restricted air space.
The VentureStar project, which at one time was scheduled for a test launch next year, slowed after hitting a design snag.
NASA asked for a redesign of the fuel tanks after a test failure, Wade said, but Lockheed balked when government budget cutbacks curbed the money NASA could contribute to the project.
In 2001, Kistler was tentatively offered a $135 million NASA contract, hinging on a test flight, to develop its reusable space vehicles. Wade said Far East nations that had promised Kistler money for the project canceled after economic turmoil hit the region, putting the project on hold.
Kistler officials declined comment Monday.
---
NEVADA TEST SITE: No layoffs expected
Official says buyouts, attrition will make firings unnecessary
By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Las Vegas Review-Journal
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Feb-04-Tue-2003/news/20616603.html
WASHINGTON -- The chief of the federal agency in charge of the Nevada Test Site said Monday he does not expect forced layoffs at the Nevada operations office despite a reorganization plan that cuts or transfers more than 150 jobs.
Linton Brooks, acting administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said President Bush's budget proposal for fiscal 2004 includes enough money to continue reducing the time for resumption of nuclear tests at the test site from 36 to 18 months.
But Brooks said the president's budget proposal does not include any money for a fledgling counterterrorism center at the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Brooks briefed reporters as the Bush administration released a $2.23 trillion federal budget request for the fiscal year that starts in September. The NNSA, which manages the nuclear weapons complex, would see an 11 percent increase to more than $8.8 billion.
Discussing the NNSA's reorganization plan, Brooks said he hopes buyouts and attrition will make firings unnecessary.
"I am committed with just the strongest (intention) that I can possibly be not to have any layoffs," Brooks said.
"But I don't want to lie to people; and so I haven't completely ruled that out," Brooks said. "But I'd be disappointed were you to suggest that I anticipate forced layoffs because I don't. I hope to be able to do this with attrition supplemented ... by buyouts. And right now, I think that's the way it'll work."
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who met with Brooks late last week about the reorganization plan, said he was not satisfied with Brooks' comments.
"What does that mean?" Reid asked. "I told him to his face that buyouts and attrition were not acceptable."
Reid said Brooks, who has been acting administrator since July, still faces Senate confirmation.
In December, Brooks announced plans to reduce the 237-member federal work force of the Nevada Operations Office by more than 60 percent over the next two years and shift some of its responsibilities to New Mexico. The office has been renamed the Nevada Site Office.
On Monday, Brooks estimated the administration's reorganization will reduce its work force across the country by about 400.
"That's clearly a significant savings," Brooks said. "My ability to do this without a reduction in force is greatly enhanced by buyout authority. I don't need action from the (Capitol) Hill for that because the homeland security bill gives us that."
Brooks said the motivation for the reorganization was not to save money but to make his agency more efficient.
No plans exist to scrap the testing moratorium that began after the last underground nuclear explosion at the test site on Sept. 23, 1992, Brooks said. But if problems are discovered in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Brooks said he would recommend a resumption of nuclear tests.
"Those situations do not exist today, and I have no reason to believe that they would exist in the immediate future," Brooks said. "But the reason we're spending money to maintain the capability to resume testing is that they could come up. What stockpile stewardship is about is not avoiding testing; it's about making sure the stockpile is safe and reliable."
His agency's 2003 budget included $10 million for a counterterrorism facility at the test site, but Brooks said he did not earmark any money for the facility in the 2004 budget.
"That's basically a judgment that (the National Counter Terrorism Training Center) really belongs in somebody else's budget ... It's not a mission (of my agency)," Brooks said. "But at the moment, I don't think it's in anybody else's budget."
Reid, who has made a counterterrorism center a priority for the test site, said he was not worried that Brooks did not include funding for it in the new budget.
"They never have done that. I put the money is this year's budget," said Reid, who is a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
---
DOE seeks flexibility on Yucca funding
Similar amount sought for '04 with power to spend more later
By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS
WASHINGTON BUREAU
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Las Vegas Review-Journal
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Feb-04-Tue-2003/news/20617450.html
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department sent a 2004 budget to Congress on Monday that contains $591 million for the Yucca Mountain Project, while unveiling a plan that could ease the way to spend billions more in coming years.
The department requested roughly the same amount as it did last year to continue developing a Nevada repository to store thousands of tons of nuclear power plant spent fuel and radioactive waste from government reservations.
Announcing the budget, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said that if Congress goes along, the requested amount would be sufficient to meet the DOE's December 2004 goal to file a repository license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Abraham also disclosed the Bush administration will propose a change in congressional accounting that would allow lawmakers to increase Yucca spending by substantial amounts without violating their budget rules.
The plan, to be reviewed by green eyeshades experts on Capitol Hill, would remove accounting restrictions on segments of the Yucca budget, allowing larger sums to be expended from the Treasury and from a special fund paid by utilities.
Margaret Chu, director of DOE civilian nuclear waste disposal, said the change could affect some of this year's proposed spending.
She further indicated the 2005 budget plan for nuclear waste could be slightly more than $1 billion as the Energy Department prepares for years of big budget needs to build facilities above ground and underground at the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Abraham said the proposal originated at the White House to maximize progress at Yucca Mountain.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a critic of the Nevada-targeted repository, said he planned to give the Yucca budget tough scrutiny with an eye to forcing budget cuts in Congress, as he has in recent years.
Reid said he doubted lawmakers will agree to change the Yucca funding mechanism, an idea that has been proposed over the years in different forms. For one, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., an influential voice on both budget and nuclear issues, has not favored the concept because it would deepen the federal budget deficit.
"I think they're fighting to get money from anyplace," Reid said of DOE. "We'll see what we can do to cut this."
The budget also drew protests from officials in Nevada because the Energy Department did not include customary grants for the state, county governments and Indian tribes to monitor the project. Nevada is slated to get $2.5 million this year, while counties would divide $6 million.
Chu said since the Yucca program has moved into licensing and transportation, "we want to work with local governments to revise their work plans to reflect this new phase." She said new local funding could grow from the talks.
Bob Loux, the head of Nevada's nuclear projects agency, questioned the legality of the DOE action. Loux said the state is supposed to receive Yucca grants until a repository is licensed.
"It's clear they either don't want to, or haven't, read the law clearly," Loux said, adding it could prove grounds for yet another state lawsuit against the nuclear waste program.
Clark County nuclear waste planning manager Irene Navis said DOE managers have proposed meeting with Nevada county officials.
"What they're telling us is in their opinion, the program has changed and moved into a different phase," Navis said. "We don't feel much has changed. We still need to do technical oversight and we still need to get involved on several fronts."
Within the Yucca budget outlined Monday, the biggest increases are for transportation accounts as managers shift their focus to developing rail and highway strategies to ship waste to Nevada. Also, Chu said $25 million is earmarked for a science and technology initiative that would seek improvements in nuclear waste management while the repository is being developed.
-------- new york
Officials Quarrel Over Plan for Indian Point Emergency
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/nyregion/04NUKE.html
The state and the federal government argued yesterday over whether the state could sign off on emergency plans for the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County even if the counties surrounding it refuse to cooperate.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency yesterday rejected a state letter written last week that said it could not perform its normally routine annual certification of the emergency plan because the four counties surrounding the plant had not forwarded certain information.
The dispute underscored the tension over responsibility for emergency planning for the plant, a source of growing anxiety about whether it could be a terrorist target.
The "annual letter of certification" from the state helps FEMA determine whether it should approve the plan, which covers a 10-mile radius around the plant, and pass it on to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which requires the plan as part of the procedure for licensing the plant.
In a letter to Edward F. Jacoby Jr., the director of the State Emergency Management Office, Joseph J. Picciano, the acting regional director of FEMA, said that Mr. Jacoby failed in a letter sent last week to outline "satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the preparedness and training activities conducted during the previous year."
Mr. Picciano suggested that contrary to the public assertions from its officials, the state plays an active role in writing the plan.
"State emergency management and planning officials have worked with county officials and local emergency management organizations surrounding Indian Point for many years and were deeply involved in the planning and exercise process this past year," Mr. Picciano wrote, referring in part to a comprehensive drill in September testing the plan. "Therefore, New York should still be in a position to make a reasonable evaluation of such preparedness activities."
Mr. Picciano asked the state to respond by Friday.
But a spokesman for Mr. Jacoby said that the state relies on the information it gets from counties in the form of checklists of training and drills completed and supplies on hand, and had no intention of forcing it from them.
"FEMA has always understood and accepted New York State's longstanding legal tradition of home rule," Dennis Michalski, a spokesman for the State Emergency Management Office, said in a statement. "The state will not force the counties to submit the annual checklists that the four counties surrounding Indian Point have already indicated they will not submit for review." Mr. Jacoby's letter came three weeks after a consultant hired by Gov. George E. Pataki said emergency plans for the plant would be inadequate in the event of a large release of radiation.
Officials at FEMA have said they, too, have concerns about emergency planning at the plant.
-------- us politics
War Powers
The White House Continues To Defy the Constitution
John C. Bonifaz
(attorney in Boston with the Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz.)
Feb 04 2003
TOMPAINE.COM
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7196
Lost in the debate about whether or not our nation should wage war on Iraq is a fundamental question: Who has the power to decide?
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War...." This simple and clear language requires that the decision of whether or not we go to war must be made by the legislative branch. By definition it specifically prohibits the president from making that decision, as the authors of the Constitution deemed the power to wage war to be too great to place in the hands of one individual.
[T]he decision of whether or not we go to war must be made by the legislative branch.
In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution that gave President Bush the power to fight terrorism. A loose reading of it would lead one to believe that it gave him the power to start wars. But the content of it does not issue a declaration of war against any nation. Rather, it states that the president "has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States...." It does not and cannot alter the express language of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could do so.
U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.) opposed the resolution because he thought it was unconstitutional. In his October 3 remarks on the Senate floor he spoke of the framers of the Constitution who foresaw "the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the framers bestowed on Congress, not the president, the power to declare war." He quoted James Madison, who wrote in 1793:
In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man....
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard a series of cases challenging the authority of the executive branch to wage war. In Orlando v. Laird, the court reiterated an earlier opinion that "the constitutional delegation of the war-declaring power to the Congress contains a discoverable and manageable standard imposing on the Congress a duty of mutual participation in the prosecution of war." Relying on that, the court asked "whether there is any action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity in question."
The core of the Orlando ruling is this: "[T]he Congress and the Executive have taken mutual and joint action in the prosecution and support of military operations in Southeast Asia from the beginning of those operations." The court cited the following evidence to support this holding: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; the congressional appropriation of billions of dollars to implement operations in Southeast Asia; and Congress' extension of the Military Selective Service Act, which was done with Vietnam in mind.
A challenge to the president's authority to wage war against Iraq would highlight the fact that no such legal groundings exist in this case. Congress has yet to pass any military appropriation acts for this war and has yet to initiate a military draft. The only action Congress has taken is the passage of the resolution last October which, far from declaring war, allows the president to fight terrorism but does not allow him to launch into war against another country.
Very few members of Congress who voted for the Iraq resolution thought they were handing President Bush war-making powers. Just read the statements made on the floors of the House and the Senate by the resolution's proponents. Also, on Jan. 24, 2003, 123 members of Congress sent a letter to the president stating that "the US should make every attempt to achieve Iraq's disarmament through diplomatic means and with the full support of our allies." Of the signers, 22 had voted for the resolution.
For these reasons, President Bush's continued march toward war, absent a congressional declaration, demands judicial intervention. Calling for such intervention is not merely -- as it will surely be portrayed -- an act of desperation on behalf of the anti-war community. It is a supremely relevant, historically profound question about which branch of government has the power to start a conflict with another nation. The integrity of the Constitution itself demands that this question be asked now.
Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch and get the latest on what's new at TomPaine.com before everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your information to any other entity.
----
Drunken sailor economics
Bush's bloated budget will likely put the U.S. over $1 trillion in debt. But criticize it, and the White House calls you soft on terror.
By Jake Tapper
Feb. 4, 2003
Salon
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2003/02/04/budget/index_np.html
In a conference call with reporters Sunday before the arrival of President Bush's budget the next day on Capitol Hill, a certain Bush administration official made sure to point out to reporters that the Bush budget would be proposing a $470 million budget increase for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to $3.9 billion.
Almost a half billion dollar increase for NASA, announced one day after its worst space disaster since 1986? Not bad timing. Some conspiracy-minded Democrats on the Hill smelled a rat, though further poking revealed that the budget had been typeset and shipped to the printer weeks before.
But others weren't surprised by the NASA increase, since Bush hasn't shown much willingness to rein in spending. Which is why the big news behind his $2.3 trillion budget proposal is printed clearly in the report itself: "If the President's policies are enacted the federal government will run a deficit of some $304 billion this year" and $307 billion next year -- the largest deficit in U.S. history. The Bush administration now anticipates that deficits will continue at least through 2008, adding up to $1.1 trillion.
The once unplugged National Debt Clock -- the 11-by-26-foot Times Square electronica that details our leaders' irresponsibility -- is back on, and the numbers are getting big fast.
Moreover, say nonpartisan experts, there appears to be no plan -- other than hoping the economy will grow and revenues will increase -- to free the nation from that ever ticking burden. "What's significant about this budget is that it appears to abandon any particular fiscal policy goal," says Bob Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition. "It's a return of deficits as far as the eye can see and a president trying to justify why that's OK."
"It's truly remarkable: The president's budget doesn't ever balance. It's deficits forever," says Susan Tanaka of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). In the analytic appendix of the budget, under (perhaps ironically) "Stewardship," the graphs indicate that over the next decade, the budget never gets balanced, she says. "There has been up until now a general political consensus that it's the right goal to aim for budget balance, if not year by year then at least over the business cycle."
The Bush administration has a simple, somewhat nasty response to anyone who questions its budget. In addition to $670 billion in proposed tax cuts, the budget proposes a $15.4 billion increase in the defense budget for next year, $30 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. Thus, on Monday afternoon, the acid-tongued Mitch Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told CNN's Judy Woodruff that "the deficit is one priority among many. Those who would make it the top priority have to step forward say what they wouldn't do. Would they not prosecute the war on terror?"
Such a snipe might make good TV, but it belies more complex budgetary issues. "You look at where the percentage increases are occurring in this budget, and all the increases are in defense and homeland security -- that's something we all support," says Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "But he's not cutting spending; he's increasing it. Tax cuts can be positive if they're offset by spending reductions. But he hasn't done that."
The White House seems to have two responses to this. One: It's not Bush's fault. "A recession and a war we did not choose have led to the return of deficits," Bush said in his official budget message. And two -- as stated near the top of the White House budget fact sheet -- "President Bush believes that the best way to hold down deficits is to promote pro-growth policies and control government spending."
On point one, even deficit hawks like Bixby acknowledge that because of the recession and 9/11, "the idea of balancing the budget in the short term is not doable." That said, Bixby underlines, "what's significant about this budget is all of its long-term proposals both on the tax and spending side. It says, 'These are the things we want to do, and if there are deficits as a result -- fine.' That's the significant switch here." Seconds Tanaka, "Yes, we have some real difficulties, but the economy will recover -- one would think there would be some attempt at some point to bring spending in line with revenues."
As for two, Tom Schatz, president of the conservative Citizens Against Government Waste, says: "It does not look like enough is being done to bring down overall spending levels. It's a big budget and there's still a lot of room to cut." In a recent statement, Schatz wrote that Bush and the GOP risk "appearing too cavalier about rising budget deficits and national debt" and may lose "the mantle of fiscal responsibility."
The size of the deficits came as something of a surprise. In July 2002, the year when deficits returned ($158 billion that year), the Bush administration estimated that the deficit would begin shrinking in 2003 and return to a $53 billion surplus in 2005. Fluency is a click away... Culture News Politics Society History Travel Art
Those predictions were obviously a bit off. Hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars off.
The news has not been greeted warmly. At a Jan. 30 hearing, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, chastised the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget for their miscalculations. "CBO and OMB, everybody missed the estimates big time in '02," Nickles said. For the clean-livin' Don Nickles, that's practically a cuss-filled tirade.
Despite the cold, hard numbers, Bush's warm, lofty, anti-deficit rhetoric persists. Last year he spoke to leaders of the Fiscal Responsibility Coalition. "I've got a tool, and that's called a veto," he said. "I don't think that's going to be necessary, because I believe, in this difficult time for America, there's a common spirit on Capitol Hill, and one that we can promote and use for the benefit of the people."
There is no evidence, however, of any Capitol Hill kumbaya. In fact, pork barrel spending has only increased. And Bush's veto Mont Blanc has gotten little use; in 2001, President Bush signed a budget bill that amounted to 110 percent of his proposal.
More glaringly, during last week's State of the Union address, Bush said that "we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations."
No doubt the president was referring to the pending military action in Iraq. But the budget notably refrains from factoring in any expenses for the anticipated war. Before he was ignominiously shown the door, former White House economic advisor Larry Lindsey pondered a cost of up to $200 billion for an Iraq assault. And according to a December 2002 study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, in a best-case scenario for the U.S. armed forces, the war will cost $121 billion while a longer war will cost $1.6 trillion.
"If we're going to go out and spend tens of millions of dollars on a war with Iraq, we really do need to cut in other places," says Schatz. "So why are we spending $500,000 on the Boathouse Museum in St. Charles, Mo., or $500,000 on the Tongass Coast Aquarium in Alaska, or a million dollars on bear DNA sampling in Montana?"
There are other glaring, and perhaps more consequential budget issues. The Concord Coalition's Bixby adds that the budgets also do not take into account direly needed economic reform measures that the administration had pledged to work on -- revamping both Social Security and the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The CRFB's Tanaka, a former nonpolitical employee of the Government Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office, seems both baffled and amused by other evidence of Bushian flair. The Bush budget proposes a renewal of PAYGO -- the budget rule adopted in 1990 and extended many times since, though it expired in 2002 -- which tries to ensure that budgets stay revenue neutral. "Pay as you go" requires that if a budget cuts taxes or increases entitlement spending above a certain level, one has to raise taxes or cut other spending so the impact is budget neutral. Bush's budget proposes reinstating that fiscally responsible rule, Tanaka notes, but he doesn't abide by it himself.
"His proposals add up to almost $2 trillion, but he doesn't say how would offset the cost of his own entitlement proposals," she says.
A later section of the budget sneers that a "common misconception (or distortion) is the suggestion that today's deficit is a consequence of the 2001 tax cut." The administration maintains that if the president's $1.35 billion tax cut of 2001 had never become law, deficits would have been even worse because the economy would have been even weaker. The matter is debatable, of course. Approximately 40 percent of the deficits are due to a loss of revenue caused by the tax cut.
In another section of the budget, the administration pooh-poohs the graveness of the situation. "By any measure, the projected deficit for 2004 must be judged as moderate," it states. "As a share of the economy (GDP), it would be smaller than in 12 of the last 20 years. Perhaps the best indicator of the deficit's current impact is the interest costs it imposes on the budget. Due to today's extraordinarily low interest rates, the carrying costs of outstanding debt will actually fall this year from $171 billion to $161 billion."
That may be true, but many economists believe that with deficits come higher interest rates. On CNN on Monday, OMB director Daniels argued that no correlation between the two had ever been proven.
Not that critics like Bixby think that the Democrats would do any better. "It's politically irresistible to attack the huge deficits coming under President Bush's watch," he says. "At the same time, they will accuse him of underfunding homeland security and Medicare and education and transportation and lots of other things, and they are reluctant to take him on about taxes. Were they in charge we might be still facing a similar situation."
Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee Democrat, angrily disputes this take, noting the massive $1.3 trillion size of the 2001 president's tax cut, and Bixby did note that the Democrats' current tax cut proposal is smaller and more front-loaded and that it "doesn't face the danger of a long-term fiscal drag" like the president's plan.
How will politics affect any of this? When asked if Democrats had strategized on how best to use the president's deficits as a political tool, Conrad said, "Uh, no."
But of more importance, in the short term at least -- since they do control the House and Senate -- is what Republicans on the Hill will do.
Back during the Clinton years, House Budget Committee chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, for instance, once pledged not to run for reelection if that deficit weren't halved four years later. After he proclaimed his goal met, he bragged that it "took a Republican-led Congress to pull the purse strings tight on Bill Clinton, but Congress controls spending, and that's why I wanted to be on the House Budget Committee" -- to make "the tough choices, and we are reducing the deficit."
Now, however, Nussle has a different take on it all. Nussle says that "It is important to note that the circumstances that initially erased the surpluses and brought us into deficit are still present."
"That's what's scary," Bixby says. "There is little resistance to deficits on the Republican side now. People who you'd think would be cautioning are justifying them instead."
With baby boomers set to begin retiring in the next decade, Conrad seems most concerned about the effect this will have on retirement programs. "The head of CBO said last year that the effect of these proposals on retirement programs are these: unsustainable increases in debt, unprecedented tax increases, and/or the elimination of the rest of government as we know it. I mean, we're headed for a cliff and the president says, 'Full speed ahead!'"
"Hellooooo?" Conrad asks. "Is anybody listening?"
----
Budget Sharply Boosts Defense
Record Deficits Loom as Domestic Programs Slow
By Amy Goldstein and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 4, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21091-2003Feb3?language=printer
President Bush yesterday proposed a $2.23 trillion spending plan for next year, built on record budget deficits, that calls for a steep increase in defense spending, further tax cuts and an overall freeze on money for domestic programs across the government.
The fiscal 2004 budget that Bush is recommending to Congress would devote to national defense 60 percent of the $28 billion increase the White House envisions in the parts of federal spending that are set each year -- even without including money for an increasingly likely war against Iraq. On the other hand, the White House wants to pare many functions of government and eliminate some altogether.
The budget calls for reductions in vocational training and after-school services and would eliminate 45 programs in the Department of Education alone. It also would reduce aid for rural development, phase out a Clinton administration effort to put 100,000new police officers on the nation's streets -- a Bush target in the past -- and eliminate a decade-old program that has demolished and replaced dilapidated public housing.
Bush included in his budget several proposals that would profoundly recast the federal role in some of the government's best-known services, including health insurance programs for elderly and poor Americans and Amtrak, which would be shifted partly to the private sector at greater cost to states. The plan also ratchets up the administration's attempt to gauge the effectiveness of government, warning that programs will be "overhauled or retired" if the White House does not deem them worthwhile.
In yesterday's budget, the third of his presidency, Bush builds on the framework for spending priorities he set forth a year ago: fighting terrorism abroad, protecting Americans' safety within the United States, and promoting economic growth.
The plan also relies on budgetary devices the administration has sought to employ before -- notably an expansion of user fees, such as new charges for some veterans' medical care and for meat and poultry producers that must undergo food safety inspections. The plan reflects the administration's basic conservatism, as it proposes to lean more heavily on private companies to deliver government services and to give states vast new control over some federal programs, such as the preschool program Head Start.
Bush said during a visit to the National Institutes of Health that his budget proposal "keeps the fundamental commitments of our government, including our commitments to be good stewards with taxpayers' money." Congressional Democrats disagreed.
The release of the budget is an annual ritual in which the president sends his fiscal plan to Congress, which has final say over how -- and how much -- government money is spent. The White House's five, glossy-paged budget documents -- including a new rating of agencies called "Performance and Management Assessments" -- will form the basis for partisan negotiating that will continue at least until October, when the next fiscal year begins.
This year's budget decisions will carry strong political overtones, because they will determine the shape of the government for 2004, a presidential election year. The budget debate begins against a difficult backdrop: Congress last year proved unable to agree on a federal budget for the current fiscal year that began four months ago and is still working on the matter. As a result, the increases and decreases cited in Bush's new proposal are comparisons to the White House's request a year ago, not to an actual budget.
The plan acknowledges that the government has reentered a period of budget deficits for the foreseeable future. The plan anticipates a $307 billion deficit next year and continuing deficits the following four years for a total of $1.08 trillion. Next year's budgetary hole eclipses the previous largest deficit of $290 billion in 1992, and puts the government on a far more bleak fiscal trajectory than the era of surpluses forecast when Bush took office.
In budget documents and briefings with reporters, White House officials repeatedly characterized the deficits they foresee as moderate. White House Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. said that, measured against the size of the budget and the economy overall, they are not that large. The budget document includes a detailed discussion that attempts to refute critics, who say that the $1.35 trillion tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress in 2001 helped bring about the return to deficits.
The deficits and Bush's request for $670 billion worth of additional tax cuts were the central features that Democrats assailed. Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) called the spending plan "a budget-busting epic disaster" and said it "confirms that President Bush is leading the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history." Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, condemned the budget, too. In particular, he said it would allot to education $5 billion less than the GOP-led Senate approved for the current fiscal year a week ago. And Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said: "The Bush budget burdens us, and our children, with trillions of dollars of new debt. His plan will push up interest rates, retard economic growth, and create massive problems for the soon-to-be retiring baby boom generation."
The White House, as it has done for the past two years, attempted to shift blame for budget imbalances onto Capitol Hill, renewing its warning that Bush would not tolerate efforts by members of Congress to guarantee spending on programs favored by specific constituents.
The budget document makes little attempt to mask that the administration is giving domestic programs a relatively low priority, with the exception of several initiatives that the White House has unveiled in recent days and in Bush's State of the Union address a week ago. "One conclusion is inescapable," the central budget document says. "The federal government must restrain the growth in any spending not directly associated with the physical security of the nation."
Overall, the proposal would increase "discretionary" spending, the money that Congress appropriates each year, by 4 percent, which administration officials said is about the expected increase in family income. The portion unrelated to defense would go up by about 3 percent, but that includes a major increase for the Department of Homeland Security, which began its existence 10 days ago.
Liberal budget analysts said those figures obscure the squeeze the administration has placed on many domestic programs over the past two years. Aside from national defense, homeland security and international affairs, spending on the rest of government would grow by one-half of 1 percent from 2002 levels.
One of the largest percentage increases in the budget would go to the Homeland Security Department, for which Bush proposed $36.2 billion next year. That is an increase of more than 7 percent over the money the administration had recommended for the current year for the same work, which has been decentralized in various agencies until now.
The largest actual increase in money would go to defense, which would get a $16.9 billion increase in funding for the Pentagon, missile defense and other programs.
Critics said that sum vastly understates the military spending the White House anticipates, noting that the administration already is planning to ask Congress for extra money for the current year -- and that a war with Iraq, if it occurs, could cost $100 billion or more by some estimates. Still, Republicans on Capitol Hill yesterday signaled that they would push for more military spending. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the administration needs to spend $43 billion more than it has proposed for purposes ranging from more stealth aircraft to larger stockpiles of "smart" bombs.
In large and small ways, the budget seeks to shift federal duties to states and private companies. The budget reiterates that Bush wants to devote an extra $400 billion over the next decade to Medicare, creating some form of prescription drug benefits and encouraging elderly Americans to join private health plans. In addition, the budget documents recommend that Congress begin to allow the Internal Revenue Service to use private contractors and say that the U.S. Mint will decide whether private companies should be hired to mail orders for coins.
Reflecting his conservative social views, Bush's budget would increase money for programs to help pregnant young women who decide to keep their babies, expand government efforts to foster marriage, and create a new system of vouchers so that drug addicts could take subsidies to treatment programs run by religious groups.
One of the budget's biggest winners in percentage terms was the Securities and Exchange Commisson. Bush sought $841 million for the SEC, 48 percent more than last year's budget request, as the agency handles a growing load of corporate fraud cases.
Staff writer Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.
-------- MILITARY
-------- biological weapons
Bush requests $6 billion for bioterror protection
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 4, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030204-722361.htm
President Bush yesterday called for nearly $6 billion to develop and stockpile more effective vaccines and treatments for smallpox, anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola and plague.
Visiting the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda to highlight his initiative Project Bioshield, the president said the attacks of September 11 changed the nation's requirements for dealing with diseases - even ones that occur rarely in nature.
"In light of the new threats, we must now develop and stockpile these vaccines and these treatments," Mr. Bush said after touring the NIH Vaccine Research Center in Bethesda.
"Project Bioshield will give our scientific leaders greater authority and flexibility in decisions that may affect our security. Our labs will be able to hire the experts, get more funding quickly and build the best facilities to accelerate urgently needed discoveries," Mr. Bush said.
The president said the United States must currently "go beyond our boarders" to find companies capable of making vaccines to combat biological weapons.
"The two main drug therapies used to treat anthrax are produced overseas. We must rebuild America's capacity to produce vaccines by committing the federal government to the purchase of medicines that combat bioterror," he said.
Mr. Bush first announced his proposed Project Bioshield in the State of the Union address, saying the effort would help protect Americans against attack by biological and chemical weapons or other dangerous pathogens. "We must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must act before the dangers are upon us," he said then.
Releasing details of the plan yesterday, the White House said nearly $6 billion over 10 years is needed for the project to ensure the United States can develop "next-generation" medical countermeasures.
The project would give the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees medicinal-drug regulations nationwide, the ability to make treatments widely available as quickly as possible in the case of emergency.
Getting approval for a new medicine often takes as long as 10 years, but Mr. Bush wants to make sure vaccines and treatments are available, even if they are only in developmental stages.
The president also proposes creating a "permanent indefinite funding authority" to encourage private companies to develop medical countermeasures, the White House said. This will speed government purchase of vaccines and other therapies as soon as experts believe they can be made safe and effective.
In addition, the plan calls for the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of health and human services to "collaborate in identifying critical medical countermeasures by evaluating likely threats, new opportunities in biomedical research and development, and public health considerations."
Mr. Bush said yesterday the new effort on vaccines can yield surprising results.
"As scientists work to defeat the weapons of bioterror, they will gain new insights into the workings of other diseases. This will also break new ground in the search for treatments and cures for other illnesses. This could bring great benefits for all of humanity, especially in developing countries where infectious diseases often go uncontrolled," he said.
In his short speech to doctors and researchers, Mr. Bush said he said he looked forward to working with Congress on the proposal.
-------- britain
BRITAIN
Blair, Despite a Dubious Public, Sticks to Firm Stance on Iraq
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By WARREN HOGE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/international/europe/04BRIT.html
LONDON, Feb. 3 - Prime Minister Tony Blair, facing a public largely opposed to war in Iraq and critical legislators in the House of Commons, said today that Britain and the United States would not back down on their insistence that the time has come for Saddam Hussein to disarm or be disarmed by force.
Reporting on his talks with President Bush at the White House on Friday, Mr. Blair said, "Show weakness now, and no one will ever believe us when we try to show strength in the future."
Challenging those who question his view that Mr. Hussein is a threat to Britain's security, Mr. Blair said he preferred to sacrifice popularity now than to one day have to explain why he had not acted to forestall a terror atrocity while there had still been time.
Since his return from Washington over the weekend, Mr. Blair has conducted a round of lobbying for the British-American position with government leaders in Europe and the Middle East.
He travels to France on Tuesday to meet with President Jacques Chirac, whose support is vital since France has a veto on the Security Council. Mr. Blair said he had spoken to the French president this morning and planned to talk to another veto-bearing president later today, Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
Relations between France and Britain have been troubled in recent months, and the summit meeting, in Le Touquet, is a rescheduled version of an annual December bilateral meeting that Mr. Chirac called off in a fit of anger over feeling slighted by the British at a European Union meeting in Brussels in October.
Last week, Britain helped organize an open letter of support for the United States signed by eight European countries eager to separate themselves from French and German statements questioning American leadership. Mr. Blair is said to believe that on Iraq, he can bring Mr. Chirac around by arguing that a failure of the United Nations to follow through on its resolve to disarm Mr. Hussein would undermine the world body itself, an institution cherished by French diplomats.
Mr. Blair adopted that line of argument in the House today, telling one of his questioners that United Nations inaction could reduce the organization to "League of Nations status."
In his statement to the House, Mr. Blair said there was no question that Mr. Hussein was defying the United Nations and that this noncooperation constituted a violation of the Security Council resolution on disarmament.
"There is a huge infrastructure of deception and concealment designed to prevent the inspectors from doing their job," he said. He said that Iraq had failed to account for thousands of missing munitions and tons of chemical and biological agents.
Bringing up an issue where Britain has its most serious disagreement with the United States, Mr. Blair said he gained assurances in Washington that there would be a more robust effort than there had been to reinvigorate Middle East peace talks. "I am more hopeful that in the medium term we can make some real progress there than I have been in some time," he said.
Britain has argued that the absence of an appearance of an even-handed Western commitment to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was damaging the effort to build a coalition behind action against Iraq.
Asked if any war were not in the end an effort to gain access to Iraqi oil, Mr. Blair dismissed the notion as "one of the most absurd conspiracy theories ever."
-------- business
United shows gains despite Crusader loss
By Marguerite Higgins
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 4, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20030204-6365302.htm
Shares of United Defense Industries, an Arlington weapons defense company, continued to show steady growth in its first public year, despite the loss of a major contract from the Pentagon last year.
United Defense, controlled by the Carlyle Group of Washington, absorbed a substantial loss, 20 percent of sales, when the U.S. Army canceled the $2 billion Crusader-artillery program in August, company spokesman Doug Coffey said.
"It always hurts to see a good program like the Crusader get terminated, but we've moved the technology we were using in the Crusader program to other Army contracts, in addition to stepping up work for the Navy's gun systems," Mr. Coffey said.
The company also picked up more contract sales in the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31 with the acquisition of U.S. Marine Repair, a Norfolk maintenance company for the U.S. Navy, six months ago.
Sales rose 29 percent to $521.2 million from $404.6 million a year earlier, pushing United Defense's income to $43.2 million (84 cents per share) from $6 million (14 cents) in 2001.
For the year, profits surged to $134.6 million ($2.62) from $8.8 million (21 cents) in the 2001 period.
U.S. Marine Repair brought in a good chunk of the sales growth, 29 percent for the fourth quarter and 75 percent for the year, but Mr. Coffey said United Defense would work to balance its business segments.
"We certainly see U.S. Marine Repair as having a positive performance in the future, but we're not counting on it to bring in that much revenue each quarter," he said.
The disintegration of the Space Shuttle Columbia on Saturday contributed to a ripple in stock prices of defense companies yesterday, said Richard Whittington, defense analyst for American Technology Research Inc.
Shares of United Defense closed at $23.42 on the New York Stock Exchange, down 33 cents from $23.75 Friday.
"Investors are anxious about the defense industry, but United Defense won't be affected too much because it doesn't deal in the aerospace segment," Mr. Whittington said, rating the company a buy.
Mr. Whittington forecasts the company to increase earnings $1.90 per share, and boost revenue to $557.6 million in 2003, as President Bush proposes raising the defense budget 4.2 percent to $15.3 billion in his 2004 budget.
"United is in a prime position of increasing its business with the Navy, which has too few ships at sea as it is," Mr. Whittington said.
Craig Fraser, a fixed-income analyst with Fitch Inc., said he expected the company to play a key role in potential shipbuilding contracts, in addition to upgrading weapons systems and providing repair work on Navy destroyers.
"Part of the reason United bought U.S. Marine was to increase its business with the Navy, and the company had a decent amount previously," said Mr. Fraser, who tracks the company's credit level. "It's really augmented United's presence in Navy contracts."
The company also is joining with General Dynamics and Boeing to manufacture new armored combat vehicles, set to be available to the Army by 2008, Mr. Coffey said.
"It's an important program to the Army and we expect it to have a positive effect" in revenue growth, Mr. Coffey said.
----
Firms tied to NASA lose value
By Tim Lemke
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 4, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20030204-21038456.htm
Shares of several of NASA's largest contractors fell yesterday on fears that space exploration will be grounded indefinitely following Saturday's explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia.
Alliant Techsystems, the Minneapolis firm that makes the propulsion system used by the shuttle on liftoff, saw its shares fall $6.86, or about 12.6 percent. Shares of Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Moog Inc., all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contractors, fell between one and 4 percent yesterday.
The Standard and Poor's Aerospace and Defense Index fell 0.67 points, or 0.36 percent.
But most analysts said any stock depression resulting from the shuttle disaster would be short-lived unless the shuttle program is permanently grounded. They said broader issues like a potential war with Iraq and a growing defense budget have considerably more effect on the value of companies right now.
"At this stage, we think making changes to our financial forecasts would be premature," wrote Merrill Lynch defense analyst Byron Callan in a research note. "Our opinions remain unchanged, even with possible risk of changes to the shuttle program."
NASA officials have said they will resume the shuttle program once the Columbia investigation is completed. Space policy analysts said the program will likely resume sooner than after the Challenger explosion in 1986, which caused a 32-month shutdown. Pressure to complete the International Space Center, which can only be serviced by the shuttle, will create an impetus to get the shuttle fleet up and flying, analysts said.
Alliant Techsystems' subsidiary Thiokl is the unit responsible for making the rocket boosters used by the space shuttle on liftoff. Alliant bought Thiokl in 2001 from aluminum maker Alcoa Inc. Thiokl has made the boosters for every space shuttle dating back to their inception in 1982.
In 2002, about 47 percent of Alliant's revenue came from its aerospace unit. In that unit, 42 percent of business came from NASA. It reported earnings of $225 million in the quarter ending Dec. 29, 2002, compared with $234 million in the comparable quarter of 2001.
Mr. Callan said the shuttle program accounts for 10 percent of his estimate for Alliant Techsystem's 2004 profits.
Moog Inc., an East Aurora, N.Y., company that helps design flight controls for the space shuttle, said it could lose as much as $2 million this year. About $3 million, or one-fourth of the company's space-shuttle revenue, stems from the refurbishment of electronic portions of the shuttle boosters after each launch. That work could be delayed, the company said.
"We, like everyone else, hope that the cause of last week's tragedy is discovered quickly and that the program resumes as soon as possible," Moog said in a statement.
Larger companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing are expected to rebound from yesterdays losses because space systems account for a minority portion of the companies' revenue. In the case of Lockheed Martin, the company earned 28 percent of its revenue last year from its space-systems unit. But only $700 million of the company's $28 billion in revenue came from manned-space activities, including the shuttle, in 2002, according to Standard and Poor's.
Boeing, NASA's biggest contractor, pulled in $2 billion, or about 4 percent of its $54 billion in sales from manned-space operations.
Analysts said that NASA budget cuts in the last decade have caused most companies to shy away from using the space program as its prime profit driver.
Even as shares fell due to the shuttle accident, analysts yesterday insisted that defense stocks will perform well in 2003 because of a potential war in Iraq and continued efforts to combat terrorism. Furthermore, President Bush's proposed defense budget for 2004, released yesterday, calls for a 15.3 billion, or 4 percent increase in funding.
"On the balance, we think now is a very good time to own defense stocks," wrote Stephen Murphy, an analyst with CIBC World Markets, in a research note published yesterday. "War news appears to be coming to a head, and there is a chance that imminent war improves investor interest [and] valuations."
----
Markets extend gains amid concerns of war
February 4, 2003
AP
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20030204-19251354.htm
NEW YORK - Investors cautiously extended Wall Street's rally into a second session yesterday as lower prices temporarily offset the market's concerns about war.
The advance, also supported by better-than-expected earnings and economic news, was unsurprising after the market's three straight losing weeks and big drop for January.
Still, analysts were doubtful that any gains would be long-lived, given investors' fears that a war with Iraq would further hurt the frail economy. In a sign of investor caution, trading volume was extremely light and stocks were unable to hang on to their biggest gains yesterday.
"[The market] is not up in a convincing way. There is very little enthusiasm for buying equities at the moment ... . The prospect of war still looms large in many people's thinking," said Alan Ackerman, executive vice president at Fahnestock & Co.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 56.01, or 0.7 percent, at 8,109.82, after climbing as much as 98.27 in earlier trading. The Dow lost 1 percent in the past week, its third straight losing week. Yesterday, the blue chips added to the gain of 108.68 on Friday, their biggest advance in four weeks.
The broader market also was higher, after suffering three consecutive weekly declines. The Nasdaq Composite Index rose 2.88, or 0.2 percent, to 1,323.79. The Standard & Poor's 500 index advanced 4.62, or 0.5 percent, to 860.32.
Economic news that exceeded Wall Street's expectations contributed to the market's gains. The Commerce Department reported that construction spending jumped 1.2 percent in December. The increase was larger than the 0.3 percent that analysts were predicting and marked the biggest gain in 10 months.
Also, the Institute of Supply Management said U.S. manufacturing activity grew for the third straight month in January, although the pace slowed. The private industry group said its index of manufacturing activity had a reading of 53.9, slipping from a revised 55.2 for December. A reading above 50 indicates expansion in activity, while a reading below 50 points to contraction.
But the market's gains were modest after the news, which analysts attributed to investors requiring more proof that the economy is on the mend.
"We have to see a pattern with these economic numbers. One day is not going to do it. Let's see what happens on the next round," said Stephen Carl, principal and head of equity trading at the Williams Capital Group.
Positive earnings news contributed to the market's upturn. But with fourth-quarter earnings season nearly over, Wall Street was losing a potential catalyst for gains. With mixed earnings news and a potential war, analysts say investors see no reason to commit to stocks.
Mattel rose $1.03 to $21.03 on fourth-quarter earnings that were 4 cents a share higher than Wall Street expected. Standard Pacific climbed 51 cents to $25.76 after beating expectations by 16 cents a share.
Brokerage upgrades also provided some lift.
Eli Lilly advanced $1.44 to $61.68 after Prudential Securities raised its recommendation on the drug maker to "buy" from "hold."
Abercrombie & Fitch rose 47 cents to $28.31 after Merrill Lynch raised its rating on the retailer to "buy" from "neutral."
Technology got a boost from upbeat comments by the Semiconductor Industry Association. The group's president, George Scalise, said in an interview with CNBC that he expects growth of 7 percent to 10 percent in the industry this year because of greater pricing power.
Semiconductor equipment maker Applied Materials inched up 5 cents to $12.02, recovering a small amount of its 98-cent loss from Friday after it said first-quarter orders would decline 35 percent, not 20 percent as previously projected.
The markets observed moments of silence in memory of the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts. The shuttle explosion Saturday depressed the stocks of aerospace companies, including Boeing, which fell 48 cents to $31.11, and Lockheed Martin, off $1.50 at $49.55.
Advancing issues had a narrow lead over decliners on the New York Stock Exchange. Consolidated volume was very light at 1.53 billion shares, below an already-light 1.93 billion on Friday.
The Russell 2000 index, which tracks smaller-company stocks, fell 1.92, or 0.5 percent, to 370.25.
Overseas, Japan's Nikkei stock average finished yesterday up 1.9 percent. In Europe, France's CAC-40 rose 0.7 percent, Britain's FTSE 100 climbed 3.4 percent, and Germany's DAX index gained 0.2 percent.
-------- france
French President Still Opposes Iraq War
By ANGELA DOLAND
Associated Press Writer
Feb 4, 2002
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FRANCE_BRITAIN_SUMMIT?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
LE TOUQUET, France (AP) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair failed Tuesday to persuade France to join a U.S.-led coalition ready to take quick military action against Iraq.
Despite intense pressure by Blair, French President Jacques Chirac said he remained steadfastly opposed to war against Baghdad unless U.N. inspectors were given all the time they needed to search for banned weapons.
Asked how much time the weapons inspectors should have - weeks or months - Chirac responded: "I can't put a timeframe on it. It's up to them to decide."
"There is still much to be done in the way of disarmament by peaceful means," Chirac said.
He also refused to say whether France would use its veto as one of five permanent members of the Security Council to block a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. France has hinted in the past it might be willing to do so.
In an interview on national television late last month, Chirac indicated he favored granting a request by the United Nation's chief inspectors for several more months to determine whether Saddam Hussein's government is hiding weapons of mass destruction.
France is waiting to see what U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei will say to the U.N. Security Council in the upcoming days.
Bidding for U.N. support, Powell is set to present evidence Wednesday to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq has hidden large caches of weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors and has defied calls to disarm.
Blix and ElBaradei are to report to the Security Council Feb. 14 on the progress of inspections and Iraq's cooperation. The report will likely play a crucial role in the council's decision on next steps in Iraq.
"I think we should take account of it very carefully," Blair said at a joint new conference.
Blair said the two leaders continued to view handling of the Iraq crisis differently but that it was important to focus on the "common points: support for the notion of disarming Iraq and belief this is best pursued through the U.N."
Blair has been a key backer of the Bush administration's position that time is running out for Saddam and force may be the only solution. Britain is sending 35,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to prepare for a possible war.
Chirac, however, has been the lead advocate for a slower approach. He insists the decision on whether to go to war rests with the Security Council - not the United States.
Blair supports Bush's stance that U.N. backing might not be necessary. But his government has stressed that it would be better to win Security Council support, which means winning over France.
On an interview on France's RTL radio, British Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane said: "As a friend of France, I find it difficult to believe that France won't wind up supporting the authority of the United Nations."
On Monday, Blair told the British parliament that the United Nations could be discredited if it fails to follow through on demands that Saddam disarm.
"Show weakness now and no one will ever believe us when we try to show strength in the future," the British leader said.
Last week, eight European leaders, including Blair, wrote a statement of support for Bush that appeared in newspapers around the world, indirectly reprimanding France and Germany for mounting pressure against U.S. preparations for war. Germany has said flatly it would not participate in any military operation against Iraq.
-------- iraq
British commanders told to prepare for Iraq occupation
Iraq would be divided into sectors, with different nation responsible for each sector.
Middle East News Line
2003-02-04,
By Robert MacPherson - LONDON
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=4213
Senior officers in the British army have been told to prepare for an occupation of Iraq lasting up to three years in the event of war and the downfall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government, the BBC reported Tuesday.
It quoted Ministry of Defense sources as saying that many British troops being sent to Kuwait would probably be used for peacekeeping and "rearguard" duties, rather than in combat at the front lines.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has committed 30,000 troops, 120 tanks and a naval task force led by the aircraft carrier Ark Royal to a potential US-led war on Iraq.
Plans to deploy 60 additional Royal Air Force fighter jets to the Gulf region are expected to be announced this week.
Iraq was set to dominate a summit Tuesday between Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, who remains unconvinced of the need for immediate military action to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
Blair was taking his foreign minister Jack Straw, defense minister Geoff Hoon and chief of defense staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce with him to the summit at Le Touquet, on the French side of the English Channel.
In the House of Commons on Monday, Blair appealed for strength in what he called the "final phase" of a 12-year showdown with Iraq over chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Briefing MPs on his talks Friday with US President George W. Bush, Blair said there is "unmistakable" evidence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is still withholding vital information from UN weapons inspectors.
"We are entering the final phase of a 12-year history of disarmament of Iraq," he said.
"Show weakness now and no one will every believe us when we try to show strength in the future. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and the threats they pose to the world, must be confronted."
The BBC said Tuesday that it had been told by a "senior military source" that the British army had begun planning for an occupation of Iraq that would run for three years.
The country would be divided into sectors, with a different nation responsible for each sector -- a format similar to that used by NATO forces when they deployed in Bosnia in December 1995 and Kosovo in June 1999.
Separately, the BBC said, some units in 7 Armoured Brigade -- the main British Army formation going to the Gulf -- said they have been asked to protect the Americans' rear during any invasion, and to deal with prisoners. Other units, however, would be closer to the front line, the public broadcaster said.
Britain's army deployment to the Gulf includes 1 UK Armoured Division, 7 Armoured Brigade (the descendants of the legendary "Desert Rats" of World War II), 16 Air Assault Brigade, and 102 Logistics Brigade.
More than 3,000 Royal Marine commandos are meanwhile travelling with the naval task force, which comprises about 15 ships.
----
Diplomats leave Baghdad as US-led war looms
AFP
Tuesday February 4,
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030203/1/371ch.html
Foreign diplomats in Iraq are leaving the country as the United States and Britain started a final diplomatic push to rally support for a possible war.
The Polish diplomat who acts as Washington's sole representative in Iraq, Krzysztof Bernacki, will leave Wednesday "for long consultations in his country," the Polish embassy told AFP on Monday.
Other diplomatic sources in Baghdad said the representatives for Yugoslavia and Spain had already gone, citing the same reason.
The departures came as Washington and London exerted pressure on reluctant US allies to support a new UN resolution that would underpin a military assault on Iraq.
Faced with the growing threat, Iraq has said it is prepared to meet the demands of UN weapons inspectors, who have been trying to secure Baghdad's agreement on overflights by US spy planes and private interviews with Iraqi scientists.
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix is due to go to Baghdad at the weekend for talks after Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohamed Al-Douri, said Iraq now had "no objection" to the use of U2 surveillance aircraft.
Hosam Mohammed Amin, who is in charge of Iraqi liaison with the inspectors, said: "We shall do our best to make his visit successful."
But US President George W. Bush has warned that Iraq had "weeks, not months" to prove to UN inspectors it had no weapons of mass destructions, and insisted that he was ready to order a war and invasion if it did not do so.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is believed to have underscored that message in a long telephone conversation Monday with President Jacques Chirac of France, a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council that has thus far opposed Bush's stance.
Blair and Chirac are to meet face-to-face for a summit in Le Touquet, northern France, on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is to present the Security Council with US intelligence purported to show Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has links to al-Qaeda and is hiding weapons of mass destruction.
"While there will be no 'smoking gun,' we will provide evidence concerning the weapons programs that Iraq is working so hard to hide," Powell wrote in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal newspaper.
"The US seeks Iraq's peaceful disarmament. But we will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction," he wrote.
The United States, Britain and Australia are assembling a massive force in the Gulf south of Iraq. By mid-February, there will be more than 150,000 service personnel, at least four aircraft carriers and hundreds of aircraft in the region.
According to reports quoting US and British officials, war plans call for the United States to blitz Iraq with 3,000 guided bombs and missiles in the first two days in a bid to demoralise Saddam's forces.
An invasion from the north and the south would then put the squeeze on Baghdad, while airborne soldiers grab key installations such as oil wells and airfields.
That two-pronged invasion has put the heat on Turkey, NATO's only Muslim member and one of Iraq's northern neighbours.
Ankara said it would seek parliamentary approval this week to step up its involvement in war plans that could include allowing US forces to deploy from its territory.
Turkey has already sent its soldiers to reinforce the Iraqi border region and has appealed to other NATO members to help protect it in case of a counter-attack by Baghdad.
The governments of Turkey, and other US allies, face a public and political backlash for giving early backing to war without UN approval.
Blair, who is facing rebellion in his party, was to make a special statement to the British parliament later on Monday.
And Australian Prime Minister John Howard is due go to the United States at the weekend to show his loyalty to Bush and to lobby UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Last-minute diplomatic efforts to give UN inspectors more time and to possibly avert war suffered setbacks Monday.
Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, whose country currently presides the European Union, called off planned visits to Egypt and Saudi Arabia after talks in Syria and Jordan.
And Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal cancelled a visit on Monday to Moscow to discuss the crisis. Russia is another permanent UN Security Council member opposed to war.
There were no explanations given for either minister's sudden change of mind.
----
Saddam's Iraq is not Nazi Germany
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
February 4, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030204-78987272.htm#4
I'm a big fan of Thomas Sowell, but his latest column ("Disarmament ditherers," Saturday, Commentary) is not up to snuff. When he equates failing to invade Iraq with appeasing Adolf Hitler, he's right on the facts, but wrong on the comparison. It was wrong to appease Hitler. But the mistake was made by the Europeans. Hitler was their neighbor, not ours. Iraq, located 8,000 miles away, should not be our responsibility, either.
Furthermore, Mr. Sowell ignores important differences between 2003 Iraq and World War II-era Germany. In the 1930s, America was not the most powerful nation in the world, able to project its force at will. Germany, on the other hand, was an economic-military powerhouse. By contrast, Iraq has been split into three zones for a dozen years, two of which American and British fighters patrol ceaselessly, and its military is one-third its 1991 strength. Iraq is an economic basket case zipped up in a military straitjacket. Unlike Germany, whose U-boats were sinking ships within sight of America's coastline, Iraq cannot project force. Maybe that is why none of its neighbors wants war.
Concerning weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it's time we faced facts. If the United States wants to protect nations, there are only two ways to do it. We could sell them arms so they can deter their enemies from attacking them, just like we and every other possessor of nuclear arms have done. Or the United States can station troops around the world and fight foreign wars. The first way is the free-trading, prudent, peaceful path that would have been supported by the Founding Fathers. The second is called imperialism. Sadly, America long ago turned toward the latter. Invading Iraq because we're smarting from a terrorist attack and need a country to destroy will only speed our transformation to a far-flung empire with a police-state "homeland."
This strategy didn't work for the Greeks, Romans, British or Germans, and it won't work for us. With all due respect to Mr. Sowell, that's the history we should be learning from.
THOMAS H. DESABLA
Silver Spring
-------- israel / palestine
Israeli, U.S. Troops Finish Exercises
February 4, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-US-Iraq.html
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israeli and American forces fired a salvo of Patriot missiles Tuesday as part of a joint exercise to test air defenses. Israel's defense minister also said a U.S.-Iraq war is ``apparently inevitable.''
A witness saw six missiles fired from a battery deep in southern Israel's Negev Desert. The Israeli military confirmed six launches and said more missiles could be fired in the next few days.
During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel, causing damage but few casualties. All had conventional warheads. Officials are concerned that Iraq might aim chemical or biological weapons at Israel in a new conflict.
Speaking during a visit to navy shipyards in Haifa, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that the U.S. administration is ``determined to carry out the American attack, and I can say with the appropriate caution that this attack appears to be inevitable.''
Mofaz was inspecting the refitting of an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine, which experts say could be armed with nuclear missiles, giving Israel a second-strike capability if it were attacked with weapons of mass destruction.
Israel received three of the German-made submarines. The first, which arrived in July 1999, has been undergoing refitting for a year and a half, Mofaz said, but he did not give details of what changes were made. He said the work would ``restore the full operational capabilities of the Dolphin.''
Israeli officials always have refused to discuss Israel's nuclear weapons potential.
Purchase of the Dolphin-class submarines was canceled once because of the price tag but restored after the 1991 Gulf War.
The current U.S.-Israel maneuvers, codenamed ``Juniper Cobra,'' deployed Patriots around the country, practiced moving military convoys from place to place and used a U.S. radar boat at sea on the eastern Mediterranean, diplomats and Israeli security officials said.
Launched on Jan. 19, the exercise is now drawing to a close, a U.S. official said.
Also Tuesday, Israel's Homefront Command began distributing leaflets that explain how to seal a room in the home against chemical or biological attack and how to use gas masks and protection kits issued to every citizen. The brochures also give pointers on buying commercially made air filtering systems for homes and bomb shelters.
-------- japan
Hosting of U.S. Navy flight drills voted down
The Japan Times:
Feb. 4, 2003
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20030204a1.htm
HIROSHIMA (Kyodo) The town assembly of Okimi, Hiroshima Prefecture, on Monday voted down Mayor Hidekazu Tanimoto's plan to host contentious U.S. Navy flight drills on an uninhabited island in the Seto Inland Sea.
The plan would have warplanes off the USS Kitty Hawk conduct night landing practice on Okurokami Island, which is under the town's jurisdiction. The fighter planes currently hold the exercises, which have drawn complaints over the noise they make, at the Atsugi Naval Air Facility in Kanagawa Prefecture and on Iwojima Island.
Last week, Tanimoto revealed to the town's 12 assembly members that he had approached the national government with the offer last summer.
However, on Monday, the 12 assembly members met and shot down the plan by a majority vote on the grounds that the mayor's explanations were insufficient, that such drills could adversely affect the environment, and because neighboring municipalities with which Okimi is in merger talks, as well as Hiroshima Gov. Yuzan Fujita, also oppose the plan.
Tanimoto told a news conference after the vote he hopes the assembly members reconsider and he will continue discussions with them.
He added he will also hold talks with the Defense Facilities Administration Agency.
But the assembly chairman, Tamotsu Kawano, told reporters he will not convene an assembly meeting even if Tanimoto wants to discuss the matter. He said he will also oppose the submission of any bill on the issue.
At the meeting, assembly members also withdrew their earlier decision to meet with the agency and visit the Atsugi base. The decision was made at a similar meeting Thursday, when the assembly was suddenly told of the mayor's plan for the first time.
Tanimoto began studying the plan about a year ago. He held discussions with the agency over the suggestion but did not notify the town assembly, the prefecture and surrounding local authorities, with which discussions of an integration are under way.
After Thursday's meeting, Tanimoto said: "There was no specific opposition. We agreed to study the matter in a positive manner."
His plan involves building a flight drill site on the island, including a 2,000-meter-long runway.
In Tokyo on Monday morning, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said at a news conference he had not heard any official word on the issue and that the decision rests with the town.
Defense Agency and Defense Facilities Administration Agency officials could not hide their surprise at the latest development, however.
"If the assembly opposes (the plan), then the offer (for use of the island) is probably difficult to realize now," one senior official said. "We had hoped (it) would be a viable solution" to the nighttime drills issue.
The drills, entailing touch-and-go landings, are needed to maintain U.S. carrier pilots' proficiency. They began at the Atsugi base in 1982.
The 83,960-ton Kitty Hawk carries about 75 aircraft, including fighter jets, has a ship's crew of 2,800 and a total underway compliment exceeding 5,000, including its air wing. Its forward-deployed base is at Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture.
-------- mideast
TURKEY
Ankara Parliament Expected to Take Up U.S. Troop Issue
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By DEXTER FILKINS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/international/europe/04TURK.html
ISTANBUL, Feb. 3 - Prime Minister Abdullah Gul said today that he would ask Parliament this week to consider measures that could clear the way for American combat troops to use the country as a base for an invasion of Iraq.
Speaking briefly to reporters, Mr. Gul did not explicitly say what measures he would ask Parliament to consider, but he said Turkey needed to take steps to protect its national interests. "We will apply to Parliament within the week," he said.
His announcement followed a decision last week by the country's top civilian and military leaders to prepare the country for war. Mr. Gul and his government are under heavy pressure from the Bush administration to allow thousands of American troops to use Turkey as a base for a possible campaign against Iraq. The request, which has roiled public opinion here, has been pending for months, and American officials say Turkey's leaders are running out of time to decide.
It is unclear what would happen if Turkey rejected the request. But the Bush administration has indicated that it would reward Turkey economically if the country accommodates American military plans.
Today, speaking on the condition of anonymity, a Western diplomat in Ankara, the capital, suggested that the Turkish government needed to make up its mind this week or run the risk that American military planners would move ahead with an alternate strategy. Saturday begins a nine-day Muslim holiday, called Kurban Bayram, after which, the diplomat said, American military plans may be too far along to accommodate a belated Turkish decision to accept the troops.
"We have tried to communicate to them very clearly that time is very urgent," the diplomat said. "The president said weeks, not months."
American military planners want to deploy thousands of American troops to Turkey to prepare for a possible attack across Iraq's northern border. A northern campaign would presumably tie up Iraqi forces and free the main American force attacking from Kuwait.
Despite the American pressure, Mr. Gul was quoted as saying in Turkish newspapers over the weekend that his government would ask only for permission to allow American crews to begin upgrading Turkish military bases, while saving for another time authorization for American troops.
The Western diplomat said such a decision would probably scuttle any chances of extensive Turkish-American cooperation in a war with Iraq.
Some Turkish officials suggested today that Mr. Gul was being intentionally vague because the government was split over the issue. Mr. Gul and his party, Justice and Development, have found themselves in an unusually difficult political position. Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy, a longtime member of NATO and a neighbor of Iraq. But public opinion here is running strongly against a war, and Mr. Gul's party has its roots in political Islam. Many Turkish voters say they regard the party as being capable of resisting American demands.
Mevlut Cavusoglu, a senior member of the Justice and Development Party, said he believed that both questions - upgrading Turkish bases, and the deployment of American troops - would be put before Parliament this week.
"If there is going to be war, I don't think it would be difficult to decide," he said.
-------- space
SOYUZ New Burden for a Poor Russian Space Program
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By MICHAEL WINES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/international/europe/04RUSS.html
MOSCOW, Feb. 3 - The disintegration of the shuttle Columbia throws the mantle of space exploration for the immediate future onto a venerable Russian program that is experienced in manned flight but, by most accounts, hard-pressed to shoulder such a heavy burden.
Russia's space program is sophisticated, reliable and poverty-stricken. The national space budget is $266 million, less than 2 percent of NASA's $14.7 billion and barely half of what India spends.
The cash crunch is so severe that the Russian Aviation and Space Agency, the shepherd of Russia's space hopes, warned this winter that it could be forced to cut back its missions to the International Space Station if finances did not improve. The national manufacturer of space vehicles, RSC Energia, chips away at its own deficit by making vacuum cleaners and kitchen equipment on the side.
Yet if the Columbia disaster forces even a brief suspension of the American space program, it will fall to those entities to keep the main engine of exploration - the International Space Station - open for business. Even with a big infusion of foreign cash, that will be a tall order.
"If it's a long time, this will affect the program of flights to the International Space Station and, even more important, the program of serving the Hubble telescope," Konstantin P. Feoktistov, a former astronaut who is deputy head of the space agency's mission control center, said in an interview. How long, he said, "depends on the designers of the shuttle," adding, "It depends on how deep they will have to look into the problems of their system."
In theory, Russia can ferry three-member crews to and from the space station every six months indefinitely, a spokesman for the Russian space agency, Vyacheslav Mikhailichenko, said in an interview today. It already performs that duty under contract.
The larger problem is keeping the station adequately fueled and supplied, a task the Russians shared with NASA, and which would be considerably harder to carry out alone.
Russia, the only other nation besides the United States able to reliably service the space station, is committed this year to send aloft two manned Soyuz spaceships and three unmanned Progress cargo freighters. Were the shuttle fleet to remain grounded, up to three additional Progress freighters would be required to keep the station running.
But Energia, which builds the Progress and Soyuz capsules, and the factory in Samara that builds the Soyuz-class rockets that launch them, need up to two years to turn out a ready-to-fly vehicle.
"There may be vessels already planned for 2004," Mr. Mikhailichenko said. "So the most optimistic variant is that maybe some of those could be sped up to the end of this year and the beginning of next year."
But that would leave a freighter shortage later in 2004, even if construction of new rockets and capsules were begun immediately.
Russia launched the first of its scheduled 2003 Progress freighters on Sunday, and space station officials say it carried enough supplies to keep the station's crew aloft until late June. A second Progress freighter is scheduled to arrive in early summer, and a third in October.
A Russian Soyuz capsule carried a crew to the space station in October, and another Soyuz is scheduled to arrive in late April. The capsules, which serve as emergency escape pods for the space station crew, are designed to fly in space for no more than six months.
Once the Russians had grand designs of being full partners in construction of the space station. But budget cuts have reduced their current role to that of a delivery service, shuttling people and goods from ground to space and back, while construction duties have been picked up by the United States and others.
Yuri Koptev, the head of the Russian space agency, bitterly lamented the financial crunch during a December meeting with reporters, saying Russia's years of glory in space had ended in the 1970's. "Since then," he said. "the country just took the beaten track, and we have had no landmark breakthroughs."
But in light of the Columbia disaster, Russia's record does not look quite that bleak. The country is perhaps the leader in measuring the effects of long space flights on people, a consequence of years of work in the Mir space station program, which ended with the station's plunge into the Pacific Ocean in 2001.
The Russians can also boast another record: Since 1971, when the three crewmen of Soyuz 11 died while returning to earth, no Russian astronaut has perished during space flight. The United States has lost 14 astronauts in two space shuttle accidents during the same period.
Such comparisons require an asterisk or two: The shuttle is an immensely more complex machine than Russian rockets and capsules, and the United States has flown more flights - 144 in the history of manned flight, compared with 95 for the Soviet and Russian programs.
But the simplicity of the Russian program could also be called a strength. The Soyuz rocket that lifts fresh crews to the station, for instance, is a direct descendant of the Soyuz vehicle that lifted the first man, Yuri A. Gagarin, into space in 1961. The Soyuz capsule is a variant of capsules from the early days of Soviet space exploration, and in contrast to the multibillion-dollar shuttle, it can be built for barely $10 million.
The Russians have had their share of disasters and close calls. An explosion two decades ago killed 84 people, the worst space-related disaster on record. One 1980's launching had to be aborted when the rocket exploded during liftoff, and only an exit device saved the astronaut's life.
And just last October, weeks before a Soyuz rocket lifted a crew to the space station, an unmanned Soyuz exploded after liftoff. The blast was traced to a foreign object in the rocket's fuel lines - an indication, some said then, of the sort of quality-control problems a chronic cash shortage can spawn.
That in itself signals the dangers of making space station operations dependent on the Russian program, however reliable it has proved. For just as the United States made itself totally reliant on the shuttle for manned access to space, the cash-strapped Russians are turning out just enough freighters and capsules to get to and from the space station on schedule - if nothing goes wrong. The space agency's chief spokesman, Sergei Gorbunov, told Interfax on Sunday that the next Soyuz flight to the space station, in April, would carry the last fully finished Soyuz capsule, but it is unclear whether anyone will be in it, or whether it will simply serve as a taxi home for the station's three-man crew.
-------- spies
CIA, Allies Tracking Iraqi Agents
Agencies Launch Effort To Foil Terrorist Attacks
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 4, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20713-2003Feb3?language=printer
The CIA and security services from several U.S. allies around the world are prepared to arrest Iraqi agents, their associates and known anti-American terrorists to prevent possible attacks against U.S. citizens, embassies or other facilities if the United States launches a war against Iraq, according to senior Bush administration officials.
"We and our allies are bracing for a terrorist offensive, and we are keeping track of Iraqi intelligence officers around the world," one senior U.S. intelligence official said.
Foreign intelligence services already are tracking individuals known to be in touch with Iraqi agents, and they have interrogated some of these individuals as well as some Iraqi expatriates, the official said. U.S. allies also are on alert for signs that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has sent agents abroad to arm Iraqis or terrorist groups with conventional, chemical or biological weapons, officials said. They said some of the weapons may already be in place outside Iraq's borders.
Administration officials said the campaign is underway in countries across the Middle East and Europe as well as in parts of Asia and Africa where Iraqis or anti-Western terrorist groups are believed to be active. They said the operation is not in response to any specific threats but is based on U.S. intelligence estimates that Hussein might respond to a U.S. invasion by ordering attacks against American targets in either the United States or in foreign countries.
In the run-up to war, the FBI has been searching for several thousand illegal Iraqi immigrants who have gone missing while visiting the United States, officials said last month. Although the majority of Iraqi immigrants are viewed as being sympathetic to the United States, federal authorities are concerned that others are more likely to be Iraqi agents or to be allied with terrorist groups.
CIA director George J. Tenet told Congress in October that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Hussein, if convinced a war was inevitable, "probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." In a letter to Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Tenet said Hussein "might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
A senior administration official said yesterday, "That remains the agency's judgment."
The CIA analysis is based on the experience of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. When U.S.-led forces began their air attacks against Baghdad, one of Iraq's intelligence agencies attempted unsuccessfully to carry out terrorist bombings against U.S. embassies and other facilities, including targets in Manila, Bangkok and Jakarta, according to U.S. intelligence assessments. According to these assessments, Hussein sent pairs of agents to many countries where they were to pick up explosives or weapons that had already been sent abroad.
The CIA's Counterterrorism Center put into operation a plan in 1991 very similar to today's in which U.S. and other intelligence services identified and watched Iraqis and their allies. After the war, former CIA director William H. Webster said, "At our request, these teams were picked up; they were interrogated; they were arrested where there was cause to do so; and when there were no legal grounds for arrest, they were deported."
A U.S. intelligence official said last week that the administration expects Hussein "to try to do this again, and we can't expect to be as successful this time as we were in 1991. We were lucky then and their agents can't be as inept as they were then."
Another intelligence official said the CIA "would be very surprised if Saddam didn't attempt a terrorist offensive this time when he did [during the Persian Gulf War] when his regime was not in dire straits."
Webster said that in 1991, Iraqi intelligence operatives carried sequentially numbered passports so that after the first few were identified and questioned, it was easy to locate others in different countries and pick them up. As a result, Webster said, "The number of terrorist incidents was very small."
Two terrorists in the Philippines blew themselves up trying to plant a bomb outside the U.S. cultural center in 1991. Another bomb was found before it could be detonated outside the breakfast room of the U.S. ambassador's residence in Jakarta.
Richard Butler, the former U.N. weapons inspector, was Australia's ambassador to Thailand at the time of the Persian Gulf War. "Saddam sent a terrorist hit group to Bangkok," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last July. "The existence of that group was identified by intelligence authorities, and their plan was to make an attack upon the embassies of the United States, Australia and Israel in Bangkok." He said the Australian embassy was targeted because Australia was part of the coalition that fought to force Iraq out of Kuwait.
Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan threatened last week to send "thousands of suicide attackers" against U.S. targets outside Iraq. "We have no long-range missiles or bomber squadrons, but we will deploy thousands of suicide attackers," Ramadan told the German weekly, Der Spiegel. "These are our new weapons, and they will be used not only in Iraq."
--------
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
The Exotic but Fallible Spy Machines Behind America's Case for War
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By PHILIP TAUBMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/opinion/04TUE3.html
Secretary of State Colin Powell will be laboring under the burden of a generation's worth of spy novels and movies when he comes before the United Nations Security Council tomorrow to unveil some of America's intelligence secrets about Iraq. In the popular imagination, spy satellites can tell the president of the United States anything he wants to know at any time about America's foreign enemies. Turn on TV almost any night and you'll see Bondian agents ferreting out the bad guys with the help of satellites that follow their every move like security cameras in a bank. It's an appealing concept, but it isn't true.
Anyone expecting an Adlai Stevenson moment tomorrow - that dramatic occasion in October 1962 when Stevenson showed the Security Council irrefutable photographs of Soviet missile sites in Cuba - is likely to be disappointed. The reasons have to do not only with the limitations of spy satellites but also with the ability of foes like Saddam Hussein to shield their activities from America's prying eyes in the sky.
Stevenson's star turn before the Security Council is itself a somewhat misleading point of comparison, because the pictures he showed were recorded by spy plane, not satellite. In those early days of space espionage, America's first-generation photo reconnaissance satellites, code-named Corona, operated only for a day or two before they ran out of film, and the images they produced were not detailed enough to show missile components on the ground in Cuba. The intelligence officials who briefed John F. Kennedy during the missile crisis found their new technology all but useless during the crisis.
Today's high-powered satellites can show objects as small as a football. They remain in orbit for years and transmit imagery data back to earth almost instantaneously in digital form - no more rolls of film that must survive re-entry through the atmosphere and then be processed. Yet for all the advances of the last 40 years, the satellites remain prisoners of some basic laws of physics - and human failings.
For better picture taking, for example, a satellite has to orbit the earth at a relatively low altitude - several hundred miles up. That means it is constantly circling the planet in polar orbit every 90 minutes or so, leaving it over any particular target of interest, like an Iraqi military base, for only a few minutes each day. (In the real world, those TV secret agents might get information from the sky on where their enemies were hiding, but the satellite would have flown on without noting whether they moved.) If Baghdad knows the orbit, which is not hard to learn from public sources, it can time the movement of suspicious munitions when no satellite is passing overhead.
India perfected these deceptive arts in 1998 when it was secretly preparing to conduct a series of underground nuclear tests. Work at the test site in the desert southwest of New Delhi was suspended whenever an American satellite flew overhead. That subterfuge - along with a lack of attentiveness by analysts in Washington - left the Clinton administration without any warning that the tests were coming. Top officials learned about the blasts on CNN.
The best protection from American monitoring is to work indoors. Imagery satellites were ideally suited for cold-war espionage because the things Washington wanted to see - Soviet missiles, aircraft, tanks and troop movements - were clearly visible from space. Satellites were helpful even in monitoring missile construction because they could keep count of new weapons as they emerged from manufacturing plants and were loaded aboard railroad cars or trucks.
Saddam Hussein's weapons of choice - chemical and biological arms - are smaller and far more difficult to detect. Biological agents are especially elusive because from afar bio-weapons labs are almost impossible to distinguish from more innocuous facilities like dairies, and germs can be transported in microscopic amounts. Nuclear weapons, though harder to conceal, can be developed out of sight until they are tested.
Imagery satellites are also only as good as the analysts who study the pictures. Since the development of digital systems in the 1970's, which provided Washington with a torrent of images, spy agencies have had a hard time keeping up with the data. The National Imagery and Mapping Agency, created in 1996 to consolidate the government's photo interpretation work, has been busily recruiting new analysts and modernizing its computer systems, but it can't handle the flood of pictures that pour in from space every day. That means that analysts can easily miss something important, particularly if it is happening in some corner of the world that hasn't been singled out for attention.
Even when they do spot something suspicious - like trucks pulling away from a site in Iraq not long before U.N. inspectors appear - the scene may be open to varying interpretations. Pictures don't reveal intent. If the trucks are covered, it may be impossible to know whether they are carrying garbage or chemical warheads.
In places like Iraq, where deception has been turned into a fine art, intercepted communications can be more revealing. The Reagan administration made highly effective use of intercepts to make a public case against a foreign foe on Sept. 6, 1983. On that day, another American representative to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, played recordings of Soviet pilots as they prepared to attack a commercial South Korean airliner that had strayed into Soviet airspace.
Mr. Powell is expected to have some intercepted conversations on hand, but like the spy satellite photos he brings, they may suffer from comparison with those moments in the past. Mr. Powell will be fighting both Security Council suspicions and the memory of the times when the United States was lucky enough to nail the case with perfect evidence.
--------
General: Spy Suspect Saw Sensitive Data
February 4, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Espionage-Trial.html
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) -- Spy suspect Brian Patrick Regan examined documents that could have caused great harm to national security if they had been turned over to Iraq, an Air Force general and an official of the government's spy satellite agency testified Tuesday.
Air Force Maj. Gen. David Deptula and Dennis Fitzgerald, deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, said the retired Air Force master sergeant saw satellite photos of missile sites, confidential reports of Iraqi weaponry and a classified defense manual. All could have helped President Saddam Hussein's military hide its weapons and threaten U.S. and British pilots who patrol flight-interdiction zones over Iraq.
``The spy satellites give us a strategic and tactical advantage that no other nation has,'' Fitzgerald said.
Under cross-examination, Deptula said that even giving Iraq coordinates of a missile that had been moved could help Baghdad develop new ways to conceal weapons. He acknowledged other ways than satellites were available to obtain coordinates.
Fitzgerald testified that other countries and even individuals track the paths of U.S. spy satellites, whose launches are not secret. ``They know where the orbits are,'' he said.
Neither said they knew whether Regan had given any documents to foreign governments.
Regan, 40, of Bowie, Md., is accused of offering to sell confidential documents, including satellite photos, to Iraq, Libya and China for $13 million. He has pleaded innocent.
Starting before he retired from the Air Force, Regan worked at the National Reconnaissance Office, first for the Air Force and then as a civilian employee of TRW Inc., a defense contractor.
If convicted, Regan could become the first American executed for spying since 1953, when Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were put to death for conspiring to steal U.S. atomic secrets for the Soviet Union.
Deptula, principal planner of the U.S.-led air campaign in the Persian Gulf War, said giving countries documents showing what the United States knows about them is like giving a football team all the defensive plays of its opponent in advance.
``If the offense ... understands and knows what the play of the defense is going to be, what's the probability they're going to succeed on defense,'' said Deptula, who later commanded allied pilots patrolling the northern no-fly zone in Iraq.
``One of the reasons we have accrued a record of flying 200 plus sorties without a loss has to do with keeping information that was in the possession of the defendant away from an adversary,'' he said.
On the Net:
U.S. District Court: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/
National Reconnaissance Office: http://www.nro.gov/
-------- us
Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally'
By Martin Walker
UPI Chief International Correspondent
2/4/2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030204-031831-1626r
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.
Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.
But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious.
"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor." French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people," Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday.
Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies.
"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.
"But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."
Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."
"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.
----
U.S. Bombers Put on Alert For Deployment in Pacific
Pentagon's Moves Meant to Show Strength on Two Fronts
By Peter Slevin and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 4, 2003; Page A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21993-2003Feb4?language=printer
The Pentagon has put a number of long-range bombers on alert for possible deployment to the Pacific and has prepared to reposition fighter jets and reconnaissance aircraft amid tensions over North Korea's efforts to produce nuclear weapons.
The moves are intended to provide flexibility and signal America's ability to manage a potential military conflict in Asia as the Bush administration focuses its attention on removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, a senior Pentagon official said.
"We want to dissuade anyone from any opportunism or miscalculation that the United States would not be able to fight on two fronts," the official explained yesterday. "A number of units have been put on notice that they may be sent or repositioned."
At the same time, the official stressed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had made no decision to send the additional forces and asserted that the administration remains committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the standoff. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the administration simply wants to make sure it has viable "contingencies."
After weeks of fruitless attempts to pressure the government in Pyongyang, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced yesterday that its 35-member board would meet in emergency session on Feb. 12, most likely to refer the unresolved issue to the U.N. Security Council.
The IAEA, backed by the United States, has been trying without success to persuade North Korea to halt its nuclear activities and reverse its decision to shed an internationally sanctioned monitoring system designed to limit the arsenal under the control of the country's unpredictable leader, Kim Jong Il.
Since October, when North Korea admitted to having a secret program to enrich uranium for possible use in atomic weapons, Kim's regime has expelled IAEA monitors, moved to restart a shuttered nuclear reactor at Yongbyon and withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Most recently, U.S. intelligence satellite observed trucks taking on cargo at the Yongbyon nuclear storage facility.
Analysts suspect the trucks may have been moving some of the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods that could be reprocessed to extract weapons-grade plutonium. Indeed, some U.S. officials involved in the issue increasingly believe that North Korea is determined to develop a nuclear stockpile, no matter how the international community reacts.
The Pentagon alert follows a recent request from Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, the Pacific commander. He wants to maintain U.S. military strike options as some forces normally attached to the region are diverted to the Persian Gulf.
Some of the measures, such as repositioning jet fighters within the Pacific area closer to North Korea, would simply shorten potential response times. Others, notably a deployment of the bombers, would mark a significant increase in the firepower at Fargo's disposal.
The U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, based in Japan, remains in the area. But defense officials have indicated that it might be shifted to the Persian Gulf in the event of war with Iraq. If it is, the Carl Vinson, now exercised around Hawaii, would likely be sent into position near the Korean Peninsula, officials said.
President Bush has pledged not to invade North Korea. Other American officials say openly that a preemptive strike on North Korea's nuclear facilities is extremely difficult to imagine because of the chance of a retaliatory strike. The populous South Korean capital, Seoul, lies less than 40 miles from the North Korean border, within range of hundreds of artillery pieces and rocket systems capable of delivering chemical weapons.
----
U.S. Bombers on Alert to Deploy as Warning to North Koreans
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/international/asia/04KORE.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has put 24 long-range bombers on alert for possible deployment within range of North Korea, both to deter "opportunism" at a moment when Washington is focused on Iraq and to give President Bush military options if diplomacy fails to halt North Korea's effort to produce nuclear weapons, officials said today.
The White House insisted today that Mr. Bush was still committed to a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Any decision to bolster the considerable American military presence near North Korea was simply what Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, called making "certain our contingencies are viable."
Mr. Rumsfeld, who Pentagon officials emphasized had not yet made a decision to send the bombers, was acting on a request for additional forces from Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, the Pacific commander, who concluded that North Korea's race to produce a nuclear weapon had significantly worsened the risks on the Korean Peninsula.
"This puts them on a short string," said a senior Pentagon official, who explained that the aircraft and crews were now ready to move out within a set number of hours should they receive the final deployment order.
The additional bomber force, which would be sent to Guam from bases in the United States along with surveillance planes, brings a potent capability to the region should Mr. Bush decide that he cannot allow North Korea to begin reprocessing its nuclear fuel into weapons.
The Pentagon's new alert status came as the International Atomic Energy Agency said it would meet on Feb. 12, in an emergency session, to declare North Korea in breach of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and refer the issue to the United Nations Security Council. Administration officials said today that they would seek a resolution there condemning North Korea, but that they would not take the next step - asking for economic sanctions or isolation of the country.
At the same time, administration officials, in private briefings to members of Congress, have confirmed that North Korea appears to be moving spent nuclear spent-fuel rods that have been in storage since 1994.
If reprocessed into plutonium, those rods would provide the raw material for upwards of a half dozen weapons - about one a month once the reprocessing plant is in full operation, experts say. That gives Mr. Bush a window of what one senior official said today was "a few weeks to a few months to decide if he wants to do something about Yongbyon," the nuclear complex, before the plutonium production is under way, and any military strike would risk spreading radioactive pollution around the Korean Peninsula.
Both White House and Pentagon officials insisted there were no current plans to attack the Yongbyon nuclear facility, the center of North Korea's plutonium project. But the forward deployment to Guam would cut the bombers' flying time to the Korean Peninsula, and consideration of the move suggests that the Pentagon and the White House are concerned that they may need more power on short notice, even as many forces ordinarily based in the Pacific have been sent to the Middle East.
"We are clearly engaged in a discussion about what is appropriate should we find ourselves engaged in executing a military operation in Iraq," said one senior Defense Department official. "We want to make sure we have sufficient forces in place in the Korean Peninsula area to deter any opportunism."
The dozen B-52 bombers and another dozen B-1 bombers could certainly help the 37,000 American troops defending South Korea deter an attack from North Korea across the demilitarized zone. But American commanders in South Korea have long argued they already have sufficient forces to deter such an attack, or at least hold their ground until reinforcements could arrive.
There was no discussion, senior Pentagon officials said, about significant additions to American troops now based in South Korea.
The White House has never publicly discussed the possibility of attacking the reprocessing plant, and Mr. Bush has repeatedly said the United States "has no intention of invading North Korea."
But that is a carefully formulated statement, leaving open the possibility that a North Korean move to produce weapons could force Mr. Bush to consider the advice of several leading Republican national security experts, who have argued that Mr. Bush cannot permit North Korea to have a significant nuclear arsenal.
"It's fair to say that there is a broad assumption in the administration now that Kim Jong Il is out to produce his weapons as fast as he can," said one senior official involved in the debate, referring to the North Korean leader. "We hope they can be dissuaded by diplomacy, pressure from us and from China and from Russia. But there are no guarantees any of that will work."
Admiral Fargo is considering repositioning some jet fighters already under his jurisdiction within the Pacific Command to bases closer to the Korean Peninsula, Pentagon officials said. The bombers under consideration would be a large addition to the Pacific Command arsenal. Each B-1 bomber can carry up to two dozen one-ton, satellite-guided bombs. The payload of the giant B-52 is 70,000 pounds of bombs and missiles.
In addition, the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, now off the coast of Japan, remains available to Admiral Fargo. However, even before the current crisis with North Korea, the Kitty Hawk had been mentioned as the likely candidate should a fifth aircraft carrier be assigned to waters off Iraq. In that event, officials said, the Carl Vinson, now on the West Coast, would sail across the Pacific to take the place of the Kitty Hawk so that one aircraft carrier would always be in the region.
"It is standard practice for us to review our defensive posture for existing security commitments when U.S. forces are preparing for potential operations elsewhere in the world," said Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman on Asia-Pacific issues. "Such planning could result in the movement of forces, but only as a prudent measure to ensure that we maintain our ability to rapidly respond to contingencies if needed."
Thus, the Pentagon is challenged with how to balance several competing interests.
The military must continue carrying out deployments to Iraq - including thousands of marines based in California who otherwise await orders for contingencies throughout the Pacific - while making sure that other forces are put into place to deter North Korea.
Yet those new deployments must be crafted so they do not increase tensions in the region while diplomacy is given a chance.
"It's a very, very fine line," said one administration official.
--------
THE MILITARY
Spending on High-Tech Weapons Remains at Low Level
February 4, 2003
The New York Times
By LESLIE WAYNE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/politics/04MILI.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 - President Bush's Department of Defense budget for 2004, at $379.9 billion, would increase spending across the board, with the biggest increases going to higher pay, a new aircraft carrier and new fighter jets.
The budget does not include money for military action against Iraq or for the campaign against terrorism, but it does provide for sharp increases for the administration's missile defense program.
For nearly two years, the Bush administration has said that this budget, which would increase military spending by 4.2 percent, would transform the Pentagon by moving money from outmoded cold war armaments into high-tech weaponry. While the budget identifies about $25 billion in what the administration terms transformational programs, the bulk would go to traditional armaments, some decades old and others still in development.
Since money for any military action requires a separate Congressional appropriation, Mr. Bush's 2004 budget covers only ongoing programs. For soldiers, it calls for a $10 billion increase for housing, health programs and raises of 2 percent to 6.25 percent.
Big increases are also requested in shipbuilding, a $12 billion line item that calls for the construction of seven vessels, including three destroyers and a carrier. Recent budgets have financed five ships annually, but the Bush administration says seven vessels must be built each year to maintain a 300-ship fleet.
The Air Force received support for its top priority, the F/A-22, a fighter jet that costs $200 million a plane and has been in development for more than 10 years. Cost overruns for the F/A-22 have been measured in hundreds of millions of dollars, leading to speculation that the program might be cut. But $5.2 billion is requested to build the first 22 of a planned 267-jet fleet.
There were also no cuts in the program for the V-22 Osprey, an aircraft being designed for the Marines that takes off like a helicopter but flies like an airplane. Although marines have been killed in test flights, the Osprey remains the service's No. 1 request. The Army is receiving a variety of vehicles to replace heavily armored tanks, including the Stryker armored vehicle, which was also thought to face cuts.
"We believe that this is a good deal for the taxpayer," Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, said in a briefing. "We are spending significant portions of our budget on transformation. Our program is balanced, and it is executable."
Critics said that for all the talk by Mr. Zakheim and the administration about transformation, the budget moves only slightly in that direction.
"They are calling things transformational that have been in the works for 10 to 15 years," said Christopher Hellman, an analyst at the Center for Defense Information, which studies the Pentagon budget. " `Transformation' has become a buzzword. But I do not see a fundamental shifting of resources away from traditional priorities to new ones."
Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, a free-market research group, said the budget was large enough to provide for both traditional armaments as well as more futuristic items.
"It's huge," Mr. Pena said of the budget. "The Defense Department is going to be given a carte blanche, and defense transformation is pretty much out the window. We may see some transforming stuff, but it will not take place at the expense of anything in the pipeline."
At more than $1 billion a day, the United States' military budget would be larger than the combined military spending of the next 11 nations. Mr. Zakheim took pains to point out that the 2004 military budget would represent 16.6 percent of all federal spending, compared with 27.3 percent in the late 1980's.
A total of $9.1 billion is requested for the missile defense program. A Pentagon handout said this was for 10 land-based interceptor missiles to provide "modest capability against North Korean missiles." No other country was mentioned. The Pentagon handout said that another 10 land-based missiles, along with 20 sea-based missiles, would be added in 2005, adding "modest capability against Middle East threats."
Missile defense is among the biggest of the $25 billion in budget items identified as transformational. Others are a long-range strike aircraft, unmanned submarines, aerial drones and improved communication and informational technologies.
----
Rumsfeld's budget favors weaponry of tomorrow
ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 4, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030204-71426192.htm
The Pentagon's proposed $380 billion budget for 2004 reflects Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's decision to shift spending priorities from improving today's weapons to developing tomorrow's.
Mr. Rumsfeld wants to cancel or curtail numerous weapons programs, including planned improvements to the Army's Abrams battle tank, and put billions into futuristic weapons like drone aircraft that would launch bombs and missiles and the Global Hawk unmanned spy plane to replace the Air Force's U-2.
The proposed spending for the budget year starting Oct. 1 is $15.3 billion higher than the current budget, reflecting a 4.2 percent increase, and actual Pentagon spending will be even higher because the administration intends to ask Congress for at least one "supplemental" budget of $15 billion or more to pay for fighting the war on terrorism.
If there is a war against Iraq, the Pentagon will need even more money. And the aftermath of war - to include finding and securing any weapons of mass destruction and helping to rebuild the country - will cost untold billions more. The Pentagon has refused to disclose its early estimates of the likely cost of an Iraqi war.
The budget plan the administration presented to Congress on Monday projects even greater increases in defense spending in coming years. It would grow to $400 billion in 2005, $440 billion by 2007 and $483 billion in 2009 - and those totals do not include roughly $17 billion each year that would go to the Energy Department for defense-related nuclear programs.
Congress authorizes and appropriates money for the Pentagon only one year at a time; the "out-year" spending projections are for planning purposes. Mr. Rumsfeld says he would like to change to two-year budgets.
The 2004 budget proposes military pay raises ranging from 2 percent for the most junior troops to 6.2 percent for certain higher ranks that the Pentagon believes are the most difficult to keep filled.
The size of the active-duty military would remain steady at 1.39 million men and women.
By service, the spending would be divided as follows:
•Army, $93.7 billion, up 3 percent.
•Navy, including the Marine Corps, $114.6 billion, up 3.5 percent.
•Air Force, $113.7 billion, up 5.7 percent.
•The rest of the Defense Department would get $57.9 billion, up 3 percent.
Although the Bush administration strongly suggested when it took office in 2001 that it was inclined to cancel at least one of the Pentagon's three next-generation fighter aircraft programs - and possibly also the Marine Corps' troubled V-22 Osprey helicopter-airplane hybrid - all of them have survived.
The Air Force would get $5.2 billion next year to buy 22 of its F/A-22 strike fighters; the Navy would get $3.5 billion to buy 42 of its F/A-18 Super Hornets and the multiservice Joint Strike Fighter, which is not yet in production, would get $4.4 billion.
The Pentagon would spend $1.1 billion to buy 11 V-22 Ospreys, including the first two special-operations variants to be used by the Air Force. Another $544 million would be spent on V-22 testing and evaluation.
----
Pentagon investigating head of Central Command
Rumsfeld voices support for Army Gen. Tommy Franks
From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, February 4, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/04/franks.probe/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon has launched an investigation into allegations of possible misconduct by the man who would lead U.S. forces in the event of a military strike on Iraq, CNN has learned.
Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, has been under investigation for weeks by the Pentagon inspector general's office. It is not clear how serious the allegations are or what direction the probe has taken.
"I am aware of the investigation and am cooperating with it," Franks said in a brief written statement. "It would not be appropriate to comment on the investigation until it is complete."
Sources said Franks faces several allegations -- the most serious of which might be allowing his wife, Cathy, to be present during discussions of highly classified material. The sources also said questions have been raised about whether Franks properly repaid the government for his wife's travel on military aircraft.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- who would decide what, if any, disciplinary action Franks would face if any wrongdoing is found -- took the unusual step of expressing support for the general before the investigation was completed.
"Tom Franks is doing a superb job for this country, and we are lucky to have him [in his command]," Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday at the Pentagon. "He has my complete confidence and the complete confidence of the president of the United States."
A similar statement from the defense secretary released Monday has raised questions about whether Rumsfeld might influence the inspector general's conclusions.
Rumsfeld said he was not commenting on specifics of the case when he praised Franks in the statement, but he said an inspector general's probe "is not uncommon."
"Investigations such as this are not unusual and properly are required whenever the Office of the Inspector General is made aware of an allegation," Rumsfeld said in Monday's statement.
"Without commenting on the merits of the investigation, which is not yet before me, I want to emphasize that General Franks has my full trust, respect and confidence."
Rumsfeld reiterated his position Tuesday.
"The expressions of confidence that I have indicated are exactly how I feel, and I believe in the statement it is quite clearly separate from the issues of the investigation," he said.
--------
How much edge technology gives in war
From remote-controlled aircraft to satellite-guided bombs, high-tech weapons would shape war with Iraq.
By Brad Knickerbocker
The Christian Science Monitor
February 04, 2003
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0204/p03s01-usmi.html
The way United States fights the next Gulf War - if there is one - will be far different from the way if fought the last one, in large measure because of advances in technology.
Laser- and satellite-guided weapons designed to be more precise. Remotely-controlled attack aircraft that can loiter over a battlefield and then strike without putting a pilot at risk. Cruise missiles with high-power microwaves to zap Iraqi electronic gear. Far superior night vision equipment, thermal-imaging devices, and global positioning systems. US and allied tanks better able to avoid shooting each other (a big problem last time) by separating friend from foe.
Tying it all together will be new generations of sensors and computers, networked to provide real-time "battlespace awareness" to individual soldiers and their commanders.
Everything is not all gee-whiz, of course. Combat marines are excited about the new bayonet they're being issued ($36.35 apiece) - an indication that "boots on the ground" refers not just to yesterday's wars.
No one claims that war will be quick and easy as a result. That includes the nation's commander in chief.
"The technologies of war have changed," President Bush said in his State of the Union speech last week. "The risks and suffering of war have not."
Still, the new technology - some of it tried for the first time in Afghanistan - is likely to make a difference in how American forces find and attack Iraqi troops and facilities.
• More types of aircraft are now able to carry joint direct attack munitions [JDAMS] - bombs with satellite-directed GPS devices attached to the tail. Such devices are not fail-safe. And as was seen in Afghanistan, they can be mistakenly aimed at the wrong target, including innocent civilians and friendly troops. But they are far more accurate than 90 percent of the bombs dropped in the first Gulf War.
• AC-130 gunships are able to see streaming video target reports broadcast from small, unmanned Predator aircraft.
• Joining the Predator is another unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the RQ-4A Global Hawk. This is a spy plane equipped with cameras, infrared sensors and radar that can fly for up to 40 hours and climb as high as 66,000 feet - out of range of antiaircraft fire.
Some military planners - military as well as civilian - see all of this leading the way to a new theory of war. One new buzzword in the armed services and defense industries is "network-centric warfare." Here, data collection and dissemination becomes relatively more important than tanks, ships, and aircraft (weapons "platforms").
"NCW involves an historic shift in the center of gravity from platforms to the network," says John Stenbit, assistant defense secretary for command, control, communications, and intelligence.
But some worry about this trend.
"No technological advances, no matter how dramatic, can change the true nature of war," cautions Milan Vego, professor of operations at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. "A war is shaped by human nature, the complexities of human behavior, and human limitations and physical capabilities."
Writing in a recent issue of Naval Institute Proceedings, Dr. Vego warns that "The U.S. military is well on its way to eliminating the distinctions between the art of war and military science because of its obsession with new technologies."
"Timely and relevant information is of little value if war is conducted with an unsound and incoherent strategy and poor application of operational art or tactics," he writes. "We did not need more information prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, but much better comprehension of the information we already possessed."
The evolution of a new and more highly technological warfighting era effects all elements of military equipment and doctrine - land, sea, and air.
But the Air Force, which has always been more high-tech (and to a somewhat lesser degree, the Navy), are particularly enthusiastic about its potential.
"Ground pounders" - the Army and the Marine Corps - reportedly worry that this rush to the technological high ground may not prove as dominating on the battlefield as advertised, leaving those with "boots on the ground" to face unintended tasks and dangers.
This includes "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, the Army general who led US forces to victory in Desert Storm 12 years ago. "I would just think that whatever path we take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence," General Schwarzkopf (now retired) told the Washington Post last week.
One weapon very unlikely to see use in Iraq is a new generation of small, "bunker-busting" nuclear bombs. Pentagon contingency planning includes such weapons, and administration officials pointedly have not ruled out their use. But even defense hawks think they would be more trouble than they're worth - especially given the advances in conventional weaponry.
"We have extraordinary military technology, weapons of great precision that have the enormous benefit of destroying the target almost all of the time without doing unintended damage to civilians," Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, said on Fox News. "I can't see why we would wish to use a nuclear weapon."
-------- propaganda wars
Pentagon 'leaks' signal start of mind games
JACK FAIRWEATHER IN KUWAIT
February 4, 2003
The Scotsman
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=137442003
AS the start date for a war against Iraq nears, the Pentagon has begun releasing details of a military and psychological campaign aimed at crushing resistance long before US troops arrive in Baghdad.
Over the weekend, the psychological warfare began in earnest with "leaks" to the US media of details of a short and devastating air campaign before ground forces arrive in the Iraqi capital, where Saddam's forces are preparing for a desperate last stand.
According to one report, more bombs will be dropped in the first 48 hours than were dropped during the entire 1991 campaign.
Forces stationed in Kuwait and Turkey will then launch an invasion in a "hold and pacify" operation that will see an expanding frontline gradually enclose Baghdad.
"We aim to create a ring of steel around Baghdad and make it clear to Iraqi forces they have no chance to escape," said one American military official.
Over 150,000 troops are expected in Kuwait by the end of February - the entirety of the US 3rd infantry division - and the US government is currently involved in talks with Turkey to allow the 4th Infantry division to begin deploying along Iraq's northern border.
With heavy armour moving at 40-50 mph, it will take both sets of forces at least a week to reach Iraq, during which time a series of "lighter" forces are expected to launch strategic attacks on strategic locations within Iraq.
The 1st Marine division is already deployed in Kuwait and may be involved with British forces in launching an amphibious assault on the port of Basra, the second largest city in Iraq and a vital beachhead for controlling the south.
US special forces are also reported to be gathering in Jordan and northern Iraq to begin a series of lighting strikes into the heart of the country, and following the success of paratroop regiments in Afghanistan, the deployment of airborne forces remains a possibility in the north of the country where the US will not be able to deploy in large numbers.
The effect of such a comprehensive war effort - "a war planner's dream", according to one official - is to bring Iraq to the point of capitulation before US forces arrive in Baghdad.
The prospect of urban warfare and house-to-house fighting by well dug-in Iraqi forces would incur heavy casualties. Although the wide-open boulevards of Baghdad do not lend themselves to an easy defence of the city, Iraqi forces are believed to have ringed the city with a system of trenches and mines much as they did Kuwait during the first Gulf War.
The use of chemical and biological weapons during a last stand is also a possibility, although this remains "negligible" according to military officials in Kuwait. That has not stopped rumours spreading among US soldiers that Saddam was preparing to booby-trap his palaces with anthrax and other nerve agents, and that the road to Baghdad has been loaded with chemical mines.
"Although we know there is not much danger from chemical weapons we are worried. That's why we've done so much training with our nuclear, biological and chemical suits. We are prepared for all eventualities," said one officer in Kuwait.
The release of American battle plans appears to be working in its aim of unnerving the Iraqi leadership as well as demoralising its troops.
Saddam appeared on Iraqi television last week before army officials looking tired and haggard followed a series of rare "face-to-face" meetings with ordinary soldiers. Along with the swearing of allegiance to the Iraqi tribal leaders - also televised and part of a campaign by the leadership to bolster morale - Iraqi forces have been readying for what is seen as the inevitable war.
However, few expect any but the 60,000 strong Republican Guard to make a prolonged defence of Baghdad.
Despite Saddam's pledges that war will be fought "for eternity" against American forces, it seems that any campaign will be a short one.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
-------- immigration / refugees
Registration plan nets six terror suspects
By Anwar Iqbal
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
February 4, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030203-065528-6128r.htm
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- The requirement for male visitors from several Muslim countries to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service while in the United States has resulted in the arrest of at least six terror suspects, a U.S. official who asked not to be named told United Press International.
"Yes, there are some terror suspects among the 400-plus ... we have detained during this process," Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez confirmed. "But we cannot disclose how many and who they are."
Diplomatic sources, however, said that there were six terror suspects detained -- all of them from Middle Eastern or Muslim countries.
The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System was launched Sept. 11, 2002, to register selected adult male visitors with U.S. immigration authorities. At U.S. ports of entry, the INS has questioned and fingerprinted thousands of visitors before allowing them into the country, said Martinez.
At the same time, men -- citizens from countries on a list of 25 nations -- already in the United States were told to report to INS offices for similar registration. Green card holders and U.S. citizens are exempt. Most of the 25 countries affected by the procedures are Arab or Muslim majority nations. But U.S. officials insist that they are not profiling Muslims. They say the new system is based solely on national security concerns about terrorist threats.
On Dec. 24, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a class action lawsuit against the INS and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Martinez denies the allegation: "We are looking for terrorism suspects, criminal offenders and other suspects. We are not here to target any group of people on the basis of their ethnicity or faith."
He also rejected criticism that an individual with ties to terrorism would never come to an INS registration center as incorrect. "Not all suspects know that their names are on our watch list. Others come because they fear that law enforcement agencies would come knocking at their doors if they do not register," he said.
"It is known that the al Qaida leadership tells its cell members to assimilate within the community, to comply with all laws and regulations, and not to shine a spotlight on any terrorist planning activities that they may be conducting," he told the U.S. State Department's Washington File Web site in an earlier interview. "The Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammad Atta actually applied for an adjustment of (visa) status."
He also speculated that when faced with the choice of being in criminal violation of the law or trying to "bluff their way through a federal law enforcement officer," some would-be terrorists might even choose to leave the United States.
Kris Kobach, counsel to Ashcroft told a recent briefing in Washington that "convicted drug offenders, traffickers and burglars are among hundreds of aliens who have been stopped as they attempted to enter the United States."
"Aliens with fraudulent documents, (and) aliens who've previously violated immigration law" are also among them, Kobach said.
Initially, the list of countries consisted of five Muslim nations -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria. All of them were already on a State Department list of terrorism sponsors.
Since then the list has been expanded twice to the current 25 nations.
During the first two phases that ended on Dec. 16, the INS registered more than 15,000 foreign nationals from the first two sets of nations. About 5,000 have been registered during the third phase that ends Feb. 21.
The largest number of people who need to register come from Pakistan. INS officials have estimated that 15,000-20,000 Pakistanis may need to register but the Pakistan Embassy say the figure could be as many as five times that number.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
Bush budget has little renewable energy new money
REUTERS USA:
February 4, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19694/newsDate/4-Feb-2003/story.htm
WASHINGTON - Many of the federal government's renewable energy and energy efficiency research programs would see little new money or would be cut under President George W. Bush's proposed 2004 budget that was sent to Congress yesterday.
Total research funding for the Energy Department's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would increase just $1.3 million, or 0.1 percent, to $1.32 billion for the 2004 spending year that begins this Oct. 1.
However, research money for wind energy would fall 5.5 percent, while solar energy funding would increase 0.1 percent and hydropower research dollars would remain the same.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said many of these renewable energy and energy conservation programs have already resulted in cutting-edge technologies that have been adopted by businesses and increased their profits.
"We've concluded that since much of that research was quite advanced it made sense for the private sector at this point to take on a greater share of the cost," Abraham told reporters in a budget briefing.
The administration's new grand plan to develop hydrogen-powered cars as well as supporting service stations and other infrastructure had the biggest increase in funding.
Research money for hydrogen technology jumped 121 percent to $88 million. The total amount of money in the budget for the hydrogen-based "FreedomFuel" and FreedomCAR initiatives is $272.4 million for the upcoming energy spending.
Research on traditional fossil fuels did worse, with funding unchanged at $533.3 million.
Petroleum research took a huge hit, down 58 percent, while natural gas research funding was up 18 percent. Proposed research funds to develop clean coal increased 0.7 percent.
Research funds are a small part of the Energy Department's total budget, which would increase 5.9 percent to $23.4 billion.
----
Spanish wind power capacity rises 44 pct in 2002
REUTERS SPAIN:
February 4, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19692/story.htm
MADRID - Spain's capacity for wind power grew 44 percent in 2002 to 4,830 megawatts, making Spain the second-largest producer of wind power after Germany, an industry report said yesterday.
The Association of Renewable Energy Producers said Spain added 1,493 MW of installed capacity last year which took its overall capacity to second in ranking to Germany's 12,001 MW, ahead of the United States with 2,685 MW of capacity.
The total of 4,830 MW represented less than eight percent of Spain's total capacity of 62,034 MW, according to the industry group UNESA.
The Spanish government aims to increase wind power capacity to 13,000 MW by 2011 as part of its plan to meet Kyoto protocol goals for reducing greenhouse gases believed to be caused by burning fossil fuels.
The northwest region of Galicia - in the path of gusts from the north Atlantic - led Spain with 341.5 MW of capacity, followed by the central region of Castille-Leon with 323.85, the northern region of Aragon with 269 MW and central Castille-La Mancha with 241.5 MW.
Energy sector sources warned recently that the Spanish government decision to reduce price guarantees for wind power could affect growth of the industry in years to come.
----
Bush budget has little renewable energy new money
REUTERS USA:
February 4, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19694/story.htm
WASHINGTON - Many of the federal government's renewable energy and energy efficiency research programs would see little new money or would be cut under President George W. Bush's proposed 2004 budget that was sent to Congress yesterday.
Total research funding for the Energy Department's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would increase just $1.3 million, or 0.1 percent, to $1.32 billion for the 2004 spending year that begins this Oct. 1.
However, research money for wind energy would fall 5.5 percent, while solar energy funding would increase 0.1 percent and hydropower research dollars would remain the same.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said many of these renewable energy and energy conservation programs have already resulted in cutting-edge technologies that have been adopted by businesses and increased their profits.
"We've concluded that since much of that research was quite advanced it made sense for the private sector at this point to take on a greater share of the cost," Abraham told reporters in a budget briefing.
The administration's new grand plan to develop hydrogen-powered cars as well as supporting service stations and other infrastructure had the biggest increase in funding.
Research money for hydrogen technology jumped 121 percent to $88 million. The total amount of money in the budget for the hydrogen-based "FreedomFuel" and FreedomCAR initiatives is $272.4 million for the upcoming energy spending.
Research on traditional fossil fuels did worse, with funding unchanged at $533.3 million.
Petroleum research took a huge hit, down 58 percent, while natural gas research funding was up 18 percent. Proposed research funds to develop clean coal increased 0.7 percent.
Research funds are a small part of the Energy Department's total budget, which would increase 5.9 percent to $23.4 billion.
-------- energy
Opec plans oil production cuts
Venezuela is Opec's third largest supplier
By Andrew Walker
BBC Economics correspondent
Tuesday, 4 February, 2003,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2724637.stm
The president of the oil producers organisation Opec has said that supplies from most of the group's members might be cut when the organisation meets next month.
Abdullah al Attiyah, who is also the oil minister of Qatar, that there could be a three million barrel a day glut in the near future.
Opec's planning has been disrupted for the past two months by a strike in the oil fields of Venezuela, the group's third largest supplier.
Now output is gradually climbing in Venezuela, and some officials suggest it could be in the region of two thirds of normal production.
In addition, the oil market is approaching a time of the year when demand is relatively weak - when the northern hemisphere winter ends but before the summer motoring season gets underway.
Covering a shortfall
Opec officials fear the result of these two developments could be excess supplies and a price crash.
So several of them, including the group's president, have been suggesting that cuts in production quota are likely when they are discussed at a meeting next month.
The return of Venezuela to something approaching normal production, if it is sustained, is also significant in the context of a possible war in Iraq.
It would then be possible for Opec's dominant force Saudi Arabia to make good any shortfall resulting from the loss of Iraqi oil deliveries.
Saudi Arabia does not have sufficient spare capacity to cover for production shortfalls in both Iraq and Venezuela at the same time.
-------- environment
White House wants to cap USDA 'green' payment plan
REUTERS USA:
February 4, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19695/newsDate/4-Feb-2003/story.htm
WASHINGTON - The new federal Conservation Security Program, created to reward farmers for soil, water and wildlife stewardship, would be limited to $2 billion over the next decade under a Bush administration proposal released yesterday.
Budget documents issued by the U.S. Agriculture Department said legislation would be offered to "cap spending on this program at $2 billion over 10 years, 2003 through 2012."
Hailed as a way to funnel "green" payments to growers, the Conservation Security Program has faced a difficult birth, although it was part of the 2002 farm subsidy law. Some lawmakers have tried to limit it to a one-state pilot this year rather than a nationwide program.
The cost of the program initially was estimated at $2 billion through 2011, most coming after the 2007 expiration of the farm law. But more recent estimates put the cost at $9 billion, if the Conservation Security Program is considered an entitlement, like crop subsidies.
A cap would hold spending at the initially estimated level, but also could constrain the size of the program.
Backers foresaw a system of increasingly larger payments to growers based on how much work they did to make soil, water and wildlife preservation a part of their operations. Maximum payment would be $50,000 a year to a farmer.
----
Sewage Sludge Touted for Waste Management
MADISON, Wisconsin,
February 4, 2003
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-04-09.asp#anchor5
Sewage sludge could boost crop production and reduce the amount of wastes sent to landfills, say scientists at the University of Florida.
Using organic waste as fertilizer is not a new concept. Before the 1940s, when synthetic nitrogen fertilizer became widely available, animal manure and human waste were often used for improving crop yields around the world.
The technique is now receiving renewed interest as municipalities face increasing waste disposal challenges. But critics of the process warn that even treated sludge - a byproduct of treating municipal and industrial wastewater - may contain toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead and mercury, which can cause serious illnesses, including cancer and birth defects.
In a study conducted in Florida from 1997 to 2000, scientists from the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences compared the effects of different kinds of sewage sludge versus common synthetic nitrogen fertilizers on the forage crop bahiagrass.
Researchers Martin Adjei and Jack Rechcigl studied yield, protein content, mineral content, and digestibility. Accumulation of heavy metals and nutrients in the crops, groundwater and soil were also evaluated.
Funded in part by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the study showed that liquid forms of sludge are just as effective as traditional synthetic fertilizer. Some minerals such as phosphorus, calcium, and iron were higher in crops fertilized with sludge.
In a very dry year, the water in liquid sludge can also enable nutrients to reach the crop's rooting zone more effectively than synthetic fertilizer, the researchers found.
"Liquid sludge if processed and applied according to specific guidelines has the potential to boost production dramatically. It is low in pathogens, inexpensive, and environmentally safe," said Adjei. About half of Florida's 2.5 million acres of bahiagrass are fertilized with synthetic fertilizer every year.
"While we did observe negligible traces of heavy metals in crops, groundwater, and soil regardless of how the crops were fertilized," Adjei added, "this was not significant nor surprising given Florida's small industrial base and its successful efforts to prevent industrial sources of metals from contaminating sewage."
A survey by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed the amount of sewage sludge generated in the United States increased from 8.5 metric tons in 1990 to more than 12 metric tons in 2000. At the same time, there has been an increase in public interest for finding alternative solutions to waste disposal.
In July 2002, the National Research Council released a study suggesting that treated sewage sludge may be causing health problems for workers who apply it to land and for residents who live nearby. More rigorous enforcement of existing standards is needed, the council wrote, to prevent illnesses from exposure to the toxins, bacteria and viruses that sludge may contain.
The University of Florida study appears in the November/December 2002 issue of "Agronomy Journal."
----
Global warming may worsen mercury pollution - UN
REUTERS KENYA:
February 4, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19693/story.htm
NAIROBI - Mercury pollution must be tackled before global warming exacerbates its noxious effects, the United Nations warned yesterday it its first report into the worldwide dangers posed by the heavy metal.
The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said activities from gold mining to burning coal in power stations had tripled mercury levels in the air since pre-industrial times.
Mercury works its way into the food chain, with women and children most at risk from poisoning, which can cause brain and nerve damage resulting in impaired coordination, blurred vision, tremors, irritability and memory loss.
"Mercury levels have to be reduced and we want governments to start to take steps to do this immediately," UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer told reporters at a conference of environment ministers in the Kenyan capital Nairobi.
"Things could get worse in the coming years, as increases in temperature also appear to help the spread of the mercury."
UNEP's first report into the global impact of mercury pollution said more than 1,500 tonnes of the hazardous substance is pumped into the skies every year by power stations, with Asia and then Africa the worst culprits.
Small-scale mining, where mercury is used to help extract gold and silver from ores, is another main source of the pollution, releasing about 400-500 tonnes of mercury each year.
UNEP said a U.S. study found about one in 12 women there had mercury levels in their bodies above those deemed safe by national authorities.
Scientists predict that as a result, up to 300,000 babies in the United States could be at risk of brain damage with possible impacts from learning difficulties to impaired nervous systems.
Mercury poisoning also threatens animals such as otters, minx, osprey, eagles and some whales which feed on fish, which scientists say are readily contaminated by mercury pollution.
UNEP hopes up to 100 environment ministers will attend the five-day conference at its Nairobi headquarters, which opened yesterday, to discuss how to implement resolutions from the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in September.
-------- food
Ozone Could Kill Pests in Grain
WEST LAFAYETTE, Indiana,
February 4, 2003
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-04-09.asp#anchor6
Ozone can eliminate insects in grain storage facilities without harming food quality or the environment, say researchers from Purdue University.
The gas is being touted as a fumigant alternative in response to an international treaty banning the use of insect killing chemicals that can harm the stratospheric ozone layer that helps protect the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
When ozone is used for killing grain insects, it lasts for a very short period of time without damaging the environment or the grain, the Purdue scientists report in the January issue of the "Journal of Stored Products Research."
grain Researcher Linda Mason and her team used mesh bags filled with corn and other grains and infested with insects to test ozone as a fumigant alternative. (Purdue Agricultural Communications photo/Tom Campbell) "Ozone has a very short half-life and we're using relatively low dosages, but enough to kill an insect," said Linda Mason, Purdue entomology associate professor and co-author of the study. "The chemicals currently used can kill everything in and around the grain bin, including people. With ozone, we're not generating ozone at deadly concentrations, and we have better control over it when it's present."
Purdue's Post Harvest Grain Quality Research team began its studies in response to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to prohibit substances deemed dangerous to the Earth's ozone layer. One such substance is methyl bromide, used against crop pests in the soil and in grain storage facilities.
Under the Montreal Protocol, methyl bromide will be banned starting in 2005.
A replacement these chemical fumigants is needed because insects not only eat grain, they also defecate on it, causing development of harmful fungi. These fungi can release toxins that can cause illness in livestock and have been linked to some forms of human cancer.
Experts estimate that between five and 10 percent of the world's food production is lost each year because of insects, and in some countries that figure is believed to be as high as 50 percent.
In their latest study, Purdue researchers used ozone to treat rice, popcorn, soft red winter wheat, hard red winter wheat, soybeans and corn. They used five-gallon plastic pails and 50 gallon steel drums, storage bins filled with grain, and buried mesh bags all filled with grain and a known number of grain eating insects to test ozone's efficiency at killing these pests.
The teams used two applications of ozone. In the first, the ozone moves through the grain slowly because the gas reacts, or bonds, with matter on the grain surface. This first treatment allows ozone to react with most of the grain surface and degrades the ozone, Mason said.
With the second ozone application, the gas moves through the grain more quickly because it is not slowed by reactions with the grain. This allows the ozone to kill the insects by reacting with them rather than the grain.
The researchers found that there was almost no difference in the appearance and nutritional quality of grain treated with ozone and untreated grain, making ozone treatment suitable for the food industry.
The researchers are now studying ways to use ozone as a preventative treatment, perhaps by sealing grain storage facilities with layers of ozone.
-------- genetics
U.S. Delays Challenge to Europe's Ban on Modified Food
February 4, 2003
New York Times
By ELIZABETH BECKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/international/europe/05TRADE.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - With war looming in Iraq, the Bush administration has decided against antagonizing its European allies and has postponed filing a case against the European Union for its ban on genetically modified food, according to senior administration officials.
"There is no point in testing Europeans on food while they are being tested on Iraq," a senior White House official said, speaking on background.
Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, had warned that the administration would decide by this week whether to sue the Europeans for what he called their "immoral" opposition to genetically modified food that was leading to starvation in the developing world.
But a cabinet meeting to consider the suit was canceled this week as European agricultural officials came to Washington to argue for patience.
The conflict will resurface soon, however. Mr. Zoellick said in an interview that he believed genetically modified food could help alleviate hunger worldwide and that he wanted the European opposition to be confronted and unfounded fears erased so that developing nations would accept food from genetically modified crops.
Experts agree that the United States could win a case at the World Trade Organization and force a lifting of the four-year old ban.
The ultimate resolution of this case, however, will rest on labeling - not food aid - and promises to pit European ideas of food regulation against American notions about free trade.
Many European consumers are demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically modified, while the American agricultural industry is just as strongly opposed to labeling, saying it gives the food a negative connotation.
"The U.S. is afraid that by starting to distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are different than those the European promotes," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Watch. "It's using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety and environmental rules."
Agriculture Department officials say this is nonsense, that the United States does not require labeling, so why should Europe.
"That implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified good," said Elsa Murano, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food safety. "It would be another kind of trade barrier."
The agricultural industry also complains about the cost of the proposed labels.
"Labeling is a sham," said Mary Kay Thatcher, lobbyist for American Farm Bureau, a powerful agricultural group. "It would be so expensive, it would shut down our exports."
Franz Fischler, the European farm commissioner, said in an address here today that the problem could be resolved within the year if the United States agreed that the products deemed safe would be labeled as genetically modified.
His remarked were echoed earlier here by Margaret Beckett, the British minister in charge of food and the environment, who said both sides of the argument had to understand the serious cultural differences underlying the disagreement.
"Extravagant claims are sometimes made on either side of the argument," she said. "Whether we like it or not, there is an expectation of traceability and labeling of all kinds of products among European consumers. You are not going to convince them that G.M. products should be an exception to what is the norm."
While European nations agree on the need for labeling in the face of deep consumer fears, American lawmakers have had a more mixed record.
Although it took 12 years of lobbying by farmers, chefs and environmentalists, the Agriculture Department last year created an official organic label to show consumers what produce has been raised without conventional pesticides or fertilizers, antibiotics or growth hormones.
In last year's farm bill, Congress included a provision opposed by much of agribusiness that requires that all meat, fish and produce be labeled with its country of origin within two years.
"The United States is not monolithic," said John Audley of Carnegie Endowment. "Business groups may have to yield on labeling while activists will have to yield on allowing genetically modified food to be sold and let consumers decide what they want."
Already, Canada has complained that the new country of origin labeling will restrict its trade with the United States, especially its meat. In a study released last month, Canadian officials also complained about the cost and suggested that the new provision should be withdrawn.
That is unlikely until the European ban on genetically modified food is lifted and the issue of labeling is confronted head on.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Doug Rokke and Leuren Moret DU tour
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003
From: Leuren Moret - leurenmoret@yahoo.com
Everywhere we went people were organizing, demonstrating, questioning, lobbying city council members to pass resolutions, and doing vigils in small and large groups. We gave talks at 7 PM and were still answering questions after 11 PM. People are starved for information...
Our leaders have failed America, but Americans are not failing their country.
Americans who were afraid to do anything, are now MORE AFRAID to NOT do anything.
Leuren
----
Greenpeace blocks UK ship loading army equipment
REUTERS UK:
February 4, 2003
Story by Jeremy Lovell
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19687/newsDate/4-Feb-2003/story.htm
LONDON - Greenpeace activists protesting against the threat of an attack on Iraq moored their flagship across the bows of a British freighter loading military supplies for the Gulf on Saturday and vowed to stay put. "We are currently having a peaceful blockade of the Dart 8 cargo vessel," Melanie Hill, spokeswoman for the environmental and anti-war group, told Reuters by telephone from the Rainbow Warrior in Marchwood military port in southern England.
"We are going to stay here for as long as we can. We are determined to stop this headlong rush into a war with Iraq that will only make the world a more dangerous place," she added.
She said the group had inflatable motorboats in the water around the freighter, watched by waterborne police who had so far kept their distance.
Dart 8 is loading equipment including helicopters, tanks and jeeps at Marchwood, the military section of Southampton port, to supply British troops who will join the thousands of U.S. soldiers already in the Gulf region.
The protest is Greenpeace's second action in the port in a week.
The Ministry of Defence failed last week to get an injunction stopping Greenpeace from blocking the port but did obtain a limited ruling preventing the activists from boarding or touching ships chartered to carry military supplies.
A ministry spokesman said Saturday's blockade was making it difficult but not impossible to load the ship. "They are creating difficulties but we have a range of contingency plans," he told Reuters. He declined to say when the Dart 8 was due to sail.
Prime Minister Tony Blair met U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House last week for what many saw as a council of war. Both insist Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction from U.N. weapons inspectors and must disarm voluntarily or be disarmed by force. Iraq insists it has no such weapons.
Bush said time was running out for a peaceful end to the crisis, while Blair said on his way home that he believed the U.N. Security Council would pass a second resolution condemning Iraq if it continued to stall the inspectors.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is due to present to the Security Council on Wednesday what he says is compelling evidence that Iraq is concealing weapons programmes from the U.N. inspectors.
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who said on Monday that Iraq was hampering investigations and listed a range of weapons still unaccounted for, is due to present a further report on his team's findings on February 14.
----
Greenpeace ship hauled away from UK military port
Story by Gideon Long
REUTERS UK:
February 4, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19683/story.htm
LONDON - British port authorities hauled Greenpeace flagship the Rainbow Warrior clear of the entrance to a military port late on Saturday, allowing a supply ship laden with tanks and helicopters to sail for the Gulf.
Police boarded the Rainbow Warrior to end its six-day blockade of Marchwood port in southern England. They cut the ship's anchor chain and pulled it clear of the approaches to the port using a large tug boat.
Shortly afterwards, at around midnight (0000 GMT), the Dart 8 cargo vessel, which had been loading equipment throughout the day, left the port for Asia where it will support thousands of British troops marshalled for a possible conflict with Iraq.
"The Dart 8 is in the process of sailing now," a Defence Ministry spokesman told Reuters. "She was scheduled to leave at 10 p.m. (2200 GMT), so she has been delayed by about two hours."
The Rainbow Warrior had been anchored at the entrance to Marchwood since Monday as part of Greenpeace's campaign to stop ships heading to the Gulf.
The government had ordered it to move on Saturday and when those orders were ignored, some 20 police officers boarded the ship and took control of it, attaching it to the tug and cutting it free from its mooring.
The Defence Ministry spokesman said the operation had not been opposed by around 20 Greenpeace activists on board and that the matter was now in the hands of the port authority.
On Friday, the government failed to get an injunction stopping Greenpeace from blocking the port but did obtain a limited ruling preventing the activists from boarding or touching ships chartered to carry military supplies.
Earlier on Saturday a government spokesman said the blockade had made it difficult but not impossible to load the Dart 8.
Prime Minister Tony Blair met U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House on Friday for what many saw as a council of war. Both insist Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction from U.N. weapons inspectors and must disarm voluntarily or be disarmed by force. Iraq says it has no such weapons.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is due to present to the Security Council on Wednesday what he says is compelling evidence that Iraq is concealing weapons programmes from the U.N. inspectors.
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who said on Monday that Iraq was hampering investigations and listed a range of weapons still unaccounted for, is due to present a further report on his team's findings on February 14.
- Additional reporting by Astrid Zweynert and Jeremy Lovell.
----
Building a buzz for peace
Frustrated by a lack of media coverage, antiwar protesters are pooling their resources.
By Hilary E. MacGregor
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 4 2003
http://www.calendarlive.com/cl-et-macgregor4feb04,0,5958799.story
One afternoon last week on the Fox Studios lot, a van pulled up at Stage 5. Tyne Daly and Amy Brenneman, co-stars of the show "Judging Amy," leapt out and were met by a cameraman, a boom operator, a director and a couple of lighting technicians, who pulled the actresses inside and swung into action.
The camera rolled.
"I love my country and I want to keep America safe," read Brenneman. "I believe we can contain Saddam Hussein through inspections."
"Attacking Iraq makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks in the future," Daly said. "We do not need to go to war, killing American soldiers and innocent Iraqi people."
Brenneman looked solemnly into the camera. "We can win without war," she said.
In 25 minutes, the pair were back in the van, eating box lunches, zooming back to work. Within days, the footage was to be edited into a 30-second television spot, the latest in a series of antiwar ads filmed by Artists United to Win Without War and paid for by TrueMajority.com, a liberal activist group started by Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen. The first spot, featuring Susan Sarandon, aired last week, before and after President Bush's State of the Union speech. CNN rejected the spots, Cohen said. But TrueMajority is spending $200,000 to place the ads on local cable stations.
The art of the antiwar protest is conventional, crude, creative and continually evolving, varying with the era and the mass medium of the moment. But the point has always been to raise awareness by getting attention. Today, peace and antiwar groups are protesting not only possible war with Iraq, but also the lack of coverage of the nascent movement in the mainstream media by spending scarce funds on newspaper ads and airtime.
From Republicans to Democrats to Hollywood celebrities, from labor unions to church groups, from middle-class suburbanites to college students, concerned citizens have pooled their resources in recent months to take out full page ads in the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and dozens of smaller papers across the country. Some are simply lists of names; others are notices for marches. A group of Republican business executives bought a page in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 13 for "A Republican Dissent on Iraq." The same week, a group of Democrats calling itself Americans Against War With Iraq ran a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times. "Who's against a U.S. War on Iraq?" it asked. "2 out of 3 Americans. 7 out of 8 Brits. 1 out of 1 Popes." It included 2,000 signatures.
To generate buzz -- essentially free advertising -- for its own antiwar television spot, MoveOn.org hired Fenton Communications, the same company that promoted Arianna Huffington's recent anti-SUV ads.
The Bush administration, of course, doesn't have to resort to advertising to get its message out, says Robert McChesney, a professor of communications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "There is a frustration among peace activists that they feel they have to buy ads to even get news coverage. It ultimately reflects their dissatisfaction and powerlessness, politically and with the press."
John Hanson, 30, is a volunteer organizer for International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), a group formed three days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as a response to the war on terrorism at home and abroad. It helped organize an antiwar march Jan. 11 in downtown Los Angeles and ran an ad in The Times' California section five days before to promote it. "We have been blasting the media with information about what is going on," Hanson said, "but we have had trouble getting coverage for different events, protests." This approach, he said, was born out of necessity.
Historians and media critics say complaints about a lack of coverage by the mainstream media are nothing new. "Antiwar demonstrations, labor demonstrations, they are the weak spot of traditional journalism," McChesney said. "The problem has only gotten worse in the last 15 to 20 years."
Former newspaper editor Bill Kovach, who heads the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism, said the lack of media coverage is a cause for legitimate concern.
"The most troubling examples I know firsthand are here in Washington," said Kovach, who is also a former curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. "The first antiwar demonstration in Washington last October was abysmally under-covered. The New York Times missed it entirely the first day and had to play catch-up with a story that wasn't good. It was the same with the Washington Post. The coverage was not even pro forma; it was dismissive.
"I went to see the second demonstration for myself a couple of weeks ago, so I could compare what I saw with the coverage.... The thing that disturbed me most, in terms of journalism, was that there were a lot of speakers taking a lot of different positions and perspectives. That wasn't in the coverage. It all was anecdotal, as if they were covering a picnic....
"I can't really figure out why," Kovach said. "Editors with whom I spoke said they'd made a mistake the first time but that they'd catch up. They didn't do that, according to my judgment. It reminded me of when I was growing up in this business in east Tennessee in the late 1950s, and there was some coverage of the behavior of some young blacks at the lunch counters over in Greensboro, N.C. My local newspaper treated it with the same sort of dismissive story they'd given a panty raid at the local college about six months before."
Lila Garrett, founder of Americans Against War With Iraq, said her group was the first to run a national newspaper ad protesting the possible war, back in September 2002. To date, it has spent $90,000 on three full-page ads in major papers, and more are planned. "We felt we were representing the opinion of the majority of Americans and that that opinion was not being represented in the mainstream media," Garrett said.
Other activists say their perspectives are covered by the media, but are often misrepresented, belittled or marginalized. "It's not that there isn't coverage," said Eli Pariser, 22, international campaigns director for MoveOn.org. "It's that the coverage fails to describe the character of the opposition in the terms in which I see it -- as a mainstream and very widespread movement.... If you read the news articles, it still looks like this fringy thing. When you get the Sierra Club and the National Council of Churches and the NAACP and the big unions, when you get them in a room talking and they agree, that is not fringy."
MoveOn.org was formed during President Clinton's impeachment trial as a grass-roots effort to get Congress to "move on" to other issues. It has since reinvented itself as an online civic group that specializes in mobilizing support through the Internet on issues ranging from campaign finance to tax policy and, now, opposition to a war with Iraq.
The group, which claims more than 660,000 members, says it raised $400,000 from 11,000 people, much of it in contributions of $35 or less, to pay for a five-day television campaign in 13 major markets, including Los Angeles.
Its ad, which raises the specter of nuclear war if the U.S. attacks Iraq, is a remake of the classic 1964 Lyndon Johnson campaign ad that suggested electing Barry Goldwater president could lead to a nuclear war. The new ad, which aired last month around the country, shows a little girl counting flower petals in a field of daisies, then cuts to a nuclear explosion. "Let the inspections work," it reads against the background of a mushroom cloud.
Organizers of antiwar protests and grass-roots events say ads are not only a way to be heard, but also a way to reach beyond their core constituency and legitimize their position. "There are a lot of people who are in mainstream, middle-class society," Hanson says, "who think reading the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal brings an air of respectability. They will see that [ad] and feel that it is OK that they have had these feelings.... They are more likely to participate in an event if they read about it in a publication that a lot of people read. They think, 'Maybe I'm not the only one.' "
Other organizers stress that they are not abandoning traditional forms of protest by embracing ads. They are simply adding to the mix.
Wes Boyd, 44, founder and president of MoveOn.org, believes ads allow older, more mainstream Americans who don't want to carry picket signs to express their views. "At $35 a person, for 11,000 people, an ad is a great way for middle-class people to 'march,' to get out and be heard," Boyd said. MoveOn's goal is to show that resistance to war with Iraq is broad, and "nothing is more mainstream than television," he said.
Charles Chatfield, a retired professor at Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio, who has studied the history of antiwar sentiment, says the repertory of protest remains largely unchanged. But the media -- and particularly television -- tend to focus on the newest and most dramatic forms.
During the Vietnam War, for example, there was education in the newspapers, lobbying in Congress, and Southeast Asian specialists all speaking out, Chatfield said. "But nobody paid attention. That wasn't the peace movement. TV had convinced people that the peace movement was marches, young people and the counterculture."
Today, though, "marches are not so novel anymore," Chatfield said, and for that reason, news of demonstrations is routinely "buried."
Not everyone believes ads are the picket signs of the 21st century, however. "Resources are scarce for peace groups," said media critic McChesney. "If you are running them over and over, they start to have diminishing returns." He said the cost of a few full-page ads in major papers could pay for a full-time organizer for a year.
Director-producer Robert Greenwald, co-founder of Artists United to Win Without War, a group of Hollywood actors, producers and directors who followed a celebrity press conference in December with a full-page ad in the New York Times pleading with President Bush to "Let the Inspections Work," said he can see McChesney's point. "Initially, the ad was important to show there was opposition," Greenwald said. "There is no secret now that there is widespread, deep, diverse opposition. We need to think about other tactics now."
But Norman Solomon, author of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You" (to be published this month iby Context Books) and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a nationwide consortium of public policy researchers, said print ads can be a compelling way to air a dissenting perspective.
"There is a difference between being quoted in a news article or being sound-bitten, on TV or radio, and having an unfiltered opportunity to make a case," Solomon said. "One of the things print ads allow is the chance to convey a sense of logic that is usually truncated, if not shredded, by news accounts."
Those who have placed ads -- especially television ads -- say there is no denying their effectiveness. A week after its TV ad first appeared on the news, MoveOn.org reported that its membership had grown by 100,000. The ad was covered on virtually every major network. It was shown and discussed on news programs in Australia, Pakistan, Russia and Japan. The tally is ongoing, but the ad generated at least 110 television news stories and dozens in print, according to an Interim Media Coverage Report by Fenton Communications.
As MoveOn's Boyd says, "Controversial ads get covered."
Times staff writer Tim Rutten contributed to this report.
-------
Harmony couple promoting peace
MINNESOTA: Tuesday, February 04, 2003
River Valley Reader
By Melissa Vander Plas, melissa@means.net
http://www.hometown-pages.com/main.asp?FromHome=1&TypeID=1&SectionID=14&ArticleID=993&SubSectionID=23
"Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will be as one." ~ John Lennon
Peace.
It is a small word with a big expectation, especially in a time when political unrest and the threat of war with Iraq dominate the news.
Peace.
While some believe it is an unobtainable goal, others, like Joy and Robert Johnson of Harmony, believe it is still achievable and that it is not too late to prevent a war with Iraq.
Dedicating much of their lives to promoting peace and good will throughout the world, the Johnsons are currently working with several local and regional peace organizations in a fight to raise awareness about the conflicts with Iraq and to promote alternative actions, such as continued weapons inspections and diplomacy.
Their involvement in Rural Peacemakers has had them holding peace rallies in communities throughout Fillmore County for the past several weeks.
Last Saturday their group held a rally in Rushford and future rallies are scheduled for Harmony, Lanesboro and Chatfield. The group meets each Saturday at 11:30 a.m. at a determined location and marches to the main intersection in town. After the rally, they hold a meeting in the local café.
Harmony's rally will begin at the bike trailhead on Feb. 8. Both the Lanesboro event, on Feb. 15, and the Chatfield event, Feb. 22, will begin at their community libraries.
The Johnsons explained that their rallies have involved anywhere from 20 to 30 people and have been growing in numbers each time. Weather conditions have created some challenges, but supporters are urged to participate for as long as they feel they can. The rallies last only an hour or so before moving into the café.
The Johnsons are also involved in the Southeast Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers, which meets every Tuesday evening from 4:30 to 5:30. Their war protest is held on the corner of Broadway and Second Street South in Rochester.
This group will also be sponsoring a Teach-In on Feb. 22 in Memorial Hall at the University of Minnesota Center in Rochester from 1 to 4 p.m. According to Bob, there will be many powerful and inspirational speakers, sharing information about the situation in Iraq and the alternatives the United States could be conducting instead of threatening war.
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world
today [is] my own government. ...For the sake of the hundreds of thousands
trembling under our violence,
I cannot be silent." Martin Luther King
During the weekend immediately preceding Martin Luther King Day, Bob and Joy spent 22 hours on a bus to reach Washington, D.C., where they joined others from around the country in a national peace rally.
A total of 11 buses traveled to the nation's Capitol to join nearly a half million people in the war protest.
Carrying Sen. Paul Wellstone signs and balloons, Joy said it was easy to find their fellow Minnesotans among the large crowd. Others who saw the Wellstone signs, would come up to them and express condolences. "They told us that Minnesota had lost a great senator, but we would tell them that the world had lost a great senator," she added.
Wellstone was one of the few senators who sided against the war in a vote last fall.
As the group walked along New Jersey Boulevard in Washington, D.C., Bob said he was surprised to see so many people, hanging out of windows and coming out of businesses, who were supporting the peace movement.
"All these people, of the same mind, showed respect and solidarity," said Joy. "It was a peaceful march and it was upsetting to me that the media only showed the 10 or so who tried to go across the fence (surrounding the White House)."
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." ~ Albert Einstein
Bob and Joy Johnson hope to raise awareness and understanding through their peace rallies and discuss several reasons for protesting a war with Iraq.
"I fear that (George) Bush will go into Iraq without the support of the United Nations," said Bob. "I believe that peace has to be a rule of law and that any military action must go through the U.N. Security Council."
With the exception of Great Britain, the Johnsons say the rest of the world does not support a war with Iraq and explain where peace rallies have been held all over the world, including London and Madrid.
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary: the evil it does is permanent."
~Mohandas K. Gandhi
The living conditions for citizens in Iraq and the devastation caused by the Gulf War continue to create concern for the Johnsons.
Joy explained that the United States has been involved in removing sanctions from Iraq, causing shortages in medicine and food. "It's more devastating than the war," she said. "Children are dying everyday from the effects of depleted uranium from the bombs we dropped during the Gulf War."
Children are born with severe birth defects, incidents of cancer are rising and malnourishment makes even a common cold or the flu a life-threatening illness.
The Iraqi people are not the only ones suffering long-term effects of the Gulf War, the Johnsons point out. They have literature saying that 29 percent of Gulf War veterans have been approved for disability claims, suffering from mysterious ailments linked to exposure to uranium.
While Bush says the war is about freedom and democracy to the oppressed Iraqi people, Joy says she believes it is more about money and oil. "Saddam Hussein has the misfortune of sitting on the second biggest oil field in the world," she said.
"We've been concerned about Mideast oil since the '50s," Bob added. "We have alternatives - hydrogen power, wind power, geo-thermal energy. We don't need that oil."
The cost of going to war will also be immense. The Johnsons explained that it costs $50 billion a year to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. It would cost over $200 billion to wage war in Iraq. Then there would be the costs for setting up a "puppet government" and rebuilding, Joy added.
"Those costs have to come from somewhere, so they'll likely come from Medicare, Social Security, education," she continued. "The average workers are going to have to pay that bill."
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi
Using war to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his weapons of mass destruction is a paradox, Bob explained. "If we are convinced he has these weapons and we're afraid he's going to use these nuclear weapons, how far can we go before we provoke him?" Bob wonders. "He'll use them if he's cornered."
Bob says he believes a war in Iraq will begin a new arms race that will be of global proportion. "We will have no more control of nuclear weapons," he added.
Joy agreed saying, "Aggression begets aggression."
However, the Johnsons do not feel that Iraq is threatening attack, nor do they feel there is any evidence that they are capable of an attack.
Bob explained that he feels the United States sabotaged the Iraq weapons inspection by threatening to kill Hussein if he was found. "He wasn't cooperating as a way to protect himself," he added. "As long as the inspections can continue, we could prevent the construction of weapons of mass destruction. It's much cheaper to keep the inspections in there than to go to war."
"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"We are convinced this war can still be stopped," said Bob. "The danger is too great for the environment and the people. There's less risk in another approach."
"We want to make people more aware of the truth and help them realize the price we're going to have to pay," Joy added. "There are other alternatives to look at."
If others would like to join the Johnsons and the organizations they are working with to promote peace, one is welcome to come to any of the peace rallies named above.
"We know there are people that are with us," said Joy. "Anyone that wants to come is more than welcome."
So, the Johnsons will continue to march for a cause they truly believe in. They will continue to protest war with Iraq and they will continue to promote peace, something that they believe is not unachievable.
"Imagine all the people living life in peace . . . "
Just imagine.
----
Public Schools brainwashing our children on Iraq
by Richard in Denver
Tuesday February 04, 2003
San Francisco IndyMedia
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1570050.php
Scholastic News is distributed to our children in the public schools.
Scholastic News has a subtle pro-war bias. Please send an email to complain.
My ten year old son noticed the bias in Scholastic News, and brought their January 31 issue to me out of his concern. I found similar stories about war against Iraq on their website.
Much of the information that they provide is true, or is mostly true. However, they frequently leave out important parts of the story, thus leaving a wrong impression about the issues.
They mention the embargo, for example, and they mention some of its negative impact. But they don't mention the United Nations UNICEF report that hundreds of thousands of children have died because of the embargo.
They mention plans for military action against Iraq, but fail to mention that many thousands of civilian casualties are likely.
There is no discussion of plans to destroy water systems, nor of plans to employ our own weapons of mass destruction against Iraq, nor of the depleted uranium issue, nor of the constant attacks by our aircraft against Iraqi targets over the past eleven years.
They mention "growing support for overthrowing Hussein," when the opposite seems to be the truth-- at least, as far as U.S. military action is concerned.
I couldn't find any mention of anti-war activists' beliefs that the pending invasion of Iraq is for empire-building, or an oil-grab.
They don't mention the anti-war movement at all; Congressional criticism is described as resulting from being left out of the war planning.
Here are a couple of links to their Iraq coverage:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/iraq/gulf_war.htm
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/iraq/kids_in_iraq.htm
Please check these and the other linked stories carefully, and provide feedback if you agree that they should provide more balance. Calm, reasoned, and specific feedback about a particular issue on a particular page will be the most productive, I think. If enough of us respond, we can cover all the important issues.
Here is their contact form:
http://www.scholastic.com/custsupport/pcomment.asp
If you are a parent of school-age children, mention that.
best wishes, richard in Denver
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.