Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools Pose Serious Risks
Iraq Bans Weapons of Mass Destruction
Inspector Says No Banned Arms Found, but Missile Exceeds Limits
Report by the Chief Inspector for Biological and Chemical Arms
Japan urges North Korea to restart nuclear talks
Japan threatens force against N Korea
North Korea Accuses U.S. of Military Moves on Border
S. Korea opposes attack on North
N. Korean negotiators use odd tactics
Powell: N. Korea Threatens Its Neighbors
U.S. Won't Seek N. Korean Nuke Sanctions
Democrats 'disturbed' by Bush policy on nuclear arms
Nuclear Agency to Test Defenses of Indian Pt. With Assault Drill
Powell's Bad Day
U.S., Turkey Haggle Over Economic Aid
MILITARY
Germany to Ship Missiles to Turkey
China gets jets
Australian troops scared by vaccine
British troops will mop up isolated resistance
US plan to use illegal weapons
Arafat Agrees to Name a Prime Minister
Libya working to extend the range of its missiles
U.S. Offers More Aid to Turkey for Help with Iraq
Germany Says NATO Rift Over Turkey Is Near an End
U.S. Will Ask U.N. to State Hussein Has Not Disarmed
War cargo loaded on 2 ships headed to Mideast
Air Force commanders back Franks plan
U.S. May Shift Troops In Korea
Inside the Ring
Bio/Chem Attack Protection Questioned
U.S. expelling Iraqi journalist for being "harmful to U.S. interests"
Maverick Cleric Is a Hit on Arab TV
First Lady gives TV alerts static
China OKs state-operated channel
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Death Penalty Cases Raise Race Questions
67 nabbed in huge sweep targeting narcotics gangs
Handling of Last Alert Spurs Lawmaker's Ire
Schools Boost Preparations for Attack
DC Journalists Have Escape Plans If Nation's Capital Is Attacked
Code Orange Blues
Fact Sheet: New Terrorist Threat Integration Center Will Open May 1
U.S. Increased Alert on Evidence Qaeda Was Planning 2 Attacks
ENERGY AND OTHER
Slow Going for Ethanol Sales in State
Russia's Economic Reforms Are Slowing, IMF Says
ACTIVISTS
As protesters gather, police prepare
Performers unite for peace
Anti-war band dropped from awards
Cities for Peace brings an anti-war message to capital
U.S. anti-war movement based in the mainstream
Thousands Plan Antiwar Protests in Europe
Peace rally clogs Melbourne city streets
For Old Friends, Iraq Bares a Deep Rift
A Sense of Fine Qualities Trampled and of Something 'Terribly Wrong'
City Leaders Carry Message Against War to President
Anti-war group tries to enter Raytheon
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools Pose Serious Risks
February 14, 2003
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-14-09.asp#anchor2
PRINCETON, New Jersey, A space saving method for storing spent nuclear fuel has heightened the risk of a catastrophic radiation release in the event of a terrorist attack, according to a study initiated at Princeton University.
Terrorists targeting the high density storage systems used at nuclear power plants throughout the nation could cause contamination problems "significantly worse than those from Chernobyl," study found.
The study's authors, a multi-institutional team of researchers led by Frank von Hippel of Princeton, are calling on Congress to mandate the construction of new facilities to house spent fuel in less risky configurations, at an estimated total cost of $3.5 billion to $7 billion.
Their paper is scheduled to be published this spring in the journal "Science and Global Security."
Strapped for long term storage options, the nation's 103 nuclear power plants now pack four to five times the number of spent fuel rods into water cooled tanks than the tanks were designed to hold, the authors reported. This high density configuration is safe when cooled by water, but would likely cause a fire - with catastrophic results - if the cooling water leaked. The tanks could be ruptured by a hijacked jet or sabotage, the study contends.
Such a fire would release a radiation plume that could contaminate eight to 70 times more land than the area affected by the 1986 accident in Chernobyl. The cost of such a disaster would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, the researchers reported.
The study builds on analyses completed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), pulling together a variety of sources and adding new calculations to put the issues in sharper focus, said von Hippel.
"The NRC has been chewing on this for 20 years," said von Hippel. "That's one of the reasons why we did this paper - because they never seem to do anything about it."
At issue in the study is how nuclear power plant operators deal with the narrow, 12 foot long rods of uranium that, after three or four years of use, no longer contain enough chain reacting material to sustain a nuclear reaction. For the first few years after they are taken from the reactor, the fuel rods continue to generate a lot of heat due to their intense radioactivity.
Without cooling, the rods would burst and ignite the zirconium alloy sheaths in which they are encased.
The water filled cooling tanks were designed to protect about 100 metric tons of the hottest rods, while the cooler ones would be moved to a nuclear fuel recycling plant, which was never built. The U.S. also has not yet built a long term storage facility for nuclear waste, so the pools have been packed with 400 tons or more of spent fuel rods.
In its low density configuration, a cooling tank could be cooled by air in the event of a loss of water, while the high density system could not, the study notes.
The authors recommended returning the water tanks to their low density configurations and building onsite storage facilities, which would use air cooling, for the older fuel. Some of the cost of this work already is budgeted as part of a plan to build a national storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the authors noted.
That project, however, is not scheduled to be built for another 10 years and would then take another 20 or 30 years to take enough waste to relieve the water tank density.
The decision whether to reconfigure the spent fuel storage systems comes down to a cost benefit analysis, von Hippel said. Even without the possibility of terrorism, the opportunity to reduce the risk of more conventional mishaps would justify the expense under most circumstances, he said.
The chances of a successful terrorist attack are hard to quantify, he acknowledged, but if the odds were at least one percent over 30 years, then the expense would be justified.
-------- iraq
Iraq Bans Weapons of Mass Destruction
Feb 14, 2003
AP
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_WEAPONS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Saddam Hussein issued a presidential decree Friday banning the importation or production of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, or any materials that could be used to make them.
The decree was announced shortly before the chief U.N. weapons inspectors were to present new reports on Iraq's disarmament to the U.N. Security Council. The decree was issued, apparently, in response to repeated U.N. demands that Baghdad outlaw weapons of mass destruction.
"All ministries should implement this decree and take whatever measures are necessary and punish people who do not adhere to it," the presidential order read.
The decree banned individuals and companies from all sectors from importing or producing any material that could be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi government insists it possesses no such weapons.
The decree came before Iraq's parliament was to meet in an emergency session to consider a similar piece of legislation on banning weapons. It was unclear how the presidential decree affected the parliament meeting.
In New York, chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei were to deliver their reports to the Security Council on Iraq's compliance in eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
The United States and Britain claim Iraq has not complied with the inspections, and have threatened to disarm Iraq by force if they are not convinced it is doing so on its own.
--------
Inspector Says No Banned Arms Found, but Missile Exceeds Limits
February 14, 2003
New York Times
By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/international/14SHELL-UN.html
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 14 - In a mixed report to the Security Council today, Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, said that his teams had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
His words seemed unlikely to change any member's firm opinions, with France calling once again for more inspections and the United States saying the issue was not inspections but disarmament.
Mr. Blix confirmed that an Iraqi missile called Al Samoud 2 exceeded its 93-mile range and said that only a small number of empty chemical munitions, ``which should have been declared and destroyed,'' had been discovered.
But he added: ``Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded.''
The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, repeated the official Paris position that ``the use of force is not justified at this time,'' adding that the alternative was ``disarming Iraq via inspections.''
Inspectors, Mr. de Villepin said, should be allowed ``the time they need for their mission to succeed.'' A premature recourse ``to the military option would be fraught with risks,'' he added.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who presented a laundry list of accusations against Baghdad to the Council last week, said today that the Council had not seen the level of compliance called for in Resolution 1441 and that Iraq continued to play tricks with the United Nations.
``Resolution 1441 was not about inspections,'' Mr. Powell declared. ``Let me say that again. Resolution 1441 was not about inspections. Resolution 1441 was about the disarmament of Iraq.''
Mr. Powell said a variety of biological and chemical weapons had not been accounted for by Iraq, and that as reluctant as Council members might be to confront the issue, now was the time to consider ``whether or not is is time to consider ``serious consequences of the kind intended by 1441.''
In a report that was considered crucial in determining whether the Security Council gives its support to the United States and Britain, which are urging military action against Baghdad, Mr. Blix said inspectors were free to visit any site of their choosing, including presidential palaces and private homes.
If banned materials exist, he said, Iraq should turn them over for destruction. He said it was not the job of the inspectors to find the evidence of banned material, but Iraq's job to turn it over.
Mr. Blix also referred to one of the points brought up at the council last week by Secretary Powell.
Mr. Powell used satellite photographs that he said showed Iraq had moved and evacuated materials from about 30 chemical weapons and other munition before weapons inspectors arrived.
``The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity'' as one designed to hide banned materials before inspections. Mr. Blix declared.
``In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming,'' Mr. Blix asserted.
Later the Council was told by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei: ``We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq,''
``However,'' he added, ``a number of issues are still under investigation.''
Mr. Powell's accusations against Baghdad last week also included mobile weapons laboratories, ties to Al Qaeda terrorists, storehouses of deadly nerve agents and unmanned planes capable of sprinkling chemical toxins on enemies.
Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, a staunch ally of the United States in its campaign to convince the world that Iraq must be brought to heel immediately or face war, said Thursday that Baghdad could be guilty of a ``serious breach'' by deploying Al Samoud.
``It would be not just a failure to declare and disclose information, but a breach of Resolution 1441,'' said Mr. Blair, making reference to a United Nations resolution adopted last fall that required Baghdad to comply with inspections aiming to show that Saddam Hussein's regime no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction. For its part, the White House, which said on Wednesday that it had begun work on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, labeled disclosure of the al-Samoud's range as ``serious and troubling.''
But Russia, which occupies a permanent seat on the Security Council along with Britain, France, China and the United States, said that Baghdad had disclosed Al Samoud's existence and that analysis of the missile's capabilities merely proved that inspectors were ferreting out valuable data and should be given more time to do so. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was quoted in the French press on Thursday as saying that his country would veto any war resolution by the Security Council.
``If it is necessary, we will use our veto, but I do not think it is helpful to get into debate about this at the moment,'' Mr. Putin said. China, France and Russia have all opposed a military strike against Iraq, while the United States and Britain have adopted a much more hawkish stance. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz of Iraq told reporters in Italy on Thursday that Baghdad was ``still within limits that are decided by the United Nations.''
Once again, as he did on Jan. 27, Mr. Blix waded into the middle of this tug of war. When he last appeared before the Security Council, Mr. Blix offered a scathing critique of Iraq, saying that Baghdad had not fully complied with his inspection team and had not fully accounted for what may be stockpiles of chemical arms. His presentation buttressed the United States' argument for war, especially after Mr. Blix declined to ask for more time for his team to carry out its duties.
Mr. Powell said on Wednesday that he would ask French and German representatives at the meeting if they opposed military action because they want to let Baghdad ``off the hook and no disarmament.'' So, with peace in the balance, Mr. Blix, who cited Al Samoud as a potential problem when he made his last report, was forced to navigate a very fine line in today's presentation.
John Ruggie, a former United Nations official who now is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, described the ongoing United Nations debate as a ``bloody train wreck'' but said there might still be backroom diplomatic efforts under way to avert a war.
Other items under consideration today were Baghdad's recent acceptance of reconnaissance flights over Iraq conducted by U-2 spy planes as well as French Mirage and Russian Antonov aircraft. Iraq's previous unwillingness to permit such flyovers had been another complaint lodged by United Nations weapons inspectors.
Meanwhile, NATO postponed a meeting on Thursday intended to resolve a brewing crisis at the 54 year-old European military alliance. Earlier in the week, France, Germany and Belgium halted efforts by NATO's 16 other member nations to send military defense assistance to Turkey, asserting that such aid amounts to hasty, and still unnecessary, preparation for war with Iraq.
The United States, which has warned that the split may lead to NATO's collapse, said on Thursday that other NATO members were looking for ways to circumvent France, Germany and Belgium by defending Turkey outside of normal NATO channels.
--------
TEXT
Report by the Chief Inspector for Biological and Chemical Arms
February 14, 2003
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/international/middleeast/14WEB_BTEX.html
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 14 - Following is a transcript of the statement given by the chief inspector for biological and chemical weapons, Hans Blix, to the United Nations today, as recorded by the Federal News Service.
MR. BLIX: Mr. President, since I reported to the Security Council on 27th of January, UNMOVIC has had further -- two further weeks of operational and analytical work in New York and active inspections in Iraq.
This brings the total period of inspections so far to 11 weeks.
Since then, we have also listened on the 5th of February to the presentation to the council by the U.S. secretary of State and the discussion that followed. Lastly, Dr. ElBaradei and I have held another round of talks in Baghdad with our counterparts and with Vice President Ramadan on the 8th and 9th of February.
Let me begin today's briefing with a short account of the work being performed by UNMOVIC in Iraq. We have continued to build up our capabilities. The regional office in Mosul is now fully operational at its temporary headquarters. Plans for a regional office in -- at Basra are being developed.
Our Hercules L-100 aircraft continues to operate routine flights between Baghdad and Larnaca. The eight helicopters are fully operational. With the resolution of the problems raised by Iraq for the transportation of minders into the no-fly zones, our mobility in these zones has improved. We expect to increase utilization of the helicopters.
The number of Iraqi minders during inspections has often reached a ratio -- had also reached a ratio as high as five per inspectors. During the talks in January in Baghdad, the Iraqi side agreed to keep the ratio to about one to one. The situation has improved.
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we been -- seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites.
At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, rebaselining activities were performed. These included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples, and discussions with the site's personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.
Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq as well as of its missile capability, but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gaps in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.
More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad center. The results to date have been consistent with Iraqi declarations.
We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 liters of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC's seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor which we found at another site, has also been destroyed.
The total number of staff in Iraq now exceeds 250, 250 from 60 countries. This includes about 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 15 IAEA inspectors, 15 air crew, and 65 support staff.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly on prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has, so far, been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of Resolution 1441, it requires immediate, unconditional, and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament, either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programs for elimination, or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated.
In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. While we were in Baghdad, we meet a delegation from the government of South Africa. It was there to explain how South Africa gained the confidence of the world in its dismantling of the nuclear weapons program by a wholehearted cooperation over two years with IAEA inspectors. I have just learned that Iraq has accepted an offer by South Africa to send a group of experts for further talks.
How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.
Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for.
I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.
We are fully aware that many government and intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programs continue to exist. The U.S. secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many source of information that are not available to inspectors. The inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on the evidence which they can themselves examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.
Mr. President, in my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999, and should be well known to Iraq. I referred as examples to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles and said that such issues, and I quote myself, "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside," unquote.
The declaration submitted by Iraq on the 7th of December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this tax and avoid belittling the questions.
In my January update to the council, I referred to the Al-Samoud 2 and the Al-Fatah missiles, reconstituted casting chambers, construction of a missile (agenda ?) and test stand, and the import of rocket engines, which were all declared to UNMOVIC by Iraq.
I noted that the Al-Samoud 2 and the Al-Fatah could very well represent prime facie cases of proscribed missile systems, as they had been tested to ranges exceeding the 150 kilometers limit set by the Security Council. I also noted that Iraq had been requested to cease flight test of these missiles until UNMOVIC completed a technical review.
Earlier this week UNMOVIC missile experts met for two days with experts from a number of member states to discuss these items. The experts concluded unanimously that based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al-Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150 kilometers in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq, pursuant to Resolution 687 and the monitoring plan adopted by Resolution 715.
As for the Al-Fatah, the experts found that clarification of the missile data supplied by Iraq was required before the capability of the missile system could be fully assessed.
With respect to the casting chambers, I note the following. UNSCOM ordered and supervised the destruction of the casting chambers, which had been intended for use in the production of the proscribed Badar 2000 missile system. Iraq has declared that it has reconstituted these chambers. The experts have confirmed that the reconstituted casting chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers. Accordingly, these chambers remain proscribed.
The expert also studied the data on the missile engine test stand that is nearing completion and had assessed it to be capable of testing missile engines with thrusts greater than that of the SA-2 engine. So far the test stand has not been associated with a proscribed activity.
On the matter of the 380 SA-2 missile engines imported outside of the export-import mechanism, and in contravention of Paragraph 24 of Resolution 687, UNMOVIC inspectors were informed by Iraq during an official briefing that these engines were intended for use in the Al- Samoud 2 missile system, which has now been assessed to be proscribed. Any such engines configured for use in this missile system would also be proscribed. I intend to communicate these findings to the government of Iraq.
At the meeting in Baghdad on the 8th and the 9th of February, the Iraqi side addressed some of the important outstanding disarmament issues and gave us a number of papers; for instance, regarding anthrax and growth material, the nerve agent VX, and missile production. Experts who were present from our side studied the papers during the evening of 8th of February and met with Iraqi experts in the morning of 9 February for further clarifications. Although no new evidence was provided in the papers and no open issues were closed through them or the expert discussions, the presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on the important open issues.
The Iraqi side suggested that the problem of verifying the quantities of anthrax and two VX precursors, which had been declared unilaterally destroyed, might be tackled through certain technical and analytical methods. Although our experts are still assessing the suggestions, they are not very hopeful that it could prove possible to assess the quantities of material poured into the grounds years ago. Documentary evidence and testimony by the staff that dealt with the items still appears to be needed.
Not least, against this background, a letter on the 12th of February from Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate may be of relevance. It presents a list of 83 names of participants, I quote, "in the unilateral destruction in the chemical field which took place in the summer of 1991." Unquote. As the absence of adequate evidence of that destruction has been and remains an important reason why quantities of chemicals had been deemed unaccounted for, the presentation of a list of persons who can be interviewed about the actions appears useful and pertains to cooperation on substance. I trust that the Iraqi side will put together a similar list of names of persons who participated in the unilateral destruction of other proscribed items, notably in the biological field.
The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items. This was welcomed. A second commission, we learned, has now been appointed with a task of searching all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programs. It is headed by the former minister of Oil, General Amer Rashid, and is to have very extensive powers of search in industry, administration, and even private houses.
The two commissions could be useful tools to come up with proscribed items to be destroyed and with new documentary evidence. They evidently need to work fast and effectively to convince us and the world that it is a serious effort.
The matter of private interviews was discussed at length during our meeting in Baghdad. The Iraqi side confirmed the commitment which it had made to us on the 20th of January to encourage persons asked to accept such interviews, whether in or out of Iraq. So far, we have only had interviews in Baghdad. A number of persons have declined to be interviewed unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview. Three persons that had previously refused interviews on UNMOVIC's terms subsequently accepted such interviews just prior to our talks in Baghdad on the 8th and 9th of February.
These interviews proved informative. No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms. I hope this will change. We feel that interviews conducted with (sic) any third party present and without tape recording would provide the greatest credibility.
At the recent meeting in Baghdad, as on several earlier occasions, my colleague Dr. ElBaradei and I had urged the Iraqi side to enact legislation implementing the U.N. prohibitions regarding weapons of mass destruction. This morning we had a message that a presidential decree has now been issued containing prohibitions with regard to importation and production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. We have not yet had time to study the details of the text of the decree.
Mr. President, I should like to make some comments on the role of intelligence in connection with inspections in Iraq. A credible inspection regime requires that Iraq provide full cooperation on process, granting immediate access everywhere to inspectors; and on substance, providing full declarations supported by relevant information and material and evidence. However, with the closed society in Iraq of today and the history of inspections there, other sources of information, such as defectors and government intelligence agencies, are required to aid the inspection process.
I remember myself how in the 1991, several inspections in Iraq, which were based on the information received from a government, helped to disclose important parts of the nuclear weapon program. It was realized that an international organization authorized to perform inspections anywhere on the ground could make good use of the information obtained from governments, with eyes in the sky, ears in the ether, access to defectors and both eyes and ears on the market for weapons-related material. It was understood that the information residing in the intelligence services government could come to very active use in the international effort to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This remains true, and we have by now a good deal of experience in the matter.
International organizations need to analyze such information critically and especially benefit when it comes from more than one source. The intelligence agencies, for their part, must protect their sources and methods. Those who provide such information must know that it will be kept in strict confidence and be known to very few people.
UNMOVIC has achieved good working relations with intelligence agencies, and the amount of information provided has been gradually increasing. However, we must recognize that there are limitations, that misinterpretations can occur.
Intelligence information has been useful for UNMOVIC. In one case, it led us to a private home where documents mainly relating to laser enrichment of uranium were found. In other cases, intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found. Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases, the presence of other items, conventional munitions. It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.
The presentation of intelligence information by the U.S. secretary of State suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programs. I would like to comment only on one case which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at the munitions depot. This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected to be to inspect -- us to inspect. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart.
The report of movement of munitions at the site could just as easily had been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection.
Our reservation on this point does not detract from your appreciation of the briefing.
Yesterday UNMOVIC informed the Iraqi authorities of its intention to start the U-2 surveillance aircraft early next week, under arrangements similar to those UNSCOM had followed. We are also in the process of working out modalities for the use of the French Mirage aircraft, starting late next week, and for the Drones supplied by the German government. The offer from Russia of an Antonov aircraft with night vision capabilities is a welcome one and is next on our agenda for further improving UNMOVIC's and IAEA's technical capabilities. These developments are in line with suggestions made in a "non-paper" recently circulated by France suggesting a further strengthening of the inspection capabilities.
It is our intention to examine the possibilities for surveying ground movements, notably trucks. In the face of persistent intelligence reports -- for instance, about mobile biological-weapons production units -- such measures could well increase the effectiveness of inspections.
UNMOVIC is still expanding its capabilities, both in terms of numbers of staff and technical resources. On my way to the recent Baghdad meeting, I stopped in Vienna to meet 60 experts who just completed our general training course for inspectors. They came from 22 countries, including Arab countries.
Mr. President, UNMOVIC is not infrequently asked how much more time it needs to complete its task in Iraq. The answer depends upon which task one has in mind: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programs, which were prohibited in 1991; the disarmament task; or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur.
The latter task, though not often focused upon, is highly significant and not controversial. It will require monitoring, which is ongoing -- that is, open-ended -- until the council decides otherwise.
By contrast, the task for disarmament foreseen in Resolution 687 and the progress on key remaining disarmament tasks, foreseen in Resolution 1284, as well as the disarmament obligations, which Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with under Resolution 1441, were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span.
Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991.
Despite the elimination under UNSCOM and the IAEA supervision of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete when inspectors were withdrawn almost eight years later, at the end of 1998.
If Iraq has provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under Resolution 687 could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if, I quote, "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation," unquote, with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.
Thank you, Mr. President.
-------- japan
Japan urges North Korea to restart nuclear talks
REUTERS JAPAN:
February 14, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19823/story.htm
TOKYO - Japan urged North Korea yesterday to reopen dialogue with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, a day after the agency declared Pyongyang in breach of atomic safeguards.
In a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, the Japanese government called on North Korea to take seriously the resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which urged North Korea to remedy its non-compliance.
"We hope that (North Korea) will immediately reopen talks with the IAEA and quickly make moves towards a rapid and verifiable dismantling of its nuclear weapons programme," the statement said.
The statement added that Japan would continue to work with other countries towards a peaceful settlement.
The crisis over North Korea's nuclear programme has been simmering since October, when Washington said Pyongyang admitted to pursuing a programme to enrich uranium. This violated a 1994 accord under which Pyongyang froze its nuclear programme in exchange for two nuclear power reactors and economic assistance.
Since then, North Korea has expelled IAEA inspectors, withdrawn from a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, restarted a nuclear complex capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium and threatened to resume missile tests.
Japan's top government spokesman said this week that the government was not in favour of sanctions against North Korea at this point.
----
Japan threatens force against N Korea
Friday, 14 February, 2003
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm
Japan has warned it would launch a pre-emptive military action against North Korea if it had firm evidence Pyongyang was planning a missile attack.
Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba said it would be "a self-defence measure" if North Korea was going to "resort to arms against Japan".
Mr Ishiba said it would be too late if a North Korean missile was already on its way.
His remarks were the latest in the international row over Pyongyang's nuclear intentions, and followed a North Korean warning that it had the ability to strike American targets anywhere in the world, if provoked.
Click here to see North Korea's missile strike range
Pyongyang was responding to a statement by the head of the US Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet, warned that Pyongyang had a long-range missile capable of reaching the west coast of America.
On Wednesday, the United Nations nuclear watchdog resolved to refer North Korea to the UN Security Council for breaching nuclear non-proliferation agreements.
Warning
A senior official in Pyongyang, Ri Kwang-hyok, told the AFP news agency that North Korea was capable of attacking "all military personnel and all military commands of the United States in the world" as a self defence measure.
He also called on the Security Council to investigate the United States' own nuclear programme.
"We insist that the responsibility of the US must be discussed too," he said.
North Korea has long been thought to have a missile under development capable of hitting the western United States.
'Chronic offender'
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decision on Wednesday to refer North Korea to the UN Security Council brings the nuclear crisis to a new stage.
CRISIS CHRONOLOGY
16 Oct: US announces that N Korea has acknowledged secret nuclear programme
14 Nov: US halts oil shipments to N Korea
22 Dec: N Korea removes monitoring devices at Yongbyon nuclear plant
31 Dec: UN nuclear inspectors forced to leave North Korea
10 Jan: N Korea pulls out of anti-nuclear treaty
28 Jan: President Bush urges the "oppressive" N Korean regime to give up its nuclear ambitions
12 Feb: IAEA refers issue to Security Council
Timeline of tensions
It raises the possibility of economic and political sanctions against Pyongyang - a move North Korea says it would regard as a declaration of war.
Under its charter, the IAEA must report any violations of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to the Security Council, and Pyongyang had been in "chronic non-compliance since 1993", IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said.
He said North Korea was only a "month or two" from producing "a significant amount of plutonium" that could be used to make nuclear weapons.
Despite issuing the referral, Mr ElBaradei insisted that the IAEA would continue to press for a peaceful solution to the crisis.
"All members made it clear it is not the time to jump to sanctions," Mr ElBaradei said.
Washington said it would not do so.
US deputy ambassador to the UN Richard Williamson said on Thursday that the Bush administration wanted to go down the diplomatic route for now.
Pyongyang has said sanctions would be tantamount to a "declaration of war".
'Window of opportunity'
Pyongyang's neighbours have reacted with concern to the new developments.
South Korea urged Pyongyang to seize the "window of opportunity" left open to it.
It also said it hoped the Security Council would "handle the issue in a way that prevents a worsening of the situation and facilitates a diplomatic resolution".
China, while backing the decision by the IAEA's 35-country board, warned the Security Council against getting involved.
"The UN Security Council's involvement at this stage might not necessarily contribute to the settlement of the issue," China's ambassador to the UN, Zhang Yan, said on Thursday.
"The only correct and effective approach... is through constructive dialogue and consultations on the basis of equality," he said.
North Korea map http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38814000/jpg/_38814405_nkoreamap.jpg
# Map shows range of Taepodong 1 missile, flown over Japan in 1998 # Evidence that North Korea preparing flight test of Taepodong 2 with range of up to 8,000 km (could reach western US)
-------- korea
North Korea Accuses U.S. of Military Moves on Border
Reuters
Feb. 14, 2003
By Julian Rake
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030214_62.html
PANMUNJOM, North Korea (Reuters) - North Korea accused the United States Friday of building up its forces along the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea and said U.S. armor was entering the zone illegally.
"There have been some aggressive moves by the U.S. in the southern part of the DMZ," Major Kim Kwang-kil said as the two countries remained locked in crisis over Washington's allegation that the North is pursuing a secret nuclear arms program.
"We have seen armored cars and tanks inside the DMZ, which is a violation of the armistice because only officers can carry side arms inside the DMZ," he said of the agreement, which ended the fighting in the 1950-53 Korean War.
"They have increased the number of soldiers and they are carrying heavy weapons," he told Reuters. "They're increasing the movement of their army," he added of the 37,000 American troops stationed in South Korea.
A rare glimpse from the Northern side across the world's last Cold War flashpoint provided no immediate signs of such movement by U.S. troops on the southern side. U.S. officers in the south say such North Korean accusations are daily fare, but that their communist counterparts never respond when asked for evidence.
But with the crisis over the North's nuclear ambitions alarming the world and U.S. troops on the "highest level of alert," Pyongyang says it's one million strong army is ready to defend the country.
"These measures are related to the nuclear issue and we can no longer guarantee peace and security in the area, not only this area, but the country as a whole," Kim said.
"We are prepared to respond to war provocation activities by the U.S. We can't sit idly while they increase their numbers to attack us."
Kim pointed through thick fog at a building on the southern side of the zone, some 50 meters (yards) away and guarded by South Korean soldiers he dismissed as "mercenaries."
"They have mobile missiles and automatic weapons in there," he told a Reuters correspondent on a guided tour of the Northern side on Panmunjom, where the armistice was signed and the two sides keep vigilant watch on each other around the clock.
The only movement of U.S. soldiers to be seen on the southern side Friday involved a couple of soldiers escorting a group of Western tourists to the last frontier of the Cold War.
In Washington Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld raised the possibility of shifting U.S. forces away from the DMZ and removing some of the U.S. troops stationed in the South, many of them in forward positions.
On the Communist Northern side, the only sign of military activity were half a dozen open trucks heading down the road crammed with male and female soldiers standing cheek by jowl.
"We only allow our farmers to farm inside the DMZ whereas the other side allows military hardware," Kim said as a few women worked in newly plowed fields. U.S. military tour guides say the situation is exactly the opposite.
Kim's remarks matched the rhetoric of the North Korean media, which depict the United States as a rapacious bully determined to rule the world.
They promise total defeat of the world's only superpower should Washington launch an attack on a country it believes has one or two nuclear warheads and the missiles capable of delivering them to North America.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said he believed a diplomatic solution was possible despite U.S. insistence on a regional approach rather than bilateral talks repeatedly demanded by Pyongyang.
The other side of North Korean media was shown in magazines in Russian and English in a waiting room.
The cover showed a picture of people celebrating the completion of an irrigation canal by throwing water around in a country which has been devastated by repeated droughts and floods over the past decade.
Inside the magazine, a picture showed soldiers staring at carvings of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il etched into a rock.
"Soldiers have the Kim Jong-il 'army first' achievements engraved on their minds," said the caption.
----
S. Korea opposes attack on North
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 14, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030214-32563386.htm
South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun yesterday said he would oppose any U.S. military strike against North Korea's prohibited nuclear-weapons programs, saying the South must not be afraid to express differences with Washington if it means preventing a war.
"It is impossible not to have differences [with the United States], and I cannot agree to attacking North Korea," Mr. Roh told a group of labor leaders, according to South Korean press accounts. "We can fully cooperate, but not on this issue."
President Bush has said repeatedly he has no plans to invade North Korea in the escalating dispute about Pyongyang's clandestine nuclear programs.
A slew of administration officials, led by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, told Congress yesterday that the United States is pursuing a multilateral, diplomatic solution, although Mr. Bush has not ruled out any option.
The United States for more than a half-century has guaranteed the security of South Korea against the heavily armed North and currently stations 37,000 troops in South Korea. The White House this week confirmed that the Pentagon is discussing reducing the U.S. military contingent in South Korea and elsewhere.
Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, the department's point man on East Asia, told Congress that the U.S. and South Korean approaches on the North largely "overlap."
"We can work out the differences we do have as we have in the past," he said, adding that Mr. Roh has made gestures to improve relations and ease tensions about the U.S. troop deployment on the Korean Peninsula since his election victory. U.S.-South Korean tensions played a major role in the presidential campaign.
Mr. Powell told the House Budget Committee that the United States has firmly rejected North Korean attempts to hold bilateral talks about its illicit nuclear program, saying Mr. Bush was insistent that South Korea, Japan and other regional players be involved.
"We have to find a way to broaden the dialogue," Mr. Powell said. "China is threatened, Russia is threatened, South Korea is threatened."
North Korea's U.N. ambassador, Pak Gil-yon, yesterday attacked the United States for pushing the nuclear dispute into the U.N. Security Council, reiterating that it can be solved only through negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang - not in a setting that involves other nations.
Although the United States said yesterday it would not press for punishing U.N. sanctions against North Korea now, Pyongyang's envoy said it didn't trust Washington and demanded that the Security Council blame the U.S. government for the nuclear crisis.
There were other developments on many fronts in the fast-moving North Korean crisis:
•North Korean officials, responding to CIA assertions Wednesday that they already have capacity to deliver a nuclear strike on a U.S. city on the West Coast, said they had the ability to strike U.S. assets anywhere. "The strike force of the Korean People's Army will take on the enemy wherever he is," Foreign Ministry official Ri Kwang-hyok told the Agence France-Presse news service.
•U.S. officials said they did not expect an upcoming meeting of the U.N. Security Council on the North Korean crisis to consider economic or other sanctions against North Korea, a course of action Pyongyang has said it would consider a declaration of war.
The U.N. meeting follows Wednesday's vote by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer the North's violation of international atomic safeguards to the Security Council.
•China and Russia, both considered critical to any settlement of the Korean Peninsula crisis, yesterday criticized the decision to pass the nuclear issue on to the Security Council. Russia, which abstained on the IAEA vote, said the move was "premature and counterproductive" and could close off a diplomatic solution.
•Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba said in an interview that his country was prepared to wage a pre-emptive strike against Pyongyang if it determined the North was preparing to attack with its ballistic missiles. "It is too late if [a missile] flies toward Japan," he said.
Mr. Roh's comments continue a rocky transition period for the one-time human rights lawyer, who campaigned on a platform of strong support for outgoing President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" of rapprochement with the North. The presidential campaign was marked by a surge in anti-American protests.
Anti-U.S. sentiment in South Korea, a key U.S. ally, rose after two U.S. soldiers involved in the traffic fatality of two Korean teenage girls were acquitted of negligent homicide charges in U.S. military courts in November.
That and the divergence of Washington and Seoul on policy toward North Korea fueled protests in Seoul.
Mr. Roh has made efforts to smooth over relations with Washington, but has also made comments that have raised doubts about his policies.
A Roh aide was quoted as saying the incoming president hoped to serve as a neutral mediator between Pyongyang and Washington. A delegation sent by Mr. Roh to Washington earlier this month was heavily criticized in South Korea for failing to deliver a single, consistent message about the new president's policies.
Mr. Roh sent more conflicting signals in yesterday's remarks to the South Korean labor leaders, complaining that U.S. and South Korean press accounts had exaggerated his differences with Washington.
But at the same event, according to the South Korean Joong Ang Daily newspaper, Mr. Roh told his audience that "Koreans should stand together, although things will get difficult when the United States bosses us around."
He said a diplomatic solution was preferable, in part because he would lose control over South Korea's military in the event of war because it would be subordinated to the U.S. forces.
The newspaper quoted leading members of the opposition Grand National Party as saying Mr. Roh was using "insane arguments" and threatening traditionally close U.S.-South Korean security links.
Soo-dong O, press spokesman for the South Korean Embassy in Washington, said Mr. Roh's comments were not meant to question the fundamental alliance between Seoul and Washington.
Mr. O said the president-elect's three principles for resolving the crisis are: demanding an end to the North's nuclear-weapons programs, pursuing peace through dialogue and ensuring that South Korea has a role in the negotiations.
But some U.S. lawmakers yesterday expressed frustration with what they said was rising popular and official anti-Americanism in South Korea.
"We're there to help them," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, told Mr. Kelly. "If they don't want us, we'd be more than happy to get out and spend our money elsewhere."
----
N. Korean negotiators use odd tactics
By Christopher Torchia
ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 14, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030214-41567308.htm
SEOUL - With the Bush administration contemplating direct talks with North Korea, diplomats were looking at a 1955 book in which U.S. Adm. C. Turner Joy described how a North Korean negotiator tried to intimidate him by letting flies crawl across his own face.
That tightly controlled behavior during armistice talks to end the 1950-53 Korean War was apparently just one of many tactics aimed at intimidating the Americans, Adm. Joy wrote in "How Communists Negotiate."
"I concluded he was simply accustomed to having flies on his person," Adm. Joy wrote wryly.
Fifty years later, Adm. Joy's book is required reading for U.S. military officials who meet every week with communist officers at the border post of Panmunjom to discuss reducing tension.
A new generation of North Korean negotiators is in place, but the bluster, stalling, stiff cordiality and other tactics are the same, say senior U.S. military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The admiral's observations will be even more important if and when more senior U.S. officials meet North Korean diplomats to discuss that country's resumption of operations at its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, "We're going to have to have direct talks with the North Koreans, there's no question about it."
Washington still prefers that the talks take place in a multilateral setting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said later on "Fox News Sunday."
"We should not let North Korea dictate the terms under which these conversations take place," he said. "I think there will ultimately be conversations, but I think other nations have a role to play."
It took two years for the Korean War armistice talks to end, and Adm. Joy eventually was replaced as chief negotiator. In the current nuclear crisis, the North Koreans may not have that kind of time, particularly if Washington wins a war against Iraq and focuses more intently on the standoff.
"They're not going to want to bluff and delay and not get to the negotiating table with the United States in the next month or so," said Bruce Bennett, an analyst at the Rand Corp. But he said it isn't certain that North Korea is willing to give up its nuclear programs.
Negotiations offer a level playing field of sorts, where North Korean officials can probe for weaknesses in delegates of the world's only superpower.
U.S. military officials, all students of Adm. Joy's book, say North Korean tactics include setting arbitrary deadlines and agreeing in principle but not in practice. They make preconditions as prerequisites to a deal, though the preconditions are the real goal.
Another North Korean strategy, officials say, is to generate a crisis and create momentum that leads to a breakthrough in talks. Since last month, North Korea has expelled U.N. inspectors, reactivated a nuclear facility and withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
For all its swagger, isolated North Korea wants to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union and communist allies in Eastern Europe that collapsed at the end of the Cold War. The execution of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in a bloody insurrection in 1989 is believed to have shocked the North.
In a sign of eagerness to make a deal, North Korea eased its opposition to a plan to reconnect cross-border roads and railways.
The reconciliation project stalled after the North said the U.N. Command, which oversees the southern half of the demilitarized zone, did not have jurisdiction in the transportation corridors. The North said the United States was trying to block progress on the project.
But North Korea has dropped its objection, and the project is back on track, for now.
"North Korea seems to want to show both to Koreans and to the outside world that inter-Korean reconciliation projects are going well" despite the nuclear issue, said Koh Yu-hwan, a professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University in Seoul.
The North also may have decided that economic benefits that could flow northward along roads and railways outweigh the cost of delaying construction for political ends.
•Staff writer Ellen Sorokin contributed to this report.
----
Powell: N. Korea Threatens Its Neighbors
By GEORGE GEDDA
Associated Press Writer
Feb 14, 2002
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NORTH_KOREA?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
WASHINGTON (AP) -- North Korea's nuclear weapons program is threatening Russia, China and South Korea, Secretary of State Colin Powell said in making his case for a regional discussion of Pyongyang's nuclear buildup.
North Korea has rejected the proposal.
Powell usually leaves it up to other countries to describe threats to their security, but he made an exception Thursday in testimony before the House Budget Committee.
Because regional countries have a stake, Powell said it makes no sense to accept North Korea's demand for one-on-one, U.S.-North Korea talks.
But Powell made clear the North Koreans have no interest in regional discussions, describing North Korea's response by saying: "No, no, no."
"We have to have a regional settlement. It can't just be the U.S. and the DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea)," said Powell, making his third appearance before a congressional committee in three days.
Russia, China and South Korea all say they are opposed to the North's nuclear ambitions, but all seem less troubled about it than Washington.
The continuing impasse on North Korea contributed to an atmosphere of deep gloom among House members at a separate hearing Thursday.
"North Korea is the greatest national security threat facing the United States," said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif.
Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., said, "Today we have no good options."
Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly offered no hint that a resolution was any closer than it was four months ago when the disclosures about Pyongyang's uranium-based nuclear weapons program first surfaced. Pyongyang also appears to be reviving a plutonium-based weapons program.
The Bush administration has been seeking a prompt and verifiable dismantling of these programs.
Bereuter, commenting at a hearing of the House International Relations East Asian and Pacific affairs subcommittee, seemed to rule out the possibility of verification when he alluded to the North's capability of hiding materiel underground.
Without elaborating, Bereuter said the North has stored "things" in tunnels that "number in the five digits." An aide said later Bereuter could not be more specific because of the sensitivity of the information.
Bereuter called North Korea "truly the most evil regime on Earth. A huge percentage of the population lives as virtual slaves or actual slaves."
Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., said: "The North Korean leadership doesn't belong in the human race."
Kelly said the administration was weighing the possibility of declassifying satellite photographs of labor camps that are located in many provinces.
The U.N. Security Council is expected to take up the North Korean issue soon. But Kelly said he doubts that sanctions against the North are in the cards.
He suggested that any tough Security Council action may be more appropriate in two months, after North Korea's announced withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty becomes final.
Kelly said he sees the upcoming council session as a forum to make clear that a number of countries are concerned about Pyongyang's weapons programs, not just the United States.
Sherman, displeased that China is not doing enough to pressure North Korea, suggested that could change if the administration made China pay a price by imposing trade sanctions.
But, he added, the administration has no stomach for that option because "huge corporate profits are at stake."
North Korea has said it would consider sanctions an act of war.
Also Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said North Korea may pose a bigger threat as a supplier of nuclear weapons than as a potential aggressor in Asia.
"They sell almost everything," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "They are the world's greatest proliferator of missile technology," and hence a problem for more than one nation to solve, he said.
On the Net:
State Department site: http://www.state.gov
----
U.S. Won't Seek N. Korean Nuke Sanctions
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer
Feb 14, 2003
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_NKOREA_NUCLEAR?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
Secretary of State Colin Powell says North Korea turned down a U-S proposal to include China, Russia and South Korea in talks over North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. (Audio)
http://customwire.ap.org/audio/20030213172942-309.ra
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States said Thursday it would not press for punishing U.N. sanctions against North Korea now, but Pyongyang said it didn't trust Washington and demanded that the Security Council blame the U.S. government for the nuclear crisis.
North Korea has accused President Bush's "hostile policy" for the standoff and warned that sanctions would be tantamount to "a declaration of war."
On Thursday, North Korea's U.N. ambassador Pak Gil Yon attacked the United States for pushing the nuclear dispute into the Security Council, reiterating it can only be solved through negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang - not in a setting that involved other nations.
Earlier, U.S. Deputy Ambassador Richard Williamson said the United States wants to resolve the dispute "in a systematic manner, and diplomatically."
Asked whether sanctions were a possibility in the near future, Williamson replied, "It's not an issue right now."
But Pak told a panel "I don't want to trust his remarks because the next day another remark will come out from the White House or from the State Department."
In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress that North Korea had turned down a proposal to involve China and other countries in talks with the United States over its weapons programs. He said Asian neighbors have a stake in putting the "nuclear genie back in the bottle" and corking it and North Korea was not just a U.S. problem.
But Pak was adamant in ruling out any talks involving other countries.
"We are strongly opposed to such kind of multilateral talks, since this is just designed to avoid any responsibility of the U.S. from its international commitments," he said. "We will never attend such kind of multilateral talks."
If the United States is genuinely interested in a peaceful solution, he asked, why can't its representatives sit down with North Korean officials, especially after president Bush said Washington has no intention of attacking Pyongyang.
"If it is true, what is the reasons why they are not ready to negotiate?," he asked. "Negotiation does not mean ... any concession, or any surrender."
The standoff began in October when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted it had a clandestine nuclear program. Pak insisted this was a U.S. "a rumor."
Washington suspended fuel shipments which were part of a 1994 agreement with the United States that froze North Korea's nuclear program. The North retaliated for the fuel cutoff by expelling U.N. nuclear monitors. It withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and took steps to restart its frozen nuclear program which Pak said would be limited to peaceful purposes such as electricity production "at the present stage."
The North Korean envoy accused the United States of promoting "war hysteria" and said Washington's offer of food and energy supplies if it scraps its nuclear program "are nothing but bait" to force the country to disarm.
He declared that North Korea would not recognize any Security Council action that does not blame the United States for its "wrong Korea policy," but he held open the possibility that his government might speak at a council meeting.
Pak also warned that the government would defend its communist system against any "U.S. reckless moves to dare topple" it.
Any confrontation with Pyongyang would overstretch the United States, now preoccupied with the crisis in Iraq and the global war on terrorism. Besides, China, Asia's biggest military power and North Korea's ally, wants a diplomatic solution and South Korea isn't keen to ratchet up hostilities with the North.
Williamson said the United States would be discussing with the other 14 council members when to take up the matter of North Korea. The International Atomic Energy Agency voted Wednesday to refer North Korea to the Security Council for violating its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other accords.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Democrats 'disturbed' by Bush policy on nuclear arms
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 14, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030214-884688.htm
Leading Democrats on Capitol Hill have expressed serious concern about a classified White House document allowing the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological weapons attack, which was disclosed by The Washington Times.
Citing the Times article, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said in a letter to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that the document "appears to be a fundamental change in the U.S. nuclear policy by explicitly stating that nuclear weapons may be used by the United States to respond to a possible chemical or biological weapons attack."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts yesterday said the Bush administration may be lowering the threshold for use of nuclear weapons.
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, he grilled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in a war with Iraq. Mr. Kennedy said such a move would trigger "a near-total breakdown" in Washington's relations with the rest of the world.
While questioning Mr. Rumsfeld, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan noted the administration's request in the 2004 budget for funds to study nuclear weapons that could be used against deeply buried targets.
"If the United States sends signals that we are considering new uses for nuclear weapons, isn't it more likely that other nations will also want to explore greater use or new uses for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Levin asked.
Congressional sources said yesterday that a joint letter to the White House about the nuclear issue by Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Kennedy is in the works. The two Democratic senators will try to get more of their colleagues to sign it, and its release could take some time, the sources said.
In her letter dated Feb. 4, Mrs. Feinstein wrote of her "deep disturbance" about the classified document, National Security Presidential Directive 17 (NSPD 17), signed by President Bush on Sept. 14.
The document, a copy of which was shown to The Times, states: "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including potentially nuclear weapons - to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."
That statement seems to contradict the decades-long U.S. nuclear policy of deliberate ambiguity, followed by both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Contacted the evening before the Jan. 31 article was published, a White House spokesman declined to comment and neither confirmed nor denied the directive's existence.
But a senior administration official said that using the words "nuclear weapons" in the classified text gives the military and other officials, who are the document's intended audience, "a little more of an instruction to prepare all sorts of options for the president" if need be.
Mrs. Feinstein wrote that such retaliation by the United States "should be unthinkable, and responding to a non-nuclear attack with nuclear weapons would violate the principle of proportionate response that has been a central tenet of just war and U.S. military tradition since the birth of our nation."
In the classified document, nuclear forces are designated as the main part of any U.S. deterrent.
"Nuclear forces alone ... cannot ensure deterrence against [weapons of mass destruction] and missiles," the text says. "Complementing nuclear force with an appropriate mix of conventional response and defense capabilities, coupled with effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities, reinforces our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats."
Mrs. Feinstein told Miss Rice "the United States is a strong nation with conventional military forces capable of dealing with the full spectrum of non-nuclear scenarios."
"I believe that it is critical that the United States uphold an international norm of nuclear restraint, in which our own nuclear forces exist solely as a deterrent against those who would seek to use nuclear weapons against us or our allies," she said.
"If not, we send a message of nuclear incitement to the rest of the world, and we will be seen as willing to cross the nuclear threshold at will and without just cause," the senator wrote.
Mr. Rumsfeld, at the Armed Services Committee hearing, expressed "every confidence" that if war breaks out in Iraq, "we can do what needs to be done using conventional capabilities."
But he said, "our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked."
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- new york
Nuclear Agency to Test Defenses of Indian Pt. With Assault Drill
February 14, 2003
New York Times
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14NUKE.html
For the first time since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will resume mock armed assaults on nuclear plants, including an invasion of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County this spring or summer.
The commission had suspended the drills after the 9/11 attacks to develop new exercises that better reflected terrorist threats. But commission members told Congress yesterday that revamped drills would resume this year, starting at four plants - including an exercise in June or July, or possibly earlier, at Indian Point, 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, in Buchanan.
"I think we agree that that is clearly a priority," Jeffrey S. Merrifield, a member of the commission, said under questioning by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has pressed for the drills in light of heightened anxiety over safety and security at the plant.
The so-called force-on-force drills will also be conducted more frequently, every three years instead of every eight years. The last such drill at Indian Point was in March 1994.
Word of the drills came as the commission weathered controversy over remarks by its chairman, Richard A. Meserve, who a day earlier criticized a state-commissioned report on emergency plans for apparently giving "undue weight" to the impact of a terrorist attack on the plant.
Mr. Meserve last month began notifying members of Congress about the new drills, without identifying the plants. Mrs. Clinton had urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include Indian Point among the first to be tested. She also encouraged the Entergy Corporation, which owns the plant, to volunteer to be among the first, and it did so, a commission spokeswoman said.
Antinuclear activists and other critics have questioned, particularly after Sept. 11, how well the nation's 103 active reactors are guarded, pointing to reports of fatigued and unprepared security officers.
In a report written for Entergy last year, a majority of the guards at the Indian Point plant said they doubted that they could thwart terrorists, and several were found to be out of shape and lacking training. Entergy has said that since the report was delivered it has improved the training of the security force and has put in place a variety of measures to foil terrorists.
In past drills, a small team of intruders would enter a plant's premises and, with simulated weapons, try to outmaneuver the security guards to get to vulnerable areas.
Critics have derided the drills for involving only a handful of intruders and for the fact that the nuclear commission tells the plant in advance when the drill will take place. Commission officials have said the mock intruders in half of the cases reached vulnerable areas, potentially causing a release of radiation.
Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the commission, said it would have new regulations governing the exercises in place next month. But she said the commission still planned to notify the plants in advance because they must assign certain guards for the exercise while the others continue guarding the plant.
Mrs. Clinton, who questioned members of the commission appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety, said afterward, "This will help us determine where we stand when it comes to security at Indian Point."
Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, said the company welcomed the drills as an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of its security force, which he said had been bolstered since 9/11. Last month Entergy announced that it would merge the two security forces at the plant, a legacy from a time when different owners operated the two active reactors. Entergy bought Indian Point 3 from the New York Power Authority in 2000 and Indian Point 1, which is defunct, and Indian Point 2 from Con Edison in 2001.
"We are willing participants," Mr. Steets said. "We would be more than happy to be one of the early places to be tested."
Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper, an environmental organization that has raised concerns about safety and security at the plant, said he was elated that Indian Point would be among the first plants tested.
"As the nuclear plant in the most densely populated area, I think it is fitting and appropriate to subject it to the force-on-force testing this year," Mr. Matthiessen said.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission declined to discuss how the drills would be conducted.
-------- us politics
Powell's Bad Day
At a key United Nations meeting, 'Old Europe' outmaneuvers America's top diplomat
By Michael Hirsh
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Feb. 14, 2003
http://www.msnbc.com/news/873237.asp?0cl=c1
Dominique de Villepin was grinning handsomely as he headed out of the United Nations Security Council, pausing for a photo op. "Mr. Minister, will you be discussing a second resolution when the Council meets again next week?" a NEWSWEEK reporter asked him. "No need for a resolution," the French foreign minister shot back, still grinning.
IT WAS NOT difficult to surmise why he seemed so happy: by day's end de Villepin had thoroughly outmaneuvered U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Resolution 1441, which had insisted on active compliance by Iraq in revealing and destroying its weapons of mass destruction, would get more time.
Earlier in the week, of course, the Americans were talking about the possibility of pushing immediately for a second resolution after Hans Blix's update to the Security Council on Friday. This one, the Americans said, would call for "serious consequences"-in effect, authorizing force. By the time Blix had finished his briefing, both the Americans and the British admitted there were no plans-for now-to discuss such a resolution. Translation: they knew they didn't have the votes. Nor did the French feel compelled to push further for a new resolution authorizing more time and more inspectors, at least at the moment. By the end of Friday they clearly had consensus to do things their way. The French had brought on board two more permanent members with vetoes-the Russians and Chinese-and the British and Americans knew it.
For now, it looks as if the Americans will have to either wait an undetermined number of weeks for inspections to continue (Blix's next scheduled update is on March 1, when Guinea takes over the presidency from Germany), or go to war to defend the honor of the U.N. Security Council while in defiance of the majority of U.N. Security Council opinion. That still may happen, but it sounds uncomfortably like destroying the village in order to save it, a Vietnam-era reference that Powell would understand well. So far apart were the pro- and antiwar sides-only Spain and Britain stood with America in the Security Council in declaring that Saddam had had enough time to comply with Resolution 1441-that a planned ministerial meeting for the five permanent members of the Council was canceled.
One reason for the French victory Friday was Powell's rather laid-back diplomacy during the week since his broadside at the Council. While Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Vladimir Putin and de Villepin have spent the week traveling to and fro, forging coalitions, making speeches, Powell (who doesn't like to travel) and Bush have stayed put. Even at the Security Council on Friday, de Villepin deftly played to the court of public opinion better than Powell. At one point, even while the Council was still in session, he left to launch a preemptive strike with the press staking out the meeting. Another reason: while the Blix report was mixed, it was much more positive than the Security Council's last update, on Jan. 27. Referring to weapons of mass destruction, Blix said flatly, "So far Unmovic has not found any such weapons." He noted new Iraqi cooperation, including the new law announced Friday morning banning WMDs from Iraq-which Blix noted had been suggested by him and the U.N.'s chief nuclear weapons inspector Mohamed El Baradei during their visit to Baghdad last week. Blix even tweaked Powell over elements of his dramatic Feb. 5 presentation. Referring to the suspected bio-chem site of which Powell had shown detailed before-and-after satellite photos, Blix dismissed the idea that the supposed presence of a "decontamination truck" was meaningful. "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been routine activity," he said.
Powell also paid for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's unfortunate jibe at "Old Europe" at week ago, a remark that turned into a hilarious football at the Security Council, mostly at America's expense. De Villepin, the first of the permanent five to speak, gave an eloquent defense of the U.N. (and the inspections regime), concluding, "In the temple of the United Nations we are all guardians of an ideal, the guardian of a conscience," he said. "This message comes from an old country, France, that does not forget ... all it owes to freedom fighters that came from the United States of America and everywhere." His statement brought a sustained ovation from all parts of the chamber, including the press gallery. The Chinese foreign minister, speaking next, referred to his country as "an ancient civilization," and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw comically countered with: "Britain is also a very old country. It was founded in 1066-by the French!" Powell, improvising, came back with: "America is a relatively new country, but it is the oldest democracy around this table ..." Unfortunately, that appeared to snub America's most stalwart ally, Great Britain, which has had an operating parliament that outdates America's founding by many years.
Also much in evidence was France and Germany's newfound unity. When de Villepin received his applause, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, presiding as Security Council president, said nothing. But when Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, who also called for giving the inspectors more time, got a smattering of applause, Fischer sternly admonished the crowd that "clapping is not allowed" in the chamber. Powell spoke just as eloquently in favor of taking a tough line and ending inspections as de Villepin had for giving them more time. He too appealed to the sanctity of the U.N. The Iraqis, Powell said, let inspectors into the country for the first time since 1998 only "because of pressure. They did it because this Council stood firm ... Resolution 1441 was not about inspections. It was about the disarmament of Iraq." But when Powell finished, only a sole hand clap could be heard in the entire chamber. Then the room fell silent, as the clapper realized that he was quite alone.
----
U.S., Turkey Haggle Over Economic Aid
Package Is Meant to Secure Support and Help With Costs of Possible War With Iraq
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5333-2003Feb13?language=printer
U.S. and Turkish diplomats held intensive and inconclusive negotiations yesterday over the terms of a multibillion-dollar economic aid package designed to secure Turkish support for a potential U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and insulate Turkey from war costs.
After a day of discussions in Washington that included Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Treasury Undersecretary John Taylor, the two sides remained billions of dollars apart, said a senior Turkish official who described "slight movement, but not enough to satisfy the Turks."
Turkey, which shares a 218-mile border with Iraq, has not agreed to allow U.S. troops to use its facilities in the event of war, and Prime Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters in Ankara, the capital, yesterday that the decision would depend on the outcome of the aid talks.
Turkey received a commitment of military help yesterday from Germany and the Netherlands, which prepared to ship Patriot missiles there despite the NATO alliance's inability to agree to a Turkish request for protection against a potential Iraqi threat. Turkey continues to seek reconnaissance planes and units able to respond to germ and biological warfare.
U.S. officials say Turkey will certainly receive financial help from the United States. The principal questions are how much and in what form, said a State Department official who reported that Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis and his team are "looking for a budget sweetener. They want money, as much as they can get."
While neither side would specify numbers, sources reported that they are far apart . Turkish officials and media have cited figures ranging from $14 billion to $25 billion -- amounts the Americans consider outlandish. A senior U.S. official said negotiators may yet reach an agreement before Yakis departs Saturday.
"There is a gap, but we think we've made a fair offer," the official said. "One of the arguments we're making is that an Iraq that is normal and democratic and economically viable is a huge benefit to them. Yes, there may be some short-term challenge to the Turkish economy, but over the long term, the great benefit is to Turkey."
The Bush administration is growing impatient with the Turks at a time when senior policymakers have said a war to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein may be just weeks away. Turkey's parliament is set to vote Tuesday on the U.S. request to station an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 troops in the country, but Gul said he could not promise that it would take place on time.
A State Department official said: "The United States is coming to the end of its line and is expecting some kind of action."
The Ankara government has taken steps to help the Americans by allowing wider use of military sites and seaports, signing an agreement last Saturday to permit about 3,500 U.S. troops and civilian workers to modernize such facilities there. But it has protested that a war with Iraq would be deeply unpopular. Economic contributions are needed to ease the sting, the Turks have told the Americans.
The Washington talks are designed to resolve three sets of issues, the Turks reported. The first issue is the rules that would govern U.S. troops stationed in Turkey. The second is the economic package. The third is a set of principles to define post-conflict Iraq, a particularly sensitive subject because of the enmity between the Turkish government and the Kurds who control much of northern Iraq.
Turkey is not alone in seeking money. Egypt has asked the United States for more aid to defray war effort contributions and such costs as lost tourism revenue. Israel has appealed for $2 billion in new military assistance and $10 billion in loan guarantees. No money for war-related economic aid, or for the war itself, is included in President Bush's 2004 budget.
-------- MILITARY
-------- arms sales
Germany to Ship Missiles to Turkey
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 14, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5371-2003Feb13?language=printer
BRUSSELS, Feb. 13 -- The German government, which is helping block the dispatch of military equipment to Turkey by the NATO alliance, announced today it would soon begin shipping some of the same materiel to the government there.
Turkey "can at all times rely on our solidarity to protect it from danger," Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said in a speech to parliament. The missile shipment was the latest example of Germany helping out indirectly in preparations for a possible conflict that it very publicly opposes.
With support from the United States, Turkey had called on the alliance to provide it with the Patriot anti-missile system, surveillance aircraft and biochemical units to defend itself in the event of a strike by the Iraqi military.
Germany and alliance partners France and Belgium have vetoed the request, arguing that its approval would endorse the "logic of war." Any formal consideration of the matter should take place only after the chiefs of weapons inspection teams in Iraq issue reports to the U.N. Security Council on Friday, they have argued.
All three countries held to that position today at NATO headquarters in Brussels, forcing cancellation of another meeting on the deadlock, which the United States has said is threatening NATO's credibility.
At the same, Turkey would get much of what it wants -- although not from NATO, at least not now.
"We have, in fact, already met the demands which have been made in NATO," said Schroeder. "In December, I publicly announced that German AWACS [surveillance aircraft] crews were available to protect Turkey. Together with the Netherlands, we will provide Turkey with the most modern missile defense equipment available in Europe, the Patriot system."
Germany will provide the missiles, but they will be operated by Dutch soldiers.
"This is one of the reasons why we, along with our friends in France and Belgium, do not feel that a formal NATO decision on war plans is appropriate in anticipation of further debate by the Security Council," he said.
Schroeder also noted in his speech that since the end of January, German soldiers have been doing special security duty at U.S. bases in Germany. Currently about 1,000 are assigned to that work. Germany also has granted overflight rights to U.S. military planes.
France, while joining Germany in blocking NATO agreement, also has declared full support for Turkey in the event of war. On Wednesday, President Jacques Chirac telephoned President Ahmet Necdet Sezer of Turkey to make that pledge personally, according to a spokesman for Chirac.
U.S. officials, however, have said the three holdouts to joint NATO action have seriously undermined the notion of collective defense and that bilateral assistance is no substitute for acting within the alliance. Turkey is still seeking units for defense against bio-chemical warfare.
Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis told the Anatolia news agency, "We believe that the latest developments negatively affect the trustworthiness of the NATO alliance."
German Defense Minister Peter Struck predicted today that a solution within NATO was imminent. "We will have a decision in the North Atlantic Council [NATO's governing body] at the latest Saturday, following the discussions in the U.N. Security Council Friday, which will absolutely satisfy Turkey's interests," Struck said.
Schroeder's 45-minute address to parliament was his most explicit defense of a policy that has led to major strains with the Bush administration.
"We are united by a friendship that is based on mutual respect and the pursuit of common aims and which therefore must withstand differences of opinion on important issues," he said.
But he attacked what he depicted as inconsistencies in U.S. policy, contrasting its views of Iraq and North Korea.
North Korea is "led by a dictator, has nuclear warheads and throws out inspectors" yet the Americans "propose dialogue," said Schroeder, who got standing ovations from members of his coalition government. He also warned that an attack on Iraq could damage the fight against terrorism.
----
China gets jets
Inside the Ring
by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
February 14, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030214-78651571.htm
Russia delivered the latest batch of advanced SU-30MKK fighter bombers to China within the past month and additional jets are on the way, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
Russia's arms exports used to be public. But under pressure from Beijing, Moscow agreed to keep secret its major weapons systems transfers to China.
Intelligence officials tell us there are indications the Russians are planning to transfer a new and highly effective air-to-ground missile known as the AS-17x as part of the Su-30MKK deal.
The Su-30MKKs are one of the most visible elements of China's military buildup that is quickly tipping the military balance in the Taiwan Strait in favor of the mainland.
Other recent Russian weapons sent or on the way to China include Su-27s, A-50 airborne warning and control aircraft, Mi-17 helicopters, AA-12 air-to-air missiles, Sovremenny guided-missile destroyers, SA-10 and SA-15 surface-to-air missiles. China also has been given the licensing rights to produce a Russian flamethrower.
-------- australia
Australian troops scared by vaccine
Australian troops refusing the vaccination will be sent home
Friday, 14 February, 2003
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2760253.stm
Up to 40 Australian troops deployed to the Middle East have refused the compulsory anthrax vaccination.
Australian authorities say the personnel will not be punished but will be unable to serve in the region.
So far, 11 troops have been sent home.
If you consent to have the vaccination, you can serve in the [Gulf] - if you decline, you will serve elsewhere
Royal Australian Navy guidance More than 2,000 Australian military personnel will be sent to the Gulf.
The authorities are attempting to reassure them the vaccination against the anthrax virus which killed five people in the United States in 2001 is safe.
The concern is that it will produce affects similar to "Gulf War Syndrome" suffered by some soldiers who took cocktails of inoculations during the 1991 Iraq conflict.
British troops have been allowed to go to the Gulf without the anthrax injection as long as they have signed a legal waiver.
But the Australians have refused to follow the British lead.
A peace dove is projected on the Sydney Opera House Many Australians are against the war The head of the Australian navy, Vice Admiral Chris Ritchie, insists the vaccination is safe.
Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill said he would be happy to have an injection himself if he was to visit troops in the Gulf region.
But the opposition Labor Party says information about the injection should have been issued to service personnel long before their deployment.
The Australian Medical Association has called upon the military to prove the vaccination is safe.
"If they have that data, the medical profession in Australia would very much like to see it," the Association's president Kerryn Phelps told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio.
The inoculation is said to feel like a bee sting and is delivered via three injections in the first six months and then three more in the next 18 months.
-------- britain
British troops will mop up isolated resistance
Daniel McGrory in Kuwait City
February 15, 2003
UK Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-578137,00.html
IN THE necklace of military camps now strung out around Kuwait's northern border with Iraq, there is not the slightest doubt that whatever is said at the United Nations, Nato or any other talking shop, this American-led coalition is about to go to war.
This is not military bravado, just a frank recognition that the planning and organisation appears too far advanced to stop now.
Senior American officers are always careful to preface any remarks they make in public by talking about what will happen "if the President orders us into battle".
Privately, they do not expect to be hanging around in Kuwait for much longer.
The only matter for debate seems to be the date for D-Day, but the expectation is that the action will begin before all 130,000 US forces are in place or the British components are ready.
Ferries carrying British tanks and other armour are still on their way, but General Michael Hagee, Commandant of the US Marine Corps and member of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, made clear during a recent flying visit to see his forces in Kuwait that they can start tomorrow if the White House so chooses.
Looking around the camp, fortified by a 10ft high sand berm like an ancient desert fort, General Hagee said: "We are ready now." The US Marines say that they envisage a rolling war, with them leading the charge and reinforcements filling in as they arrive in the region.
The final touches are being put to the battle plan, but it looks likely that British forces are to be asked to stifle any Iraqi opposition that the allies may face in their race to Baghdad. Commanders want the first American mechanised infantry and US Marine units to bypass any big towns where troops loyal to President Saddam Hussein try to put up a fight. They do not want their momentum stalled by having to fight their way through urban centres, nor risk civilian casualties, so the idea is to seal off any pockets of resistance and continue the push north to Baghdad.
British armoured units, who are some weeks behind the Americans in their preparations, could then concentrate on nullifying any remnants of opposition. One senior military source said: "What we must avoid at all cost is what is called 'urban draw', which we means we get sucked into a protracted fight and end up besieging some place which slows us down. We have the ability to bypass any troublespot, isolate it, then let troops coming behind the first elements deal with it."
The first test of this is likely to come at the southern port city of Basra, where Royal Marines will be part of an amphibious attack.
Already efforts are being made to soften up Iraq's security apparatus. Messages are broadcast continuously on military frequencies, telling the Iraqi police and troops to lay down their weapons with a pledge that they can then stay safely in their barracks and will not be taken as prisoners. Rounding up tens of thousands of Iraqi PoWs would be an unwanted drain on allied manpower.
Aircraft and attack helicopters will be used to deal first with any pockets of armed resistance before artillery is used and, if Iraqis still do not surrender, then allied troops will be required to move in.
"We are trying to avoid fighting our way street by street into populated areas," the source said. "But if we have to, we will. We do not intend to sit outside some town bombarding it with artillery for weeks on end."
-------- chemical weapons
US plan to use illegal weapons
By Severin Carrell
16 February 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=378740
While American forces invading Iraq face the threat of chemical attack, they could themselves be using biochemical agents which are banned under international law.
The US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, revealed earlier this month that American forces are planning to use "non-lethal" biochemical weapons such as anti-riot gases and crowd control agents if they invade Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee they were preparing to ask President George Bush for permission to use these weapons, known in military circles as "calmatives", on Iraqi civilians, in cave systems or to take prisoners.
But two of Britain's leading authorities on chemical weapons, Professor Alistair Hay and Professor Julian Perry-Robinson, who are collaborating on an expert guide for the World Health Organisation, said such weapons are illegal under the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention and the 1928 Geneva Protocol, which ban the use of chemical agents against people in wartime.
"It would be absolutely outrageous if they did this," said Prof Hay, an epidemiologist at Leeds University. "Surely this war against Iraq is to stop the use of those weapons, not about also using them."
The dangers of such weapons were exposed, the experts said, when Russian special forces used an opiate-based crowd control gas, with devastating consequences, on Chechen rebels holding theatregoers hostage in Moscow in October. Both men said Mr Rumsfeld's comments also threatened to put the Pentagon on a collision course with Britain.
Ministry of Defence experts have repeatedly warned their US counterparts that their proposed use of these weapons in warfare is illegal.
-------- israel / palestine
Arafat Agrees to Name a Prime Minister
February 14, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) -- Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat announced Friday that he would appoint a prime minister, a step the United States and Israel consider vital to improving the prospects for peace.
Arafat spoke to reporters after a meeting at his battered compound with diplomats from the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. He did not say how much power he plans to share, who the prime minister would be or when the appointment will happen.
But he gave no indication he was prepared to accept a reduced role that would be largely symbolic. Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said the new prime minister would report to Arafat, the Palestinian leader for more than three decades.
The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which is seeking Arafat's ouster, declined to comment. However, Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert said that in Israeli eyes, the rationale for such a post ``is that Arafat will be removed and the prime minister will take over. So I think that it is too early to determine the significance of Arafat's statement.''
For months the United States and the European Union have been demanding that Arafat give up some of his day-to-day control of the Palestinian Authority. Arafat has also come under pressure from his own people to reform a government viewed as inefficient and riddled with corruption.
``I have decided to appoint a prime minister,'' Arafat said, adding that he would immediately convene the Palestinian legislature and Palestine Liberation Organization's Central Council to approve the measure.
Asked when a prime minister might be named, Terje Roed-Larsen, the U.N. envoy who was present at Friday's meeting, cited Arafat as saying ``it will happen immediately, which must mean within the next few days.''
Arafat did not put any conditions on establishing the new position, he said. ``What Mr. Arafat has done without any qualifications is announce that he will appoint a prime minister shortly,'' Roed-Larsen said.
Erekat, the Palestinian official who was also present at the talks, gave a slightly different interpretation. He said the process could take a while, and that ``the whole issue is connected with implementing the (international peace plan).''
The move could help improve the overall climate for reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations that collapsed more than two years ago. The two sides have been holding increased contacts in recent days, but have not achieved any breakthroughs.
Sharon has refused to deal with Arafat face to face, accusing him of encouraging attacks against Israel. He says full-fledged negotiations won't resume until the violence stops, and he doesn't believe a peace deal is possible until Arafat is replaced.
Arafat did not name candidates for the position, though the list is believed to be a short one.
Two of Arafat's long-serving aides, Ahmed Qureia and Mahmoud Abbas, both in their 60s, are regarded as strong contenders. Qureia is the speaker of the Palestinian parliament, while Abbas holds the no. 2 position in the Palestine Liberation Organization, which is headed by Arafat.
Another candidate is Finance Minister Salam Fayad, 54. A respected technocrat who worked at the International Monetary Fund for 20 years, Fayad was brought into the Cabinet last year with the expectation that he would work to root out endemic corruption. Israeli media have reported that the Americans favor Fayad as prime minister.
In his brief remarks, Arafat said he expected progress on an international peace plan, referred to as the ``road map.'' The plan, which has been on hold due to the ongoing Mideast fighting, has the backing of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, the so-called Quartet.
Arafat endorsed the plan Friday. Sharon also says he supports it principle, but has expressed reservations about a number of proposals, such as freezing the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The plan requires both sides to take a series of steps, and envisions negotiations leading to the establishment of a full-fledged Palestinian state by 2005.
However, Sharon is still attempting to form a new government in the wake of Israeli elections last month. The process could take several more weeks, and will almost certainly slow efforts to move forward with the road map.
-------- mideast
Libya working to extend the range of its missiles
Edward Pilkington and Ewen MacAskill
Friday February 14, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895259,00.html
The Libyan government is continuing to develop its missile programme in spite of concern expressed by the US and Britain, according to a senior Libyan source.
Libya has Scuds that have a range of up to 350 kilometres (220 miles) and is seeking to extend this to 500 kilometres (310 miles).
Iraq is not allowed Scuds under the ceasefire agreement reached after the Gulf War in 1991 and is banned from having missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometres (95 miles).
Libya was once included on lists alongside Iraq, North Korea and Iran as a pariah state. Although relations with Britain have gradually improved, diplomatic ties with the US have not been restored.
Libya's sudden admission about its missile programme is part of a campaign by the Tripoli government aimed at avoiding being next in line for US attention after Iraq.
"We have nothing to hide," the source said, during an interview in London.
Although there is a European Union arms embargo against Libya and the US and Britain want it to sign up to a missile technology control regime, Libya insists it is entitled to develop a missile programme.
The US is regularly sending officials from the Pentagon, state department and the national security council for secret discussions in London with representatives of the Libyan government about its weapons programmes.
The discussions are on the sidelines of US-British-Libyan talks about the Lockerbie bombing. The last meeting was in December.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We have concerns about Libyan aspirations to sign up to the relevant international agreements on weapons of mass destruction."
The US and Britain do not claim to have evidence Libya has weapons of mass destruction, but they are concerned about the number of facilities capable of being used for civilian or military purposes. The Libyan source said Washington was increasingly putting a squeeze on the Tripoli government to disclose details of any chemical, biological, nuclear or missile programmes, and calling for their eradication.
"The US thinks we hide something and that we are looking to upgrade our ballistic missiles. We have the workshops to do this. We can't deny this. We test these. It would be foolish to deny this. We are entitled to develop and test these weapons."
The source added: "We have Scuds for 350 kilometres. They need maintenance or they will expire. We will try to develop these but it will not harm Europe or Israel."
The Foreign Office and US state department would not confirm talks between the US and Libya were taking place.
----
U.S. Offers More Aid to Turkey for Help with Iraq
Fri February 14, 2003
By Adam Entous
Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=BLN0XP3TAZS3ACRBAEOCFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=2233528
WASHINGTON - U.S. and Turkish negotiators moved closer on Friday to a deal on an economic aid package worth more than $20 billion that would clear the way for Ankara's help in any invasion of Iraq, U.S. sources said.
The administration is also finalizing multibillion-dollar aid packages for Israel and Jordan, which say they would need U.S. grants and loan guarantees to cushion the economic shock of military action to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
President Bush met with Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis and others at the White House, pressing for a quick agreement that would allow American forces to use Turkish bases as a springboard for an invasion of Iraq from the north.
"We had good, frank talks today. The discussions are in progress," said a U.S. official. But it was unclear whether a deal would be reached by next week as officials had hoped.
The sources said the United States was now offering Turkey a more generous package, most of which would come in loan guarantees enabling it to raise money through private banks.
On top of U.S. grants, Turkey would be able to raise more than $20 billion with the loan guarantees. The package would cost U.S. taxpayers far less -- closer to $5 billion depending on the structure of the loans.
Once an agreement is reached, it must be approved by the U.S. Congress. The United States is demanding that the loans fall under the terms of Turkey's program with the International Monetary Fund, a condition Ankara resisted, U.S. sources say.
At more than $20 billion, the package would be well above the initial U.S. offer: $14 billion including grants and the funds needed to back up to $10 billion in loans.
In two days of talks, Turkey has stepped up pressure on the United States to raise its offer. On Thursday Prime Minister Abdullah Gul backed away from a pledge to hold a parliamentary vote on Feb. 18 on whether to let an expected 30,000 U.S. troops use bases in Turkey to invade northern Iraq, saying the timing of the vote was tied to the negotiations in Washington.
MODERNIZING BASES IN TURKEY
Turkey is allowing the U.S. military to modernize some bases in Turkey for possible use in a war, but has not given Washington permission to use them for an offensive.
Turkey wants to avoid a war but has asked NATO to help plan its defense if conflict breaks out. The request has caused a deep division in NATO, where Germany, France and Belgium are refusing to start planning unless war is inevitable.
"The president is still optimistic that NATO in the end will do what is right for the alliance, and that is honor Turkey's request for assistance," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
The Bush administration is putting together separate aid packages for Israel, Jordan and other allies. The White House has set up two "working groups" to examine Israel's request for $4 billion in additional military assistance and $8 billion in U.S.-backed loan guarantees over the next three years.
An Israeli delegation is due in Washington next week and hopes to finalize the details of the package soon. Under the Israeli proposal, the United States would deduct from the face value of the loan guarantees any Israeli expenditures on settlement activities in Palestinian areas.
Israel is already the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid, receiving close to $3 billion in mostly military assistance each year. A new aid package would come on top of existing U.S. commitments.
Washington has also promised Jordan more than $1 billion in aid that could be sent to Congress for approval in coming weeks, officials said.
Jordan's King Abdullah said unnamed Arab countries had pledged to supply energy to Jordan if war ruptures its lifeline with Iraq, its sole crude oil supplier for over a decade. Jordan, wedged between Israel and Iraq, relies on cheap Iraqi oil that saves it at least $350 million annually.
Egypt is also seeking U.S. help in the form of a free-trade agreement.
-------- nato
Germany Says NATO Rift Over Turkey Is Near an End
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
February 14, 2003
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/international/europe/14NATO.html?ex=1046250068&ei=1&en=8020766e400f3852
BRUSSELS, Feb. 13 - Signaling that the NATO deadlock over planning Turkey's defense in an Iraq war would be resolved by the weekend, Germany indicated today that it would drop opposition to such planning after a report on Friday by United Nations weapons inspectors.
German officials said there was no chance they would change their opposition before the weapons inspectors deliver their report to the Security Council, so NATO canceled a meeting of ambassadors today that had been meant to resolve the deadlock, which has been called one of the worst crises in NATO's history.
But the German defense minister, Peter Struck, told German lawmakers today that he expected the deadlock to be resolved no later than Saturday and said that a resolution would "absolutely satisfy Turkey's interests." It was unclear whether France or Belgium, which have joined with Germany in blocking the NATO plan to send military equipment to Turkey, would drop their opposition as well.
Representatives of the 19 NATO members have been meeting several times a day since Monday to resolve the deadlock.
Turkey, the only NATO member that borders Iraq, is expected to be a major staging area in the event of a war, which makes it the country most likely to be the target of retaliatory attacks by Iraq. But the three objecting countries argued that to begin military planning now would send a signal that the diplomatic option had been abandoned.
Mr. Struck, speaking in a parliamentary debate in Berlin, said a new initiative in NATO could come immediately after the inspectors' report.
In Berlin, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said, "For us, solidarity with Turkey, and our solidarity within the alliance, is beyond question."
But Mr. Schröder, the European leader who has been most adamant about rejecting military action in Iraq, said, "together with our French and Belgian friends, we consider it inappropriate to have a formal NATO decision on the start of planning for a war before the discussions of the Security Council."
Despite the failure so far to resolve the differences between the 3 objecting countries and NATO's 16 other members, some diplomats here were predicting that the deadlock was likely to be broken, if not this weekend, then by Monday, when a meeting of European foreign ministers is scheduled to take place here.
Until now, negotiations have centered on a new plan, presented by Lord Robertson, the NATO secretary general, that would narrow the focus to three items for Turkey's defense: the provision of Awacs surveillance aircraft, Patriot missile batteries and chemical and biological warfare teams. Other actions, initially proposed by the United States, included a plan to rotate NATO troops from the Balkans to Turkey in the event of a war, but this was eliminated from Lord Robertson's modified plan.
In Washington today, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, echoing Mr. Struck, suggested that the way was open for a resolution of the deadlock. "I still have optimism we'll solve the problem in the next several days," he told a Congressional committee.
But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also speaking in Washington, said another European nation had complicated American military preparations, accusing Austria of blocking the transit of heavy equipment by train across its territory.
"We're trying to move some forces from Germany down to Italy, and Austria's causing a difficulty with respect to moving the forces through Austria by rail," Mr. Rumsfeld said during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
After the hearing, Mr. Rumsfeld said the military's Joint Staff was working on alternative land and sea routes.
Christoph Meran, a spokesman for the Austrian Embassy in Washington, said late today that he had no information on the request, although he noted that it might have been handled by diplomats in Vienna and not in the United States.
Mr. Meran cited Austria's historic neutrality and indicated that his nation's decisions on allowing transit of foreign military equipment were made on a case-by-case basis, and might first require action by the United Nations.
Although Austria is not a NATO member, a request from the alliance would also be considered by the government in Vienna, Mr. Meran said.
-------- un
U.S. Will Ask U.N. to State Hussein Has Not Disarmed
February 14, 2003
New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER with ELISABETH BUMILLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/international/middleeast/14IRAQ.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 - The Bush administration is drafting a United Nations Security Council resolution with Britain declaring that Saddam Hussein has failed to disarm, and must now face unspecified "consequences," senior administration officials said today.
The resolution, which they expect to present next week, is designed to counter efforts by France and Germany to give the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq more heft and more time, an approach that administration officials insist would be futile. Senior officials describe the drafts of the resolution as a short restatement of key passages of Resolution 1441, passed unanimously in November.
It would conclude, one official said today, with "words to the effect that Saddam didn't avail himself of his final chance to disarm, and will now face the `serious consequences' we've been talking about." It makes no specific reference to military action, although that is clearly the intent.
The Security Council is scheduled to meet Friday morning to hear another update from the leaders of the inspection teams, Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei. In advance of their presentations, President Bush, speaking today to thousands of sailors at the Mayport Naval Station near Jacksonville, Fla., challenged the United Nations to enforce Iraqi compliance with 17 resolutions the Security Council has passed regarding it since the end of the Persian Gulf war.
"The decision is this for the United Nations: When you say something does it mean anything?" Mr. Bush said, standing in front of the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy and alongside a Navy cruiser that launched some of the first Tomahawk missiles into Afghanistan. Mr. Bush said he was still "optimistic" that the Security Council would show "backbone" and confront Iraq.
"I believe when it's all said and done, free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society," Mr. Bush said.
But France and Germany continue to press the case that Mr. Hussein is contained as long as inspectors are in the country, and that Mr. Bush is simply rushing the schedule to meet the Pentagon's desire to conduct military action when the weather is still cool. France, Russia and China - each of which has differing levels of reservations - are all permanent members of the Security Council, with the power to veto any resolution.
Mr. Bush's aides do not seem especially concerned about the prospect of a veto. But they concede they do not know if they have the votes to pass what one official called "a clearly worded resolution." Several officials expressed fear today that the deep divide over Iraq that has already triggered a crisis within the NATO alliance - a formal meeting of NATO ambassadors was called off today - may soon engulf the European Union.
Clearly worried about that prospect, Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, wrote a letter today to his fellow European Union leaders, demanding that they support military action when they meet next week.
"While we all of course regard military action as a last resort," Mr. Blair said, "we must make clear that no member state rules it out if needed to uphold the authority" of the Security Council.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, appearing before the House Budget Committee, repeated that he was still hopeful that the United States could bridge differences with European allies. He argued that much depends on the report from the weapons inspectors on Friday, including their finding that Iraq had violated limits imposed by the Security Council on the range of its missiles.
"I think this is a serious matter," Mr. Powell said of this finding, though other experts say that if the Iraqi missiles had greater range than permitted, it was by a margin of 20 to 30 miles. "It shows, if that's what he confirms tomorrow in his presentation, it shows continued Iraqi noncompliance and it would be a serious matter."
Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, dismissed the reports about the missiles when he arrived in Italy today to meet Pope John Paul II at Vatican City.
"There is no serious violation," he told reporters. "It should not be exaggerated."
In an interview published today in Italy's leading newspaper, Corriere della Sera, Mr. Aziz called Mr. Bush "the new Hitler," and questioned why the Italian government has sided with him. "What have we done to the Italians?" he was quoted as asking.
Mr. Bush's aides are increasingly frustrated by calls from France and Germany - and Russia - to take more time with inspections, while containing Iraq's power.
They argue that Mr. Bush yielded to calls last year that he take the issue to the Security Council, patiently negotiated over the content of Resolution 1441 over seven and a half weeks, and agreed to seek a second resolution. But they say that the moment has finally come for the enforcement of the resolution - and it is time for the rest of the world to move toward Mr. Bush's position, and acknowledge Iraq's refusal to disarm.
The president seemed to give voice to his frustration today in Florida, where the martial background chosen for his remarks made clear that he is ready for military action.
"At any moment during the last 97 days - and during the last 12 years - Saddam Hussein could have completely and immediately disarmed himself. Instead, he's used all this time to build and to hide weapons. He must be hoping that by stalling he'll buy himself another 12 years."
"He's wrong," the president said to applause.
Mr. Bush continues to insist, in public and in private, that he is fully prepared to assemble a coalition outside of the Security Council. But a range of his closest allies have cautioned him in recent days that the broader the consensus he can build within the United Nations, the quieter the streets of Europe and Southeast Asia may be if war breaks out.
"This isn't something we need," a senior American official said of the additional resolution, "but rather something that would make the politics of this a lot easier for friends and allies. So we'll give it a try."
Although Mr. Bush said that military force was still a last option, his remarks at the naval station were taken as a battle cry toward what the sailors said was the foregone conclusion of an American attack on Iraq.
"There's no if, it's only when it's going to happen," said Freddy Patell, 18, an airman apprentice on the carrier John F. Kennedy, which returned here last August after four months in the North Arabian Sea. "The sooner the better. Just go get it over with and stop worrying."
The White House carefully paired the president's combat talk to the sailors with a quick visit to a forum in nearby Jacksonville to promote his 10-year tax cut plan to small business owners - a tableau designed to stress that Mr. Bush had not lost sight of the nation's economic troubles at a time of threatening war. But the president's trip was intended largely as part of the intensifying White House campaign to rally Americans toward support of the war, and to put pressure on the United Nations Security Council to take on Mr. Hussein by force.
Mr. Bush spent 40 brisk minutes at the economic forum, changed into a Navy flight jacket, then delivered his most impassioned words in his speech to the sailors, invoking the memory of one of his Democratic predecessors, John F. Kennedy, who understood, he said, "that dangers to freedom had to be confronted early and decisively." The American military, he added, will protect America and its allies from "these thugs."
Echoing comments made this week by his advisers about aid to a post-Hussein Iraq, Mr. Bush said that his quarrel was not with the Iraqis. "In case of conflict, this great nation is already putting plans and supplies into place, so that food and other humanitarian relief will flow quickly to the Iraqi people," Mr. Bush said.
-------- us
War cargo loaded on 2 ships headed to Mideast
By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 14, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030214-89145592.htm
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Military officials here scrambled yesterday to load helicopters and other war equipment belonging to the nation's premier airborne unit onto two massive Navy ships, which will deliver the cargo to the Middle East by early March.
The Army's 101st Airborne Division, about 20,000 soldiers based out of Fort Campbell, Ky., got orders from the Pentagon last week to begin a full-scale deployment to the Middle East, where about 100,000 U.S. troops are gathering for a likely invasion of Iraq.
While 16 of the 101st's helicopters are still in Afghanistan, where the division played an integral role in defeating the hard-line Taliban regime after the September 11 attacks, the majority of its gear is being hustled by train from Fort Campbell to Jacksonville.
Once there, about 270 Blackhawk, Apache, Kiowa and Chinook helicopters and a variety of wheeled vehicles, including a large convoy of Humvees and tactical camouflage transport trucks, are being tightly packed onto the USNS Bob Hope and the USNS Dahl.
With hangar bays more than three football fields in length and three stories high, the two ships are on target to be fully packed and to leave the Port of Jacksonville on the three-week journey to the Middle East by tomorrow, according to Brig. Gen. Edward J. Sinclair, the division's assistant commander.
One military official involved in the ship packing, being orchestrated by the U.S. Military Sealift Command, said that it is "like moving a small town to another part of the world."
While much of the equipment is bulky, it also is delicate.
"Moving a helicopter is like moving an egg. It's easily damaged," said Col. Tom E. Thompson, chief of staff for U.S. Military Traffic Management Command.
While the Bob Hope and the Dahl are owned by the Navy, they're operated by private companies under contract to the Military Sealift Command. Each ship has a crew of about 30 civilian mariners, skilled in quick ways to move equipment over long distances for the Army.
Each helicopter being loaded onto the ships yesterday had been specially shrink-wrapped in sheets of white plastic to protect against corrosion from salt water and moisture on the trip overseas.
"The shrink-wrapping is not hard at all; the hardest part is actually getting the plastic over the aircraft," said Spc. Seleta McCray, 29, who helped wrap the helicopters and used heat guns to shrink the material to tightness.
Asked whether he fears his equipment may not reach Iraq in time for the potential invasion, Gen. Sinclair said: "Absolutely not. ... We'll be able to project our power when we get there."
The Bob Hope and the Dahl are part of a 19-ship program started in the mid-1990s to improve the rapid shipment of large amounts of equipment worldwide.
The ships are particularly valuable to the 101st because the division needs to get to the Middle East quickly, military officials said. Unlike other ships contracted by the Military Sealift Command, equipment can be rolled directly onto and off of these ships rather than being lifted by cranes, in the manner of standard commercial shipping.
As the backbone of the Pentagon's ocean cargo transportation system, the Military Sealift Command normally operates about 120 civilian-crewed cargo ships.
----
Air Force commanders back Franks plan
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 14, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030214-19931288.htm
A senior Air Force general, responding to anonymous complaints from some officers, says air planners strongly support Gen. Tommy Franks' proposed air campaign against Iraq.
The Washington Times quoted Air Force officers in yesterday's editions as saying the air plan, in their opinion, was too timid. They said it put too much weight on saving Iraq's infrastructure to win over the Iraqi people against the day when the American military would govern a postwar Iraq.
The officers, who were not identified for the record, said bridges and some communications and electrical power units were not on the target list, and they feared the air war would not create enough chaos to disable Saddam Hussein's elite troops.
Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, vice commander of Air Force Air Combat Command at LangleyAir Force Base,Va., said yesterday that Air Force commanders fully support Gen. Franks, chief of U.S. Central Command.
"The Air Force is absolutely lined up in support of Tommy Franks," said Gen. Wright, who flew F-16 combat missions in Desert Storm and helped direct the air campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
"We have the flexibility to leave bridges, take out bridges, take out infrastructure, leave infrastructure and accomplish this as quickly as we can to limit loss of life on both sides," Gen. Wright said in a telephone interview. "What we're bringing in this plan is the full capability of the military."
He noted that leaving bridges intact can aid offensive ground movements.
An Air Force official said yesterday that officers have criticized Gen. Franks anonymously at times. The official said the Air Force wants Gen. Franks to understand that the views expressed by the officers interviewed by The Times were expressing their own opinions and those opinions do not reflect the official view of the Air Force.
Gen. Wright, on the other hand, said he was speaking for the Air Force, including Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Central Command's top Air Force officer who is now in the Persian Gulf planning for war.
The Pentagon has positioned more than 130,000 troops in theater. The buildup may reach 200,000 by month's end. President Bush is weighing a decision to invade Iraq to topple Saddam and rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction as part of the war on terrorism.
Gen. Wright said there has been close collaboration between Gen. Moseley and Gen. Franks, and there are "absolutely not" disagreements over the target list. "It's an incredibly strong plan," he said. "We are all foursquare behind General Franks."
He said that for the first time in a war campaign, the Air Force has placed a general inside Central Command's headquarters with the command's overall ground-forces commander, now Army Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan. The placement will help the Air Force and Army coordinate operations, Gen. Wright said.
During the Afghanistan campaign, unnamed Air Force officers complained via press reports that Gen. Franks had kept limits on the target list.
Gen. Wright said, "That was a whole new way of going to war, and there are going to be debates as there should be."
U.S. forces spared targets such as Kabul's electric power and bridges to leave much of Afghanistan in place for the rebuilding phase. Planners are making some of the same decisions for Iraq so that when the Americans take over Baghdad, Iraqi citizens know they are not the targets.
"We didn't devastate it during the Gulf war, and I don't expect we're going to devastate it if there is a conflict in the future," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told a congressional panel this week. "Most of the infrastructure will be intact."
----
U.S. May Shift Troops In Korea
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5332-2003Feb13?language=printer
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expressed support yesterday for shifting U.S. forces in Korea away from the fortified border between North and South and from the capital city, Seoul, adding that there might even be an overall reduction in the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed on the peninsula.
Disclosing that U.S. military officials have been working privately for months on a potential repositioning of U.S. troops in South Korea, Rumsfeld said bilateral discussions on the subject would soon begin at the invitation of South Korea's President-elect Roh Moo-Hyun.
His remarks to the Senate Armed Services Committee came against the backdrop of recent strains between Washington and Seoul over how to deal with North Korea's intensified pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The issue of alleged crimes committed by U.S. troops in the South also has become a subject of tension.
But Rumsfeld sought to couch the Korean review in the broader context of a general reassessment by the Pentagon and regional commanders of U.S. troop concentrations overseas, including the U.S. military presence in Germany.
Rumsfeld appeared to favor change in Germany, as well. He noted with frustration the difficulty that U.S. troops are experiencing trying to travel from Germany to Italy -- and on to the Persian Gulf region for a possible war with Iraq -- saying that Austria has blocked movement of the forces by rail through its territory.
"Which means we may have to go up to Rotterdam or possibly by train through two or three or four countries, instead of directly," Rumsfeld said. "Therefore, it's clear it's better for us probably not to have such a heavy concentration" of troops in Germany.
In the case of Korea, Rumsfeld said he "would like to see a number of our forces move away from the Seoul area and from near the DMZ [Demilitarized Zone], and be more oriented towards an air hub and a sea hub" in the area. He offered no specifics about where such hubs would be located, whether in South Korea or elsewhere.
But he said the United States would still have to ensure it retained an ability to send reinforcements to South Korea "so there's still a strong deterrent" to aggression by the North. "Possibly with our improved capabilities of moving people," he added, U.S. forces in the region could be reduced.
Mindful of the political ramifications associated with altering U.S. troop levels in Korea and Germany, after more than a half-century of large American military concentrations in both countries, Rumsfeld stressed that any changes "would be undertaken in close consultation with our allies over a reasonable period of time." He also said "it would be a mistake to suggest that if we do end up reducing some of those forces or moving them to other countries, that it had anything to do with our relationships with those countries, because it simply doesn't."
----
Inside the Ring
by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
February 14, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030214-78651571.htm
No sweat
The Air Force is warning troops that when they deploy jointly with other services they may have to perform physical training, or PT, as a way to transcend different cultures.
The Air Force has long been considered the most looked-after service. Its troops always seem to get the best digs, food and recreational amenities.
A recent headquarters message to personnel seemed to recognize the disparity.
"AF people deploying to a joint environment can make the most of the experience if they learn the cultural differences of the other service," said the message. "For example, units with an Army or Marine Corps officer in charge may require group PT, a necessary part of their profession; all services must respect each others' cultural differences."
The message adds, "The key to having a successful deployment and experience working with other branches of service is to learn their cultural differences so you can appreciate why they think and act differently. In turn, as an airman, you need to know as much about yourself and why you operate the way you do."
Saudi center
We continue to find interesting excerpts in an internal Air Force report on one of its crown jewels: the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base, or "P-SAB" as the initiated call it.
For example, the report says the Air Force has yet to master linking staff of U.S. Central Command, Air Force - or Centaf - with Joint Task Force-Southwest Asia.
Tying the two "in preparation for a [major theater war] still remains one of [Centaf´s] greatest challenges. Time, distance and different daily missions creates many disconnects requiring constant effort to keep the two operations lashed up," the report said.
The report says the Air Force decided in 2001 to assign personnel to the CAOC for longer periods to improve experience levels, but "it doesn't appear that anything has resulted from this direction and rated manning has continued to decline. ... We believe [Air Force] rotation policies, especially a 90-day changeover cycle all at once, does not work for CAOC continuity of operations, especially with untrained people."
The report adds, "We're willing to switch out CAOC leadership in war with people with no training and who don't even know any operators. For our premier USAF Weapon System we do not man our force smartly. Our people want professional leadership in the CAOC. They told us so."
Three amigos
The Army's potential future leaders are the ones running the ground show in the Persian Gulf. They are:
•Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld plucked Gen. Abizaid from a senior Pentagon job for a unique position: second deputy commander of U.S. Central Command. Gen. Abizaid is now in a command post in Qatar that would direct an invasion of Iraq.
A Desert Storm veteran and West Point graduate, Gen. Abizaid is one of Mr. Rumsfeld's favorite generals.
"He's better than any Army general in any possible category," said an Army insider.
Another called him a "strategist and gifted field commander."
•Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan. As commander of Central Command's Army forces, Gen. McKiernan will direct land operations. Also a Gulf war combatant, he is now stationed at Camp Doha, Kuwait, directing training in anticipation of an assault.
Some Pentagon insiders have mentioned him as a potential successor to Gen. John M. Keane, the Army vice chief, who is slated this summer to become Army chief of staff.
•Maj. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb. Gen. Whitcomb last month moved from commanding the Army Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky., to Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., as chief of staff to Gen. Tommy Franks, the overall war commander.
He was a battalion commander, 1st Armored Division, in the Gulf war.
Said retired Gen. Ronald Griffith, former Army vice chief of staff, "I have enough confidence in all three that the Army will be extremely well-served if these guys rose to more senior-level positions."
•Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough are Pentagon reporters. Mr. Gertz can be reached at 202/636-3274 or by e-mail at bgertz@WashingtonTimes.com. Mr. Scarborough can be reached at 202/636-3208 or by e-mail at rscarborough@WashingtonTimes.com.
--------
Bio/Chem Attack Protection Questioned
Feb. 14, 2003
David Hackworth
CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/60minutes/main540691.shtml
(CBS) Twelve years after chemical and biological weapons were discovered in Iraq's arsenal during the Gulf War, U.S. forces massing for a possible attack on Iraq are still not properly prepared to encounter such weapons.
Politicians, current and former military members and even Congress's own General Accounting Office tell Mike Wallace that American soldiers do not have enough training or equipment needed to survive a chemical or biological attack. Wallace's report will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 16, at 7 p.m., ET/PT.
Troops in the field are so frustrated by the lack of preparedness that they have twisted the acronym NBC, for nuclear, biological chemical warfare. "Truth to tell, the troopers call it, 'Nobody Cares:' NBC," says retired Col. David Hackworth, an advocate of soldier's rights. "What they've been saying to me is that they don't trust their gear. They don't think it will work in a desert environment where it's burning hot. A soldier without confidence is in trouble," Hackworth says.
Until recently, NBC training was not even a factor measured in assessing the readiness of military units. Retired Capt. Eric Taylor, who studied the matter for a Cato Institute report, says commanders never thought they would face NBC. "An annoyance, as a waste of time, as a joke," is how Taylor says commanders viewed NBC. "I understand we are now dispatching specialized teams to do crash training, almost on-the-job training. You don't do on-the-job training with these things. These things will kill you," Taylor says.
Some of the protection available could get a soldier killed. If initial waves of troops run out of new gear, they would have to resort to older protective suits, up to 250,000 of which have potentially fatal defects and are still unaccounted for. There have also been errors made, such as gas masks issued with training filters instead of the real thing and shortages of protective suits.
The Pentagon's head of chemical and biological preparedness acknowledges there have been problems, but says they're being addressed, especially warning troops about the 250,000 defective suits and trying to locate them. Otherwise, training is being done and soldiers are ready, says Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar. "We have world-class equipment. We've made this a priority. Our young men and women...are trained. They know what to do," she tells Wallace.
The GAO would not allow its NBC investigator, Raymond Decker, to be interviewed for this report, but he told Congress that despite a recent push to prioritize NBC training, it's still not enough in the face of such awesome weapons.
Says Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), chairman of the House National Security Subcommittee, "We've had 12 years now to deal with it. We haven't. We're still hearing from people out in the field that they're not getting this equipment yet and they're not training in it," he says.
-------- propaganda wars
U.S. expelling Iraqi journalist for being "harmful to U.S. interests"
Fri Feb 14
By DAFNA LINZER,
Associated Press Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=506&u=/ap/20030214/ap_wo_en_ge/un_gen_un_iraq_journalist_1&printer=1
UNITED NATIONS - The U.S. government expelled an Iraqi journalist who covers the United Nations for the official Iraqi News Agency because he was considered "harmful to the security of the United States," the journalist and U.S. officials said Friday.
Mohammed Allawi, who has reported from the United Nations for the past two years, said he received the expulsion letter signed by U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte at his Manhattan home on Thursday. The letter said that he and his family, including his five children, had 15 days to leave the United States.
"The letter say I have to leave because I am harmful to U.S. interests," Allawi said.
A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Allawi "has engaged in activities considered to be harmful to the security of the United States and those activities constitute an abuse of privilege of residence in this country."
Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri said he was stunned by the decision.
"He's a very polite and decent man. He's always in his office or with his colleagues, so I don't see how he could be a threat," al-Douri said.
Al-Douri said he wasn't sure what recourse would be available but that he was studying the matter. The ambassador also complained about U.S. harassment of Iraqi diplomats. He and others at the Iraqi mission have often complained that the United States tries to coerce diplomats into defecting.
----
Maverick Cleric Is a Hit on Arab TV
Al-Jazeera Star Mixes Tough Talk With Calls for Tolerance
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5496-2003Feb13?language=printer
DOHA, Qatar -- His head draped in a white scarf in the tradition of the prophet Muhammad and his body made soft by years of religious study, Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi spoke slowly, his words simple, measured and frank.
The U.S. military has occupied the Persian Gulf, he declared, and any Muslim who dies trying to expel it should be deemed a martyr. An invasion of Iraq will "grow the seeds of hatred," giving rise to another Osama bin Laden, perhaps a thousand Osama bin Ladens. Palestinian suicide bombings -- martyrdom operations, he insisted -- are the weapon of the weak, their toll justified as a defense of sacred land.
Moments later, he seamlessly shifted to words more welcome in the West. Women must be given greater rights, he said, and autocratic Arab states must turn to democracy. Islam must reform and celebrate tolerance. Terrorism like the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks must be denounced. "By God, I was sympathetic with the Americans from the beginning," the 76-year-old sheik explained in an interview. "But truthfully, I didn't imagine then that America would go on to declare a war against the world."
The views espoused by Qaradawi -- part religious scholar, part television star and part enigma -- have made him one of the most celebrated figures in the Arab world. His teachings are carried on what many contend is the most popular weekly show on al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite network. In translation, his tapes and videos are available as far away as Indonesia and Malaysia.
Qaradawi's appeal provides an insight into the religious currents flowing through the Middle East in the shadow of a war with Iraq. Despite the Bush administration's continuous insistence that terrorism is the enemy, many in this part of the world have interpreted the anti-terrorism campaign as a war against Islam. In this landscape, seething with resentment and perceptions of injustice, the Egyptian cleric is seen as a voice of moderation.
That might not seem obvious in the United States, given his views. But taken as a whole, Arab analysts point out, Qaradawi's message gives voice to what many view as the Arab Muslim mainstream, embracing awe of the United States, fear of its power, admiration of its democratic ideals -- and loathing of the way those ideals are often put into practice. Unlike the views of Western-oriented reformers or secular activists, his message is heard around the region.
"When you talk about Sheik Qaradawi, you're talking about an audience of hundreds of millions of Muslims across the world, someone who actually creates public opinion," said Azzam Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London. "If Sheik Qaradawi gives a fatwa," he said, using the term for a religious ruling, "that fatwa will be heeded tomorrow in hundreds of places around the world."
Qaradawi is among a prestigious and relatively small group of Arabic-speaking religious leaders who emerged over the past decade at the intersection of technology and faith, using modern communications to deliver blunt and often provocative messages. At the same time, these people have maintained independence from governments, enhancing their reputations as straight talkers.
Qaradawi has the added reputation of being a reformer, a voice not afraid to defy 1,300 years of sometimes sclerotic religious study. It is a measure of attitudes in the Middle East that his critics chastise him not for his support of Palestinian suicide attacks or his opposition to war in Iraq, but for his demand that Christians and Jews be respected as "people of the book" who share the God of Abraham.
Among those in the most militant strands of Islam, his fondness for movies and music is scandalous. Qaradawi is said to enjoy listening to Um Kalthoum, an Egyptian singer who is still a giant more than 25 years after her death. His call for dialogue with non-Muslims, some contend, is naive. They see in his embrace of democracy and his call for greater women's rights a slavish imitation of the West. In elections last year in Bahrain, he wrote a fatwa sanctioning women, especially those past their child-bearing years, as candidates in municipal elections. A Saudi cleric quickly weighed in: Not permitted, he ruled.
"The sheik is a one-and-only kind of guy," said Maher Abdullah, 43, the host of "Sharia and Life," the 90-minute program on al-Jazeera that carries Qaradawi across the Arab world and beyond. "He is a cast of his own."
Abdullah recalled that Qaradawi traveled with a delegation of religious scholars to Afghanistan in 2001 to appeal to the Taliban to save the towering, almost 2,000-year-old statues of Buddha in Bamian. More conservative voices accused him of supporting idol worship and paganism. "It's like they were talking about [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon," Abdullah said.
Far more controversial was Qaradawi's consent to a fatwa in October 2001 that legitimized American Muslims fighting in the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. Caller after caller lambasted Qaradawi, Abdullah recalled, but the Egyptian cleric held his ground. "I had faxes saying, okay, Sheik Qaradawi, Afghan orphans will put slogans on their chests saying our fathers were killed by American Muslims because Sheik Qaradawi said they could do so," Abdullah said.
And then there was the show still gossiped about more than four years later. The topic was sex in marriage and, by the standards of a deeply conservative Arab world, the talk about what was sanctioned under Islam was graphic. Qaradawi was decidedly liberal. The crux of his message: The bottom line is consent of both partners.
Qaradawi made clear in the interview that he was seeking to create a new, moderate current in Muslim thinking, one that "seeks balance between intellect and the heart, between religion and the world, between spirituality and materialism and between individualism and the group." To do so, Qaradawi is fighting tradition that, Abdullah said, "takes a bulldozer to shift just a little." Some colleagues and family members point to a past that fostered what they see as his independent path.
Qaradawi was born in 1926 in Saft Turab, an Egyptian village in the Nile delta crisscrossed by irrigated cotton farms. His father died before his birth. His mother followed before he was a year old. Raised by aunts and uncles, Qaradawi was urged to choose a way to make a living -- running a grocery or perhaps learning carpentry, said his son, Mohamed Qaradawi.
Instead, he memorized the Koran before his 10th birthday and embraced religion as a course of study at Al-Azhar University, the preeminent seat for Sunni Muslim scholarship in Cairo. From there, he was swept up by the seismic events shaping Egypt after World War II. Like thousands of other Egyptians, he embraced the teachings of Hassan Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who enunciated a message not unfamiliar today: religious renewal, a fierce nationalism wrapped in faith and hostility to what was perceived as an imperial West. Throughout was a subtle critique of the weakness and corruption of the Arab world's own leadership.
The Brotherhood ran afoul of Egypt's rulers. Qaradawi was imprisoned first under the monarchy in 1949, then three times after the revolution that brought Gamal Abdel Nasser to power in 1952. He was tortured, but says little about the experience. By 1961, he had left Egypt, settling in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar and eventually distancing himself from the Brotherhood's politics.
"His objective was never to satisfy anyone. He always had his own way of thinking," said Mohamed Qaradawi, 35, a professor of mechanical engineering at Qatar University. "He does feel it, the pressure. I believe he's a moderate. He believes he's a moderate, yet there's all this pressure on him from both sides to change his thinking. The Americans believe he's an extremist; the [Muslim] extremists in places like London think he's sold out."
During the interview, Qaradawi sat somewhat feebly in his home, which is adorned with East Asian art and gold Koranic inscriptions set on black. But he became impassioned when he spoke of the Palestinian uprising and suicide bombings -- a term he rejects.
"God gave the weak weapons that enable them to resist the powerful," he said, mixing the formal Arabic of scholarship with the colloquial Egyptian Arabic. "With these weapons they can sacrifice their lives for the sake of their countries and their people. These weapons are the only ones that others cannot wrest away from them."
That view -- widespread in the region -- has wrecked Qaradawi's reputation among some in the West. Soon after he issued a fatwa sanctioning such attacks, he said, Qatari officials passed on a message to him from the U.S. Embassy that his 10-year U.S. visa had been revoked.
The passion of his anti-U.S. statements has deepened since. He has denounced the prospect of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. While not calling for attacks on U.S. soldiers, he said those killed trying to expel them should be considered martyrs. He said he is not opposed to a U.S. presence in the region, but that the latest buildup has evolved into an occupation laying the groundwork for an illegitimate strike against an Arab and Muslim country.
"My position is against this war, which has no justification. In my view, the death, ruin and destruction it will bring will bequeath hatred between West and East, between Americans and Arabs and Muslims," he said. "It's not necessary."
He also lamented U.S. support for Arab governments in a region populated by what he called "democracies of 99.99 percent."
Unlike many Muslim scholars, he said he believes that Israel and a Palestinian state can coexist. In a region where bin Laden is often declared innocent of the Sept. 11 attacks, he was forthright in assigning blame and called on Arabs to give blood for the victims. In the interview, he praised Western ideals, if not the way they are carried out in the Middle East.
Three of his four daughters have PhDs from British universities -- in nuclear physics, organic chemistry and botany. The fourth has a master's degree in biology from the University of Texas. His son Mohamed earned his PhD from the University of Central Florida in Orlando. One of his two other sons is working toward a master's degree in business administration at the American University in Cairo.
"In the modern age, Muslims and Arabs considered America a friend to them, the closest to them," Qaradawi said after demanding his guest drink the carrot juice he had offered. "America had not occupied Arab nations or Islamic nations. It didn't have the historical baggage that the British, French, Spanish, Italians, even the Dutch, who colonized Indonesia, had. Its history was unblemished."
There is still room for dialogue and respect, he insisted, despite the prospect of war, and coexistence, even now, is a better goal than a clash of civilizations. "We're all the sons of Adam," he said.
----
First Lady gives TV alerts static
By PAUL D. COLFORD
DAILY NEWS BUSINESS WRITER
February 14, 2003
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/59687p-55900c.html
First Lady Laura Bush, who is rarely outspoken in her public remarks, said yesterday she thinks "constant news alerts" on TV about terror "are frightening people."
"It's a little bit like crying wolf," she said in Manhattan. "You know, it hasn't happened yet."
Referring to the frequent labeling of TV reports with "news alert" and similar phrases, Bush added: "I think the media needs to be very, very responsible."
At the same time, she echoed advice from the Homeland Security Department that people should stock a few days' supply of food and water and have a radio "so that they can keep in constant contact with the news."
Bush's remarks were a brief aside in a talk about her literacy initiatives that she gave at a luncheon yesterday for some 35 magazine editors and broadcast executives at Hearst Corp. Though she mentioned no news organization by name, she appeared to be criticizing the around-the-clock cable news networks.
A "news alert" might be "that Michael Jackson or some other celebrity did something, or it might be that the Columbia just fell apart," she said. "In some ways, I feel like we're making people really nervous because everything is the same in an attempt to get people to watch."
Fox News Channel chairman Roger Ailes, who sat at Bush's table and was an adviser to former President George Bush, told the Daily News afterward that the cable networks are damned if they do or if they don't flag breaking news as "alerts."
Ailes said viewers want news alerts, and they'll switch to the Animal Planet channel to find them if they have to.
-------
China OKs state-operated channel
February 14, 2003
AP
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20030214-32817276.htm
BEIJING - China has approved plans for state television to create a 24-hour news channel, setting the stage for tension between the government's strict media controls and mounting competitive pressures in the delivery of broadcast news.
China Central Television is still planning the service and hasn't set an air date, said a government spokesman yesterday who asked not to be named.
It was not clear how such a service would work, given the communist government's longtime obsession with controlling the media. CCTV's main newscasts are heavily political, focusing on the daily activities of leaders and promoting ideological campaigns.
"We have had the proposal for a long time, but only recently got permission to go ahead," the spokesman said. He wouldn't say whether the service would be broadcast abroad or give other details.
However, a manager of CCTV's news department said plans call for the channel to be available worldwide. The manager would give only his surname, Liu, and said he didn't have other information.
CCTV operates 12 channels, including ones devoted to movies, sports and cultural events. It estimates its combined broadcasts reach 300 million homes, a vast majority of the country's 1.3 billion population.
CCTV branched out to the United States last year, signing deals with AOL Time Warner Inc. and News Corp. to have its English-language channel carried into American homes on cable and by satellite.
Stations that offer 24-hour news have multiplied rapidly in the last decade, changing how news is distributed throughout the world. But many have failed to make money, and some have folded after only a few years of operation.
That would be unlikely for any CCTV venture, given the government's willingness to subsidize arms of its propaganda apparatus.
Any such operation would start out in a competitive environment.
Phoenix TV, a Chinese-language satellite broadcaster in Hong Kong, has been granted a license to transmit its 24-hour news channel to the mainland - but only to luxury hotels and compounds and apartment complexes that house foreigners. Similar conditions apply to CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp.'s BBC World television service, which broadcast in English.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
-------- death penalty
Death Penalty Cases Raise Race Questions
February 14, 2003
New York Times
By WILLIAM GLABERSON and BENJAMIN WEISER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14DEAT.html
All the cases in the New York region in which Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty involve black or Hispanic defendants, newly released data show.
The prosecutors, in New York and Connecticut, were put at the focus of a controversy by Mr. Ashcroft's rejection of their recommendations on the cases, but the information about the 12 defendants' racial identities moves those prosecutors into a wider debate about the fairness of the federal death penalty.
In the final year of the Clinton administration, a Justice Department study found that 80 percent of the defendants who faced capital charges in federal cases nationwide were members of minorities.
Mr. Ashcroft has said there is "no evidence of racial bias" in federal death penalty cases. A spokeswoman added this week that Mr. Ashcroft is not told a defendant's race or ethnicity when he reviews prosecutors' death penalty recommendations.
"He is reviewing the law and the facts of the cases," said the spokeswoman, Barbara Comstock, "so it's entirely race-neutral in terms of how it's reviewed by the attorney general."
Some lawyers say the central issue is not whether Mr. Ashcroft knows the defendants' race but the combined effect of his decisions.
"What the attorney general is doing raises serious questions as to whether he is creating or exacerbating a pattern of discrimination in the application of the federal death penalty," said Ronald J. Tabak, a New York lawyer who is cochairman of an American Bar Association committee on the death penalty.
Of the cases in the New York region, 8 of the defendants are African-American and 4 are Hispanic, according to figures from the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, which provides information to defense lawyers.
The group's data show a similar pattern nationally. Of the total of 28 cases in which Mr. Ashcroft is known to have ordered prosecutors to seek death, the group said, 2 of the defendants are white, 19 are African-American, 5 are Hispanic, 1 is Native American and 1 is of Asian descent.
According to the group, Mr. Ashcroft has considered prosecutors' recommendations on the death penalty for 274 defendants nationwide. Twenty percent of those defendants are white, according to the group.
Mr. Ashcroft's spokeswoman, Ms. Comstock, said criticism of Mr. Ashcroft's rejection of prosecutors' recommendations came from opponents of the death penalty who simply want to halt executions.
She said the problem of enforcing federal laws affected the death penalty as much as civil rights. The Justice Department is charged by Congress with enforcing federal laws equally around the country, she said, "even if there's a state that may not like particular laws."
Questions about racial disparities always hover over the debate about the death penalty, although some analysts have said that in many states the disparities in treatment of defendants is based not on their race but on the race of their victims.
Nevertheless, for years much of the debate about the federal death penalty has focused on the race of those who may face execution. The Clinton administration study found that during a five-year period ended in 2000, 134 of the 682 defendants who faced capital charges, or about 20 percent, were white.
Because so many of the cases in which Mr. Ashcroft has rejected prosecutors' recommendations against execution are in the New York region, some lawyers say the debate about the racial effect of the federal death penalty is now likely to center on the region. Of the 28 cases nationally in which Mr. Ashcroft has rejected the prosecutors' recommendations, 10 are in New York and 2 are in Connecticut.
That debate involves differing views of what statistics actually prove about the racial effect of federal death penalty laws.
Some studies have suggested that although minority defendants face the federal death penalty in numbers far in excess of their proportion of the population, there is no indication that racial bias is the cause of that disparity. One explanation, some lawyers say, is that some laws that make the death penalty a possible punishment involve crimes, like drug-related murders, for which minority defendants have been arrested in greater numbers than whites.
But some critics of the death penalty said this week that the high percentage of minority defendants in the cases where Mr. Ashcroft has rejected prosecutors' recommendations reflected a systemic problem with the federal death penalty.
"Anybody administering the death penalty always winds up one day shaking their head and saying, `Gee, we keep trying to eliminate racial bias and it keeps returning,' " said David A. Ruhnke, a veteran death penalty defense lawyer.
Supporters of the death penalty, including Mr. Ashcroft, have tended to cite statistics they say show that there is no evidence of racial bias in the federal death penalty system. For example, when Mr. Ashcroft has said minority defendants are less likely to be subject to the death penalty than white defendants, he referred to studies showing that, as a percentage of the number of defendants of each race, prosecutors seek death less often for minority defendants than for white defendants.
Critics have said, though, that Mr. Ashcroft has departed from the views of his predecessor, Janet Reno, who said she was "sorely troubled" by indications that the federal death penalty was not applied uniformly to all ethnic groups.
George Kendall, a lawyer at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. who specializes in death penalty defense, called it a "very odd coincidence" that so many of the defendants Mr. Ashcroft had earmarked to face the death penalty were members of minorities.
He said the information about the racial identity of the defendants confirmed concerns that "racial bias is influencing the administration of the federal death penalty."
-------- drug war
67 nabbed in huge sweep targeting narcotics gangs
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 14, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030214-14794918.htm
More than 400 federal, state and local drug agents armed with search and arrest warrants swept through seven cities yesterday in a massive undercover investigation, arresting 67 persons and seizing heroin, marijuana, cocaine and crack cocaine valued at more than $5 million.
Acting Drug Enforcement Administration chief John B. Brown III said the seven-month undercover probe, known as Operation Deja Vu, netted arrests in New York City, Buffalo and Rochester, N.Y.; Springfield, Mass.; and Newark, N.J. The agents also confiscated more than $438,000 in illicit drug profits.
Mr. Brown said undercover officers, beginning in July, targeted violent heroin and cocaine trafficking groups operating primarily in the Northeastern United States and in Puerto Rico, as well as Colombia.
He said DEA and Customs Service agents identified heroin and cocaine transportation routes that originated in Medellin, Colombia, passed through South America and then proceeded to Puerto Rico, where the drugs would be shipped to the continental United States.
"Typically, the drugs would make their way from a port to New York City," Mr. Brown said, noting that DEA agents in New York became aware of the distribution hub in late July and then identified numerous domestic wholesalers who received and distributed the drugs in smaller, northeastern cities.
More than 120 search and arrest warrants were served in the citywide sweeps, along with four separate arrest warrants by DEA and U.S. Customs Service agents in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Colombian National Police Heroin Task Force officers also executed six search warrants across Colombia.
Mr. Brown said wholesale drug distributors used customized vehicles fitted with sophisticated hidden compartments to transport narcotics and money between the New York hub and lesser-populated cities, including Buffalo, Rochester and Springfield.
On a daily basis, he said, the distributors - including the Del Luiza Boys, a longtime Buffalo drug gang - used weapons and physical violence to protect and expand their narcotics empire. Enforcers for the distribution rings are believed to have been involved in murders, shootings, home invasions and violent robberies that have left multiple victims in their wake, he said.
"Most, if not all of the organization members were predicate felons, with histories of violence and drug dealing," Mr. Brown said. "Some of the subjects were out on bail for narcotics violations, and at least one target was distributing cocaine, while wearing an electronic monitoring device."
He said a close-knit network of DEA-led task force officers worked over a seven-month period to dismantle the drug network. Working with state and local law enforcement officials, the undercover officers seized more than $130,000 in cash, 10 kilograms of cocaine and 500 grams of heroin in four separate vehicle stops on the customized vehicles.
The undercover operation involved members of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and was coordinated by the Special Operations Division, a joint enforcement program comprised of agents and analysts from the DEA, FBI, Customs and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as lawyers from the Justice Departments criminal division.
-------- homeland security
Handling of Last Alert Spurs Lawmaker's Ire
By Dana Priest and Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5487-2003Feb13?language=printer
As jittery residents of New York and Washington continued to prepare yesterday for a possible terrorist attack, Congress's senior intelligence committee member said there was "absolutely no reason" for panic and criticized the new Department of Homeland Security for not communicating better with the American public.
"Do not fall for hysteria and rumor," said Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), a former CIA officer and chairman of the House intelligence committee who was given classified updates of the threat last night. "There is no justification, there's no more specificity to the threat" than there was Feb. 7, when federal officials raised the national threat level to orange, indicating a "high risk" of a terrorist strike.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, also expressed concern about the administration's handling of the situation and called on President Bush to address the public on the matter. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge scheduled a news conference for today to update the public on the terrorist threat.
The Homeland Security Department said its communications had been appropriate but acknowledged that it plans to issue more detailed guidance next week on how an already nervous public can better prepare for an attack.
Several administration officials with access to classified intelligence reports, said however, that intelligence agencies have become especially concerned about a possible attack today or over the weekend, and added Saudi Arabia to the three previously mentioned possible targets: New York, Washington and sites of Jewish importance.
Intelligence officials continue to believe that an attack would involve poisonous chemical or biological agents, or possibly a small radiological device, or "dirty bomb."
Federal authorities urged business leaders to recheck their workforces for possible al Qaeda sympathizers and asked operators of chemical plants, nuclear power facilities and other critical infrastructure to watch for suspicious activity or employees.
The FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center posted a bulletin on its Web site Wednesday advising business leaders to review events that aroused suspicion, especially incidents in which their operations were the target of surveillance.
Members of Congress were told to gather a "go bag" of supplies, sensitive documents and key phone numbers in case of an attack, while staff members were given training this week on how to handle escape hoods that protect against biological or chemical substances.
Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) said lawmakers were also instructed to keep a low profile, remove vanity license plates from vehicles and vary their routines.
Goss said he had answered questions from hundreds of worried lawmakers and staff wondering how they should prepare. He said he has told them to prepare for a rainy day: cash on hand, bottled water, flashlight and extra batteries. "It would be helpful to have more specific guidance," he said.
Homeland Security officials prompted a run on those items, as well as plastic sheeting and duct tape, after a news briefing Monday to emphasize the need for the public to take such preparations seriously.
Preparations were perhaps most evident in New York City yesterday, where police diverted trucks to mile-long single lanes over East River bridges, briefly closed the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel and searched every tunnel and bridge.
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly told a news station that the city has ratcheted up its level of preparedness to just short of "red," the top level on the Homeland Security Department's color-coded index, which would indicate an imminent attack. Kelly said he has redirected 200 officers from neighborhoods to reinforce potential targets around the city.
Police have placed shoe-box-size sensors at several subway stations to test for the presence of chemical and biological agents, and heavily armed police teams are rotating throughout the city. The National Guard was helping patrol subways and streets.
"There are gradations within orange, and New York City is at the high end of orange," Kelly said.
But later in the day, Mayor Michael Bloomberg emphasized normalcy. The morning newspapers carried reports that city officials have warned hospitals to prepare for cyanide attacks on the subways, but Bloomberg shook his head when asked if such precautions came in response to a particular threat.
"No, not that we know of, period," he said. "The real world is that you don't know."
The bottom line, Bloomberg added, is that "you don't have any significant risk to your life as long as we do our job."
Several hospitals acknowledged they were reviewing their procedures for treating exposure to chemicals and "among those are, yes, cyanide," said Susan Waltman, senior vice president of the Greater New York Hospital Association. She noted that since Sept. 11, 2001, hospitals have paid special attention to updating their stockpiles of antidotes for various biological and chemical agents. Waltman said the federal government has speeded up this process in the past week.
Hardware stores reported a run on duct tape and other items recommended by the Homeland Security Department. New Yorkers, who had enjoyed a period of relative calm since the last nationwide alert on the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, were again talking about terrorism.
"There's a sense of dread everywhere," said Laura Popper, a Manhattan pediatrician. "Some parents aren't sending their littler children to school. There's a pressure that just keeps building. I'm churning inside just like everyone else."
Staff writers Susan Schmidt, Ceci Connolly, Spencer Hsu, Allan Lengel and John Mintz contributed to this report.
----
Schools Boost Preparations for Attack
Many Anti-Terror Plans Would Stop Parents From Picking Up Children
By David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5447-2003Feb13?language=printer
School administrators in the Washington area yesterday stepped up preparations for possible terrorism, and most school districts told parents that they would be prevented, or strongly discouraged, from picking up their children in the event of a biological or chemical attack.
In Fairfax County, Superintendent of Schools Daniel A. Domenech told the School Board last night that he would deploy more security forces around schools, limit parking near buildings and cancel outdoor activities and field trips if the nation's terrorist alert were raised to its highest level, Code Red. He said he also would consider closing schools.
Loudoun County school officials yesterday added a "shelter-in-place" plan against chemical attacks to their usual emergency procedures. Schools would be locked down and signs posted on the doors in Spanish and English saying that nobody would be allowed to enter or exit.
Some schools stockpiled PowerBars and bottled water and handed out duct tape to teachers in case they need to seal windows. Several districts canceled field trips, including one for an Anne Arundel high school that was to put nine students on a flight to London yesterday.
The preparations came amid intensified but still vague warnings of terrorist attacks in the United States. The sense of heightened alert was most visible in grocery stores, where canned goods and water spent little time on the shelves.
The Beltsville Costco sold as much water in one day as it usually sells in six -- three tractor-trailer loads -- and lines at the cash registers were more than a half-hour long at midday.
Employers and government agencies continued to tighten security and make contingency plans.
D.C. police officers pulled over suspicious-looking trucks entering the city, for example, and increased surveillance of government buildings and the homes of top officials.
On Friday, the Maryland Department of the Environment directed nuclear power plants, major water systems and chemical-storage facilities to review their security measures.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management said the federal government would be open as usual today. On Capitol Hill, members of Congress were told to keep a low profile -- by varying their routines and removing vanity license plates -- and to prepare a "go bag" of supplies and sensitive documents. Staff members were told how to use hoods to protect against biological or chemical agents.
In Montgomery County, police officers have been issued hazmat gear, including gas masks, and two "Bio-Packs" that contain antibiotics for use in a chemical or biological attack. The Bio-Packs -- one of which is to remain at home, one on duty -- contain doses of doxycycline that are to be taken only at the direction of the county's public health officer, said Officer Derek Baliles, a department spokesman.
But much of the concern focused on children. All week, school administrators have met with public safety and public health officials and sent memos and e-mail to parents urging calm and explaining emergency plans. Most of the communications said children would be kept inside in the event of a chemical or biological threat, but the letters varied in the strength of their warning that parents should not try to pick up their children during a lockdown.
District school officials said that children would be kept inside in an emergency but that parents could come get them. "It's parents' prerogative to take care of their kids any way they want," Chief Operating Officer Louis J. Erste said.
In Fairfax, Loudoun and Howard counties, parents are being told not to try to collect their children at school if terrorists strike with chemical or biological weapons. In Montgomery and elsewhere, officials said the kind of emergency will determine what they advise parents to do.
Sometimes, said Arlington County schools spokeswoman Linda Erdos, children are safest in school.
Some districts said regular lockdown drills are planned to prepare for possible chemical attacks -- reminiscent of the "duck-and-cover" Cold War exercises of the 1950s and '60s.
Westland Middle School in Bethesda had its students this week practice closing blinds in their classrooms, locking doors, papering over windows and doors and assembling away from windows. Ninth-graders at Sherwood High School in Sandy Spring have watched a video to prepare them for similar drills next week.
Some schools stocked up on food and supplies, but most districts said there isn't space for much extra. Prince George's County officials said their schools receive food deliveries every five days, and they always have a two-day supply.
Charles County schools spokeswoman Katie O'Malley-Simpson said that since Sept. 11, 2001, all schools have stocked flashlights, batteries, walkie-talkies and weather radios.
Domenech, in Fairfax, said emergency plans are meant to protect children for hours, not days. Still, Janet Johnson, principal of Little Run Elementary School in Fairfax, ordered bottled water for 500 students and staff and changes of clothes in case students come into contact with harmful chemical agents. Each classroom has a roll of duct tape.
"I think about preparations that families are making at home," Johnson said, "and these are my children here."
Caution was the rule in St. Mary's County, where school officials have suspended field trips indefinitely. Great Mills High School teacher Sean Twigg said he dreads telling students they won't be going to a Model United Nations conference in Alexandria.
Northwestern High School in Hyattsville even stopped issuing hall passes yesterday. The halls were so empty that "you wouldn't even think that school was in session," Principal Bill Ritter said.
All the preparation unnerved some parents.
"I was thinking how it's prudent to plan," said Betty Grigg, who has four children in Fairfax schools, "but it's terrible to think that they would be locked down in a school and I would be inaccessible to them."
Montgomery Superintendent Jerry D. Weast promised parents that he would communicate regularly with them and urged them to pay careful attention to their children's emotional health. "We know that coping skills can be taught and encouraged," he said.
Catherine Rizzo, principal of Old Mill South Middle School in Millersville, said the preparations didn't feel out of the ordinary, after the 2001 terrorist attacks and October's sniper shootings.
"It's becoming almost a way of life," she said.
Staff writers Justin Blum, Susan DeFord, Hamil R. Harris, Rosalind S. Helderman, Nelson Hernandez, Spencer S. Hsu, Fredrick Kunkle, Theola Labbé, Vikki Ortiz, Mary Otto, Linda Perlstein, Elaine Rivera and Valerie Strauss contributed to this report.
----
DC Journalists Have Escape Plans If Nation's Capital Is Attacked
The Washingtonian,
November 14, 2003
http://washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/evacplans.html
The Washington Post is moving its data center to Tysons Corner in Virginia.
U.S. News has plans to send reporters and editors to hotels in Frederick, Maryland.
The BBC would evacuate its staff to waiting boats on the Potomac River to avoid land-based escape routes that are likely to be jammed.
The New York Times bureau has geared up with a Geiger counter, dust masks, flashlights, food, water, and other survival equipment.
As the threat of a terrorist attack on Washington occupies the front pages and airwaves, news organizations are trying to figure out how to keep going in a capital city where the air or water might be toxic.
"We're putting our plan together now," says U.S. News executive editor Brian Kelly. "We have people here and in New York. If [terrorists] hit both places, we'll be in Frederick."
The Washington Post newsroom had been blasé about the prospect of a terrorist attack, according to staffers working on contingency plans, but editors now seem to be in a panic to prepare for a scenario blasted across the paper's front page all week.
"They're really taking it seriously," says a member of the communications team.
The Post has been doing some planning for worst-case scenarios for months. A move of its data center to Tysons Corner is scheduled to be done in June. But the pace picked up Thursday in meetings with top editors such as managing editor Steve Coll. Post Company chair Don Graham also has been involved in daily meetings.
"We have a pretty well-developed plan to keep publishing the newspaper," Coll says.
According to internal communications, the Post is planning for three levels of trouble:
l. A chemical or biological attack, such as anthrax, in the newsroom.
2. The downtown DC headquarters is uninhabitable but still standing.
3. The Post building is destroyed.
"We are working on plans to keep publishing at each level," says one editor. "How do we recreate ourselves?"
If the newsroom is out of commission, the foreign desk reorganizes in the Alexandria bureau. The national desk would reorganize in Silver Spring, north of DC in suburban Maryland. Coll calls it "a dispersal strategy."
The paper is also stocking up on basic survival supplies, like water. "We are preparing for lockdown," one staff member said.
USA Today is already about 14 miles west of the White House in Tysons Corner, but it has begun to plan for second and third publishing sites.
"We will work out of these offices here as long as possible," says director of communications Steven Anderson, "but we have offices in Silver Spring where we could publish if necessary."
USA Today also is setting up a potential publishing site farther away in Winchester, Virginia, 75 miles west of Washington. It already has moved some computers to Shenandoah University there.
The BBC's plan to evacuate its Washington staff by boat was explained to Post executives. BBC news editor Patrick Howse referred calls about the use of boats to corporate headquarters.
At U.S. News, editors and managers were doing what they could to make sure their building and its ventilation systems were secure.
"We're trying to reassure people," says Brian Kelly. "There's not much more you can do."
-HARRY JAFFE hjaffe@washingtonian.com
----
Code Orange Blues
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 14, 2003; 8:47 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7392-2003Feb14?language=printer
"Hysteria runs riot; networks fuel the fear," says the Washington Times.
We hadn't noticed the hysteria part.
We almost got hysterical when we turned on the tube and saw the "BREAKING NEWS" logo, but cable was just covering the Clara Harris "Murder by Mercedes" trial.
Wait - here's MSNBC anchor Natalie Morales waving a New York Daily News headline - "CYANIDE ALERT" - and asking: "What should you do to protect yourself and your family?"
"Stores Reporting Runs on Plastic Sheeting and Duct Tape," says an MSNBC headline.
"Preparing for Terror/Red Cross Tips," says CNN.
Code Orange life is not a whole lot of fun.
Are people uneasy? Sure. Newspapers are drafting emergency plans. The D.C. public schools had an evacuation drill yesterday. The surface-to-air missiles are in place. Tom Ridge is urging citizens to run out and buy emergency supplies.
Imus calls the advice "stupid," "idiotic" and "bogus."
What to believe, in an environment where rumors are running rampant? Would terrorists attack on a day when everyone is expecting an attack?
The press seems to be doing its best to scare people. All those stories about people stocking up at Home Depot. Reporters sticking microphones in people's faces and asking if they're scared. The blaring of the Osama tape, the relentless stories about war. Those stupid "TERROR ALERT" boxes on the bottom of the screen.
Here's a sampling of yesterday's headlines:
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Code Orange raises anxiety/Atlantans stock up as if their lives depend on it."
Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "On guard and braced for attack."
Baltimore Sun: "Attack alert sends some scrambling to the store."
Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Got duct tape? Plastic? Terror threat sparks jitters."
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle: "Locals prepare for terror."
Now that's scary.
And yet, most people are going about their daily business. They have lived through so many stretches of media shrillness - abducted women, missing children, killer sharks - that it has become background noise. Repeated warnings about terrorism, and all the false alarms, have diluted their effectiveness. An orange alert becomes like a snow alert, just another fact of life.
Fox News, in fact, found time amid the grim news to interview "Bachelorette" Trista Rehn. The segment was headlined "Trista's Trysts."
That Washington Times piece finds the TV types rather overheated:
"'Are you ready?' asked ABC News, trotting out a 'Good Morning America' home-improvement editor to demonstrate how to turn a laundry room into a fallout shelter with duct tape and plastic dropcloths. "'Duct tape sales rise amid terror fears,' noted CNN.
"MSNBC offered mixed messages, saying that 'jittery Americans were stocking up for disaster' while offering an online poll that said 71 percent of the respondents were 'doing nothing' to ready themselves for terrorist attacks."
A New York Times editorial sees the official advice as, well, obvious:
"Washington is urging people to prepare for chemical attack by purchasing duct tape, while it fails to provide fire departments with funds for protective suits or bioterror detectors. The preparedness guidelines sounded a bit like those TV weathermen who mark every cold snap by earnestly instructing their viewers to wear more layers of clothing.
"Anyone who has been hit with chemical weapons probably does not need to be told to 'decontaminate hands using soap and water,' and in the event of biological warfare, people who 'notice symptoms of the disease caused by an agent exposure' will probably consult a doctor even if they fail to visit the Federal Emergency Management Agency Web site."
But Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn takes these matters seriously:
"The Bush administration seems to be operating under the . . . assumption: 'Don't tell them too much lest they panic.' That gets it exactly wrong. The precautions issued this week look a lot like those on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Web site. These are the same guidelines used in the event of hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes. The only items added to the list were duct tape and plastic sheeting. The public needs to be told more.
"The problem is that we are at war. We are at war with terrorists, and undoubtedly we will be in a war with Iraq in the near future - which will only compound the danger. People are talking of nothing else. Scratch the surface, and enormous unease - if not fear - exists everywhere in the country. The fear is even greater in Washington, a designated target city."
Andrew Sullivan is on alert:
"Suddenly, September 10 again. Friends calling from New York City, asking if I have a spare room. Nervous glances up at the TV screens in the gym. Greta van Susteren declaring a specific cyanide alert in New York City, where none existed. Duct tape jokes. Tanks at Heathrow. It is a war, isn't it? It reminds me that the anti-war protestors are not in fact trying to prevent a war. They cannot - because one has already broken out. They merely want to give up on one critical front. The trouble is: our enemies won't."
New York Post columnist John Podhoretz finds a City On Edge:
"10 a.m., the Upper West Side: 'You're very plugged in, aren't you?' says the TV personality who's sharing the elevator with me. 'Have you heard we're going to Red Alert today? Because that's what I heard.'
"Noon, the lobby of my building in Brooklyn Heights: 'It's true,' says a neighbor. 'You really can't find duct tape or plastic sheeting anywhere.'
"1 p.m., an e-mail from my wife: 'I was down in the Rockefeller Center concourse getting lunch and saw a policeman with a bomb-sniffing dog as throngs of lunch-going business people made their way. We might as well be living in Israel.'
"The New York City Freak-Out is mirrored by the D.C. Freak-Out. In the nation's capital, where prominent journalists like Sally Quinn of The Washington Post and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times are using their precious opinion-page real estate to shriek their lungs out in abject terror.
"It's very possible that the mood is actually more jittery than it was during the anthrax attacks, during which actual people (including several here at the Post) were actually injured by a terrorist-created biochemical weapon."
No wonder we keep biting our lip.
Now the homeland czar is playing defense, reports the Chicago Tribune:
"Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, responding to days of debate over duct tape and plastic sheeting, on Thursday defended his new department's recommendations on how Americans can best protect themselves during terrorist attacks and promised even greater guidance in the near future. . . .
"Ridge indirectly appeared to blame Democrats for some of the criticism over the recommendations. 'Obviously, I think there's been some political belittling of duct tape,' he said, referring to the suggestion Americans buy plastic sheeting and tape to seal a safe 'internal room' in their homes from a biological or chemical attack."
Nothing gets by Ridge.
Maybe it was mostly hot air, says ABC News:
"A key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to two senior law enforcement officials in Washington and New York.
"The officials said that a claim made by a captured al Qaeda member that Washington, New York or Florida would be hit by a 'dirty bomb' sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination. The informant described a detailed plan that an al Qaeda cell operating in either Virginia or Detroit had developed a way to slip past airport scanners with dirty bombs encased in shoes, suitcases, or laptops, sources told ABCNEWS."
After the orange alert, says ABC, the informant failed a polygraph test.
More tough talk from the president on a trip to Florida:
"On the eve of a U.N. session that may determine whether the United States goes to war accompanied by many allies or a few, President Bush yesterday challenged the United Nations to 'rise to its responsibilities' to confront Iraq," says the Los Angeles Times.
"Speaking to sailors and other naval personnel here, Bush enumerated the countries and groups that have expressed support for military action against Iraq, and dared the U.N. Security Council to authorize military force or become an 'ineffective, irrelevant debating society.' . . .
"Increasingly, the administration has portrayed efforts by France, Germany and Russia to block war as weakening both the United Nations and NATO." ...
-------- terrorism
Fact Sheet: New Terrorist Threat Integration Center Will Open May 1
(Goal will be to enhance terrorist intelligence analysis) (1480)
14 February 2003
U.S. State Department
http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03021402.plt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml
President Bush announced plans on February 14 to launch a new Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) on May 1 to "better protect America by strengthening counterterrorism intelligence."
The TTIC is designed to help minimize any seams between analysis of terrorism intelligence collected overseas and inside the United States..
Bush also announced that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, the Director of Central Intelligence's Counterterrorist Center, and TTIC will relocate to a single new facility "to improve collaboration and enhance the government's ability to thwart terrorist attacks and bring terrorists to justice," according to the announcement.
Following is the text of the fact sheet:
Fact Sheet
The White House Office of the Press Secretary
February 14, 2003
Strengthening Intelligence to Better Protect America
Today's Presidential Action
The President spoke today at FBI Headquarters to federal, state, and local employees on the front lines of the war on terror about plans for the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) announced in the State of the Union Address.
To better protect America by strengthening counterterrorism intelligence, TTIC will continue to minimize any seams between analysis of terrorism intelligence collected overseas and inside the United States. Today, the President announced that TTIC will begin its work by May 1, 2003.
As an important next step in this effort, the President today announced that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, the Director of Central Intelligence's Counterterrorist Center, and TTIC will relocate, as soon as possible, to a single new facility in order to improve collaboration and enhance the government's ability to thwart terrorist attacks and bring terrorists to justice.
The New Terrorist Threat Integration Center
As directed by the President in his State of the Union address, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, working with the Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, and State have developed plans for the nation's first unified Terrorist Threat Integration Center. TTIC will have unfettered access to all terrorist threat intelligence information -- from raw reports to finished analytic assessments -- available to the U.S. government.
TTIC will:
-- Make full use of all of our terrorist threat information, expertise, and capabilities to conduct threat analysis and inform collection strategies, though TTIC will not conduct collection operations.
-- Create a structure to institutionalize sharing across agency lines of all terrorist threat intelligence, whether collected overseas or inside the United States, in order to form the most comprehensive possible threat picture.
-- Provide comprehensive terrorist threat assessments to our national leadership.
TTIC will be headed by a senior U.S. government official, who will report to the Director of Central Intelligence. This individual will be appointed by the Director of Central Intelligence, in consultation with the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense.
TTIC will play a lead role in overseeing a national counterterrorism tasking and requirements system and in maintaining an up-to-date database of known and suspected terrorists accessible to appropriate officials at all levels of government.
The administration will ensure that this program is carried out consistent with our constitutional liberties and our national security requirements. Current privacy and other legal protections will apply to TTIC.
-- TTIC participants will continue to be bound by all applicable privacy statutes, Executive Orders, and other relevant legal authorities for protecting privacy and our constitutional liberties.
-- Information technology and information handling procedures will be designed consistent with the protection of our constitutional liberties, and participants will continue to be answerable both to internal agency oversight and congressional oversight.
TTIC is a joint venture of its participating agencies. A legal review has concluded that TTIC will require no new statutory authority.
-- TTIC will have no independent authority to conduct intelligence collection or other operations.
-- The Director of Central Intelligence, as statutory head of the U.S. intelligence community, has authority to oversee the activities of TTIC.
-- As TTIC and our ongoing war on terrorism evolve, the administration will continue to consult with Congress and seek new statutory authorities if needed in the future.
TTIC will be implemented in three phases:
-- In its initial stage, TTIC will be primarily focused on the production of integrated terrorist threat analysis for the senior national leadership. TTIC will have a 24/7 watch center at its inception. Total staffing will be approximately 60 U.S. government employees with additional contractor capability. This phase will begin by May 1, 2003. At this initial stage, TTIC will occupy secure facilities at CIA Headquarters, as do several other independent intelligence community entities.
-- In the second phase of TTIC implementation, TTIC will be the principal gateway for policymaker requests for analysis of potential terrorist threats to U.S. interests and will maintain a database of known and suspected terrorists. Total staffing at this stage will be approximately 120 U.S. government employees with additional contractor capability.
-- In its final stage, TTIC will serve as the U.S. government hub for all terrorist threat-related analytic work, with between 250-300 U.S. government employees staffing TTIC. TTIC, along with the co-located FBI Counterterrorism Division and CIA Counterterrorist Center, will be located in a facility separate from CIA and FBI Headquarters.
Better Integrating Counterterrorist Efforts of the FBI and CIA
-- The FBI's Counterterrorism Division and the Director of Central Intelligence's Counterterrorist Center will relocate, as soon as possible, to a single new facility with TTIC in order to improve collaboration and enhance the government's ability to thwart terrorist attacks and bring terrorists to justice. Appropriate sites for TTIC and Counterterrorism Division/Counterterrorist Center co-location are under consideration.
Operational elements of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division and the Director of Central Intelligence's Counterterrorist Center will retain their distinctive operational responsibilities and authorities and will continue to report through their respective chains of command.
Co-location of the CIA's and FBI's counterterrorism operational elements will:
-- Speed the creation of compatible information infrastructure with enhanced capabilities, expanded and more accessible databases, and greater network sharing on counterterrorism issues.
-- Enhance interaction, information sharing, and synergy among U.S. officials involved in the war against terrorism.
-- Maximize resources dedicated to the counterterrorism mission by reducing overhead and redundant capabilities.
-- Further enhance the ability of comprehensive, all-source analysis to guide our collection strategies.
Co-location will afford greater opportunity for the FBI and the intelligence community to enhance the coordination of operations against terrorist targets inside and outside the United States.
A Key Role for the Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will add critical new capabilities in the area of information analysis and infrastructure protection. The Department -- a key participant in TTIC -- will receive and analyze terrorism-related information; map the threats against our vulnerabilities; take and facilitate action to protect against identified threats and remedy vulnerabilities; and set national priorities for infrastructure protection.
The Department will be a full partner in TTIC. TTIC will provide the Department with a full and comprehensive picture of the terrorist threat that will inform the actions of the Department. And, DHS, working hand-in-hand with the FBI, will be responsible for ensuring that threat information, including information produced by the Center, is disseminated quickly to the public, private industry, and state and local governments as appropriate.
Transforming the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Immediately after September 11, the President directed the FBI and the Attorney General to make preventing future terrorist attacks against the homeland their top priority -- and they have responded.
The FBI has:
-- Disrupted terrorist plots on U.S. soil.
-- Expanded from 35 to 66 the number of Joint Terrorism Task Forces across America, with full participation from, and enhanced communications with, multiple federal, state, and local agencies.
-- Created a National Joint Terrorism Task Force at FBI Headquarters.
-- Established a 24/7 Counterterrorism Watch center.
-- Created new counterterrorism "Flying Squads" to deploy into the field at a moment's notice.
-- Created Intelligence Reports Officers to facilitate the vital flow of information.
-- Trained new analysts for the Counterterrorism Division, using a curriculum developed with assistance from the CIA.
-- The FBI is establishing an intelligence program to ensure that the collection and dissemination of intelligence is given the same institutional priority as the collection of evidence for prosecution. A new Executive Assistant Director for Intelligence will have direct authority and responsibility for the FBI's national intelligence program. The FBI is establishing intelligence units in all of its Field Offices.
The FBI is implementing a new data management system to ensure that it shares all the FBI's terrorism-related information internally and with the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and other appropriate agencies.
Last year, by enacting the USA Patriot Act, the President and Congress took an important step to enhance the ability of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorism, and to share information with other government agencies.
(end fact sheet)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
----
U.S. Increased Alert on Evidence Qaeda Was Planning 2 Attacks
February 14, 2003
New York Times
By JAMES RISEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/politics/14TERR.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 - The government raised the national threat level last week after American intelligence obtained evidence that agents of Al Qaeda might be positioning themselves to carry out two major attacks, including one inside the United States, government officials said today.
Officials said the intelligence was especially worrisome because it showed that Al Qaeda might have gone beyond the planning stages for two distinct plots, one in America and a second in the Arabian Peninsula, and might actually have dispatched low-level operatives to conduct the logistical or operational work needed to carry them out.
Some American intelligence officials said that it was not clear from the fragmentary evidence they had obtained whether the activity among the Qaeda operatives involved preliminary work, like surveillance of possible targets and logistical support for cells involved in coming plots, or was instead evidence of more advanced work on imminent attacks.
"One of the reasons taken into consideration in moving to orange was the concern that Al Qaeda was moving from the planning stages to going operational," a Bush administration official said. "It is why we need to do more, to deploy more assets and physical barriers, because we are more concerned about the potential for attack."
The official added that intercepts of telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other intelligence indicating that terrorists had moved closer to an attack is one of the crucial considerations used by the new Homeland Security Department to determine when the threat level should be raised.
Both George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigaton, have given explicit warnings in recent days about possible Qaeda attacks in the United States and overseas.
But officials said the evidence is not detailed enough to point to specific targets, to the individual operatives suspected of participating in the new plots, to the exact timing of the potential attacks or even to the methods or weapons to be used.
It is still unclear whether the plots involve conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological or radiological devices. There have been some troubling indications, however, of Al Qaeda's renewed efforts to obtain a so-called dirty bomb, a device that could spread radiation through conventional explosives, in order to cause mass casualties, American officials have said.
After detecting the indications of movement around the world by Qaeda operatives and other signs of increased activity, United States intelligence officials are trying to identify the terrorist group's foot soldiers, who may be involved in carrying out the latest plots, and their whereabouts.
Intelligence analysts believe that these operatives may already have received directions from high-ranking Qaeda leaders, and may now be in the process of carrying out their orders, which makes prevention inside the United States such a high priority.
Officials said there were indications that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, believed to be one of the central planners of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, might be involved in the current operations. But officials indicated that they were now most concerned with identifying and tracking the lower level Qaeda operatives who might already have been sent on missions.
The intelligence indicates two distinct strands of activity among Qaeda operatives. American analysts believe that signifies two separate terrorist plots in the works, officials said. The intelligence is fragmentary, but the discussions among Qaeda operatives of the movement of personnel and other activity seems to be going in two directions.
"They are seeing a lot of activity, and it doesn't all seem related to the same thing," said one official. "The evidence seems to break into two piles."
Much of the intelligence collected by the United States in recent days and weeks comes from intercepted communications among suspected Qaeda operatives. Analysts began to see an increased level of communications recently, and some of those intercepts apparently refer to the movement of personnel and other signs of action.
But American officials also said today that the intelligence pointing to an imminent threat went beyond the communications intercepts, although they declined to provide details about what other specific information they had obtained.
While they would not provide specifics, one crucial indicator used by American counterterrorism officials to track Qaeda's movements is to follow evidence of financial transactions among supporters of the terrorist network. The money trail can sometimes aid in tracking the movements of Qaeda operatives.
One official said that concerns within the intelligence community rose even higher Wednesday night, when "chatter" among Qaeda operatives suddenly dropped off. The official said there were fears that the operatives, having moved into place, were quiet because they had finished their preparations and were poised for an attack.
Although government officials said today that they had no immediate plans to raise the threat level further, a jittery nation stayed on a high level of alert today.
Officials at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport evacuated three terminals and closed security checkpoints for about 90 minutes early this morning after a fire door was spotted ajar.
In the suburbs of Atlanta a high school was evacuated and classes canceled after a device filled with blue liquid and with a timer attached was found in a hallway.
Federal agents in Florida arrested 32 employees at airports in Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville and Sarasota on charges that they used false informaiton to obtain security badges. Federal officials said there was no evidence linking any of the individuals to terrorism.
And the United States Customs Service announced that it had refused to allow 13 sea containers destined for United States ports, including Los Angeles and New York, to be loaded on ships overseas because of insufficient information about their contents. This month the Customs Service began enforcing a new federal rule that requires advance notice of cargoes originating overseas.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
Slow Going for Ethanol Sales in State
Glitches, Low Awareness Stall Growth of Grain-Based Fuel
By Annie Gowen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 13, 2003; Page PG03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62785-2003Feb12?language=printer
The first gas station pump in Maryland to dispense clean-burning ethanol -- a fuel made largely from corn or other grains -- opened in Laurel to great fanfare in November 2001. More than a year later, however, the pump is rarely used by motorists and has broken three times.
"It's been slow going," said Lynne Hoot, executive director of the Maryland Grain Producers Association, part of a group of farmers and environmentalists pushing for greater use of ethanol in the Washington region. So far, Hoot and others said, their campaign has been hindered by administrative glitches, lack of public awareness and resistance from major oil companies.
In the last two years, the grain producers association has obtained $330,000 in federal energy grants, plus $330,000 in state funds and other private donations, to support the ethanol effort in the region. The group had hoped to have 10 pumps in place in the Baltimore-Washington region by the end of last year.
So far, though, there are only three: the one in Laurel, at Fort Meade Service Center in the 3200 block of Laurel Fort Meade Road; one at Navy Exchange Gas Station in the 800 block of South Joyce Street in Arlington County; and one run by Montgomery County and open to the public at the county's transportation depot in the 16600 block of Crabbs Branch Way in Rockville. Another is set to open this month at Citgo Quik Mart in the 2000 block of West Street in Annapolis, and pumps are planned in the District and Baltimore.
More than 500,000 newer-model cars in the Washington region can run on ethanol fuel -- which mixes alcohol made from the corn and other grains with a small percentage of gasoline -- but the same vehicles also run on gasoline. Most owners of these eco-friendly cars fill their tanks at regular gasoline pumps because of the scarcity of ethanol pumps, said Jill Hamilton, an energy consultant to the Maryland farm group.
Despite the problems, sales of the fuel have increased, Hamilton said. The amount of ethanol sold at the Citgo station in Arlington has increased from 1,000 gallons a month three years ago to 2,600 a month last year. The Laurel and Rockville stations have held steady at 5,000 and 2,000 gallons a month, respectively, Hamilton said.
Since the 1970s, environmental activists, farmers and politicians from Corn Belt states have touted ethanol as an ecologically friendly alternative to gasoline. Congress began offering tax incentives to automakers for building cars using alternative power sources -- such as electricity or ethanol -- in the late 1980s.
Although small percentages of ethanol have been blended into gasoline for years, the first fuel made of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline was introduced in 1993.
Proponents tout ethanol as a naturally renewable resource that is produced domestically and reduces pollution and dependence on foreign oil. "Users can feel good about lowering greenhouse emissions, supporting the domestic economy and not supporting imported oil from the volatile Middle East," Hamilton said.
But the fuel is costly, with prices here ranging from 20 cents to 37 cents more per gallon than gasoline. It is available at just 120 locations in the United States.
Environmental benefits of ethanol are widely debated. Critics say the production of ethanol wastes energy and is costly. They say the product's long-term viability is doubtful, especially as automakers explore other types of fuel-efficient cars, such as hybrid gas and electric models and cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells.
In their group's quest to find station owners willing to install ethanol pumps, Hoot and Hamilton said, it had to focus on a small number of independently owned stations, because major oil companies were not interested.
Oil industry experts say ethanol is not a proven moneymaker. In addition, many stations do not have storage capacity for more pumps, according to Peter Horrigan, president of the Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors Association.
The effort to market ethanol also has been complicated by the fact that most ethanol is made in the Midwest. Problems related to licensing and bonding agreements tied up Maryland's ethanol shipments for three months last year, Hamilton said, and the new pumps went dry.
Ethanol proponents say they would like to see an ethanol production plant in Maryland within three years, but that idea has complications. The state produces 30 million to 50 million bushels of corn a year, but the region's poultry industry devours it.
Because Maryland has no surplus corn, farmers must use other crops if they hope to make an economically feasible form of ethanol, according to Jose Costa, an associate professor at the University of Maryland's College of Agriculture.
Costa and other researchers are testing a kind of barley that grows without a thick hull that they hope farmers would be able to use for profitable ethanol production. The plants are being tested at research farms in the state.
Diana Hammer, the manager of the Fort Meade Service Center, said most of her ethanol business comes from drivers of government vehicles from nearby Fort Meade and the National Security Agency.
Beyond those motorists, Hammer said, she gets only a few customers a month at the ethanol pump.
The Maryland Grain Producers Association plans public awareness campaigns for owners of alternative fuel vehicles -- such as some late-model Ford Taurus sedans and Explorers and Chevrolet Suburbans -- through local car dealerships in the coming year. The group said it hopes six ethanol pump locations will be up and running for public use by 2004.
"I think what's going to happen is that when the price of gasoline gets out of sight and ethanol products become more readily available, we'll see an increase," Hamilton said.
-------- imf / world bank /wto
Russia's Economic Reforms Are Slowing, IMF Says
By Sharon LaFraniere
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A26
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5265-2003Feb13?language=printer
MOSCOW, Feb. 13 -- The pace of reforms critical to Russia's economic renewal has dragged over the past year, including the breakup of the state-controlled electricity and gas monopolies, the International Monetary Fund said today.
Concluding an annual two-week visit and review, economists from the fund called for Russia to revive the reform program and lessen dependence on the sale of oil, the country's largest export. High oil prices have helped fuel four years of rapid economic growth in Russia and three years of government budget surpluses.
Many economists say President Vladimir Putin has made an impressive start on economic reforms in the first half of his term. But the pace slackened in the past year as the government tried to address more challenging changes, causing powerful interests to organize against it. The process could be even harder this year with parliamentary elections just 10 months away and politicians reluctant to make tough choices.
"The easiest stuff was done early, almost with the stroke of a pen, like tax legislation," said Christof Ruehl, chief economist at the World Bank's Moscow office. "Now you are talking reforms that are endlessly more complicated and really affect vested interest groups."
The much-delayed breakup of Russia's vast electricity monopoly, United Energy Systems, is a case in point. The government contends that the company must be split up and sold if the country's aging power plants are to be kept running and ultimately modernized.
The proposal, backed by Putin, has been in the works since 2000 and is scheduled for the key second vote Friday before the lower house of the Russian parliament. It will take three votes, the approval of the upper house and a presidential signature for the measure to become law.
It is opposed both by progressive and communist lawmakers, who say the deal will benefit powerful Kremlin insiders and cause consumers' electric bills to rise. Some regional governors are lobbying against it because their control over the sprawling system would be weakened, economists say.
In addition, the government has yet to produce a plan to overhaul Gazprom, the state-controlled gas monopoly, or to overhaul the banking, housing and civil service sectors.
Such changes are all the more necessary now, the IMF contends, because Russia's recent economic growth has slowed. After expanding at a remarkable 8.3 percent in 2000, Russia's economy is now growing at only 3.5 percent, despite continued high oil prices.
Still, many economists say, Russia is reaping some of the benefits of three years of stable, reform-minded leadership and a better business climate. On Tuesday, BP, the world's third-largest oil company, tentatively agreed to pay $6.75 billion in cash and shares to become half-owner of a new Russian oil company.
It would be the largest single foreign investment in post-Soviet Russia, equal to a quarter of all foreign direct investment since 1992. And while economists say it doesn't necessarily signal a coming wave of foreign investment, they call it a show of confidence by a major international company that could encourage others.
"It's a good sign, a very good sign," said Evgeny Gavrilenkov, chief economist of Troika Dialog, an investment firm in Moscow. "But it's just one step."
BP knows well the travails of doing business in Russia. After it purchased a 10 percent stake in the Siberian oil firm Sidanko in 1997, it accused Russian businessmen of stripping the firm of its assets. BP eventually won management control of Sidanko, but only after its initial investment dropped in value.
"We had it tough at first," BP's chief executive, John Browne, said in a statement. But he said, "Russia's greatly improved economic stability, improved legal system and increasing commitment to the international rules of trade and business" gave BP confidence in the new deal.
The joint venture firm, as yet unnamed, intends to produce 1.2 million barrels a day and will control oil deposits estimated at between 5 billion and 9.5 billion barrels. That will make it Russia's third biggest oil company, behind Lukoil and Yukos. BP will own the company jointly with Alfa Group and Access/Renova, two Russian industrial conglomerates.
-------- ACTIVISTS
As protesters gather, police prepare
By VERENA DOBNIK
Associated Press Writer
February 14, 2003, 6:21 PM EST
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--nycsecurity0214feb14.story
NEW YORK -- Opponents of a war against Iraq prepared to stage a mammoth rally near the United Nations on Saturday, as police plotted extensive security arrangements that range from mounted officers to radiation detectors.
Protest organizers said as many as 100,000 people may gather for Saturday's rally, which is to be contained in a police-designated area on 1st Avenue, several blocks north of the United Nations. The city denied the protesters a permit to march in front of the world body.
Laura Rice, who traveled by bus from Arlington, Va., said Friday that she hoped the size of the demonstration will convince politicians to take a stand against war while persuading more Americans to actively oppose it.
"For some people I know, it's easier if there are already a million people saying it, rather than being the first one to stick their neck out," Rice said.
Police were preparing to deploy a new security "package" including snipers, undercover officers with beeper-sized radiation detectors, hazardous materials decontamination equipment, bomb-sniffing dogs and air-sampling equipment able to detect impurities such as those released in a chemical or biological attack.
Mounted officers were to be on hand, along with teams of specially trained and equipped crowd-control officers in staging areas away from the protest site.
The preparations came amid another jittery day for New Yorkers. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer urged the administration Friday to be careful about giving "off-the-cuff" security advice that ends up being counter-productive.
Schumer said his office was "deluged" with calls from constituents wanting to know, he said, "'What do you do with the duct tape? Do you create the room now? Do you make sure you seal off every door and window and stay in it? When do you go out?"'
Administration officials "have to be careful. They have to think things through, and they have to give people detailed instructions. To say 'duct tape' and not give the how, when, why, where, who _ doesn't help people very much. It just makes them scared," Schumer said.
Earlier Friday, eight members of an anti-war group called CodePink staged a small protest outside the United Nations. Diane Wilson, of Seadrift, Texas, was issued a summons for disorderly conduct after she chained herself to a fence surrounding the U.N.
"There is no reason to go to war. We spoke with the U.N. inspectors and they told us the process is going well," said Medea Benjamin, a CodePink founder.
The eight women traveled to Iraq on a peace-seeking mission earlier this month, visiting orphanages, hospitals and areas that have been targets of U.S. bombing.
Talk of war, Benjamin contended, "is provoking terrorism against the United States. ... And duct tape is not going to protect us."
On the Net:
http://www.codepink4peace.org/codepink.html
----
Performers unite for peace
Anti-war protests are growing around the world
By Chris Heard
BBC News Online entertainment staff
Friday, 14 February, 2003, 09:40 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2757681.stm
British artists and entertainers are uniting en masse to oppose the prospect of a US-led war against Iraq.
Many are expected to turn out in London on Saturday to join a planned huge demonstration opposing the UK's involvement in any conflict.
Actors, film-makers, musicians, writers and comedians are among hundreds of high-profile names, both in the UK and the US, who have signed up to a campaign against possible war.
But not all celebrities oppose possible military action: Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg gave their backing to President George Bush's policy last year.
The No War on Iraq liaison group, headed by Labour MP Alice Mahon, is urging the government to withold support for military action against Baghdad.
On Thursday the group took out a full-page advertisement in The Guardian newspaper setting out its case.
Its signatories include actors Jim Broadbent, Richard E Grant, John Hurt, Sheila Hancock, Andrew Lincoln and Emma Thompson.
Musicians Craig David, Peter Gabriel, Annie Lennox, Phil Collins, Robert Wyatt and rock band Travis are also involved.
Writers Will Self, Iain Banks and Nick Hornby, directors Mike Hodges and Richard Eyre and comics Victoria Wood and Jeremy Hardy have added their support.
Comedian Alexei Sayle told BBC News Online he was horrified at the prospect of war.
He said: "Being the son of political activists has given me a horror of demonstrations which I will nevertheless be overcoming on Saturday to march for the first time in nearly 35 years.
"It's clear to virtually everyone apart from our vain, deluded, pontificating prime minister that the issue of weapons of mass destruction is merely a pretext for the United States to project its power around the world."
Sayle added: "I'm ashamed of our government. That the party we elected in 1997 with such high hopes has come to this, openly telling such lies, is sickening. I've never said this before but I wish I was French."
Director Mike Leigh - who like his contemporary Ken Loach is opposed to any conflict - was similarly outspoken.
"I am totally opposed to this lunacy, which will undoubtedly escalate into an unimaginable disaster," he said.
Musician and producer Brian Eno described war as "the bluntest of all instruments".
"To actually choose it in the absence of an attack on us is a failure of imagination, intelligence and, in the end, civilization," he said.
"Hand in hand with America, we're running backwards."
The No War on Iraq group says it is seeking political and diplomatic alternatives to a military assault on Iraq.
It brings the artists together with trade unions, CND, the Green Party, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Muslim Parliament and Stop the War Coalition.
Last month, celebrities including Bianca Jagger, singer Damon Albarn and actor Corin Redgrave took their protest to the House of Commons to lobby MPs.
In the US, stars of stage and screen have also used their public platforms to speak out against a potential war.
Speaking at the Berlin Film Festival, director Spike Lee attacked President Bush's policy on Iraq and praised France and Germany for their stance.
Other major Hollywood names opposing war include Dustin Hoffman, Martin Scorsese, Martin Sheen, Sean Penn and Robert Redford.
The famous have a long association with political activism stretching back to the 1960s civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements in the US.
John Lennon performed at peace concerts, and Muhammad Ali was stripped of his heavyweight crown for refusing to be drafted.
More recently, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK was supported by many musicians and actors at its height during the 1980s.
In the 1990s artists such as rock band U2 spoke out against the conflict in the Balkans.
Some commentators have suggested that celebrities take part in popular causes in order to attract media attention and further their own careers.
But one expert in human behaviour says they are more likely to be motivated for genuine reasons.
Dr Donald Laming, of Cambridge University's department of experimental psychology, said: "Some minor celebrities may do it for the publicity, but most of them passionately believe in the cause."
----
Anti-war band dropped from awards
Friday, 14 February, 2003
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2763863.stm
A UK folk group with a strong anti-war message has been disqualified from the BBC Radio 3 Awards for World Music.
Radio 3 said a campaign for votes for Seize the Day had spread across "political and non-musical" websites and email lists.
But the group strongly denied canvassing for votes on anti-war websites and email lists.
It was clear from the voting process that the votes for Seize the Day were motivated and organised for political reasons
The band believe they have been disqualified because they are too political.
Seize the Day had been up for the audience award, which is decided by a public vote, against groups from New Zealand, Slovenia and the UK.
They were taken off the shortlist because Radio 3 said it was not supposed to be a political award, and that voting tactics used were unfair on the other nominees.
The BBC has received hundreds of complaints from the band's fans complaining at the decision.
It was intended to be "a musical not a political vote", the BBC's head of editorial policy, Stephen Whittle, said.
"It was clear from the voting process that the votes for Seize the Day were motivated and organised for political reasons."
But the band's manager Louise Somerville-Williams said: "We feel extremely wounded that they are damaging the band's reputation for integrity and honesty."
It is only fair to the remaining groups that the issue is dealt with appropriately
Radio 3 said an appeal to vote for the group appeared on an anti-war e-mail list and the campaign was considered to have made a "substantial difference" to the group's votes.
"It is only fair to the remaining groups that the issue is dealt with appropriately. The Radio 3 Awards for World Music are planned as a celebration of global music making," he said.
A BBC spokeswoman stressed that the band was not disqualified for its anti-war stance, but out of fairness to the other nominees.
The seven-piece group was formed when two members met during the Newbury by-pass campaign in 1996, and their songs are inspired by direct-action protest.
One of their songs appeared on a recent peace CD alongside artists like Ms Dynamite and Massive Attack.
Ms Somerville-Williams, said she did not think the BBC could afford to let such a radical anti-war group win.
"It's too political for them. You can't separate art and politics - all music's political," she said.
Seize the Day were not popular in the world music community because they were radical, she said.
Voting for the audience award closed on Thursday and the winner will be announced at the award ceremony on 24 March.
----
Cities for Peace brings an anti-war message to capital
By Sarah Marcisz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 14, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030214-95699107.htm
Cities for Peace, a grass-roots movement backed by nearly 90 city councils and county governments, gathered in Washington yesterday to oppose a U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
"The main message is that we can win without war," said Martha Honey, director of foreign policy at the Institute for Policy Studies, the main group behind the grass-roots anti-war movement.
Instead of war, the peace group advocates that the United Nations continue its weapons inspections in Iraq. Cities for Peace estimates that the total cost of a war against Iraq will be more than $100 billion.
Almost 90 city councils and county governments in 28 states around the country have passed resolutions against the looming war on Iraq, including Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia and the District. Copies of their resolutions were delivered yesterday to the White House.
A spokesman for the peace group said that every day brings new city councils that are joining the anti-war movement.
"We learn of more every single day," said Karen Dolan, coordinator of the grass-roots movement at the Institute for Policy Studies. Since the beginning of this month, 40 city councils have passed anti-war resolutions, and more than 100 additional cities have begun the process, including New York. In the past week, two state legislatures, in Maine and Hawaii, passed anti-war resolutions.
The Cities for Peace delegation, composed of council members and officials from 25 cities, began their day on Capitol Hill with a news briefing before delivering the resolutions to the White House and meeting with members of Congress.
"Those here today represent the collective conscience of our country. I am concerned over the complete disconnect between the decisions made in Washington and how people feel as elected officials of small communities," said John Steel, a council member from Telluride, Colo.
Mr. Steel said that an attack on Iraq would be immoral and not in America's national interest.
"We believe that it is morally wrong and dangerous," he said.
Other council members who spoke at the briefing warned that the country's sagging economy, not Iraq, poses the most imminent national threat. A war would drain funds from valuable social programs, including health care and housing assistance, said Joe Moore, an alderman in Chicago. In subsequent speeches, other city representatives added that a military attack would exacerbate the national debt, failing schools, inadequate transit systems and other domestic problems.
But some organizations dispute the claim that Saddam does not pose a grave threat to national security.
Kathy Wood, co-leader of the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic, a conservative Internet grass-roots group, said that these city councils are passing resolutions without seeing the full scope of the current security threat.
"Do they think these protests are going to keep a bomb from dropping on them?" Miss Wood asked. "In the long run, what they are doing is undermining the ability of the president to act in the best interest of the American public and our national defense."
Maryann Mahaffey, a council member from Detroit, said the opposition to the looming war unifies people from both parties who on other issues hold divergent ideological views. Don Cooney, a council member from Kalamazoo, Mich., said that the resolution passed unanimously in his district, which is represented by a Republican congressman. However, all of the council members present yesterday at the briefing were either registered Democrats or independents.
Members of Cities for Peace will join a larger contingent of peace activists for an anti-war rally in New York tomorrow.
----
U.S. anti-war movement based in the mainstream
By Dana Wilkie
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
February 14, 2003
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/news/news_1n14protest.html
WASHINGTON - One morning soon - before too many surfers or joggers are out - dozens of women in their 50s and 60s will gather on a beach somewhere in San Diego County, take off their clothes, lie on the sand, and arrange their bodies to spell "peace."
Not much later, newspapers will receive photographs - taken from far enough away to make the participating women unrecognizable - that will make clear their anti-war message.
There's a curious group of Americans demonstrating their opposition to a U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
They don't fit the stereotypes of the 20-something who shuns a privileged home for piercings and tattoos, or the Birkenstock-wearing vegan who hangs out with anti-globalization activists and environmentalists.
Whether they are pacifists or former military commanders, poets or high-powered executives, Psychologists for Social Responsibility or Mothers Acting Up, today's anti-war movement appears to run through mainstream America.
"It's become religious groups and labor unions, local politicians, Republicans and businessmen," said Todd Gitlin, a Columbia University sociologist and author who studies social movements. "I think these groups have stepped forward in part to give the anti-war movement legitimacy."
The breadth of the movement may well be on display tomorrow during a day of protest in cities around the globe, including San Diego.
Nobel laureates, Pentagon consultants, corporate chiefs, academics and former military officials, along with more traditional protesters, have joined forces and released statements opposing a unilateral attack on Iraq.
A group of Republicans and business leaders recently signed a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal titled "Republican Dissent on Iraq."
Retired Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan of Florida was among the signers.
"We need to exhaust every other kind of diplomatic and economic option available to us," said Shanahan, who said he believes many anti-war voices go unheard.
Notably, retired Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, also has voiced his concerns about moving too quickly to war.
Across the country, women in a group called Baring Witness disrobe at mostly secluded places, arrange their bodies to spell "peace" or "no war." In San Diego, a 60-year-old Encinitas woman - a professor at a San Diego university who asked to not be named - is organizing a group of 30 to 50 women for that purpose.
"Showing our bodies is not something we do, because we've been taught not to do it," said the woman, who would not reveal the time or place of their gathering, except to say her group will be at a North County beach. "This is a different way to get attention, and for me, it's a courageous thing to do."
Francine Anzalone-Byrd, a San Diego woman with Mothers Acting Up, plans to drive to Los Angeles tomorrow for an anti-war march. The 55-year-old mother of three and executive director of an alcohol-and drug-abuse treatment center said she sees "an atypical group of people" at these gatherings.
"They are professionals, teachers, social workers, businessmen and women," Anzalone-Byrd said. "They seem more mature than the college-age crowd involved in the anti-war movement in the '60s."
The nation seems both cautious and divided on U.S. policy on Iraq.
A New York Times/CBS poll published today says 66 percent of Americans approve of war with Iraq as an option. Fifty-nine percent said they believed the United States should give U.N. weapons inspectors more time. Sixty-three percent said Washington should not act without allied support and 56 percent said President Bush should wait for U.N. approval.
Nevertheless, some are skeptical that the anti-war movement is as broad as activists say. Critics argue that protesters are simply more savvy and better organized.
"They're more efficient. They're better at what they do," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group in Washington. "It's the professionalization of protesting."
Spencer and other critics argue that anti-war activists are veterans of other liberal-leaning causes who have joined forces to make the anti-war effort seem larger and more vocal than it is.
Experts on social movements say participants in this anti-war movement are more in the mainstream for several reasons. In the early days of the Vietnam War, protests were led largely by college students who opposed the draft and the war. Today, there is no draft.
In the 1960s, the anti-war movement began with people seen as "fringe" types - hippies and the ultra-liberal - and swelled only after the country had been at war for years, with mounting casualties.
Today, the anti-war movement has broadened even before the start of a war.
One expert on protest movements with the Brookings Institution, a center-left group based in Washington, said the nation has become more skeptical of its leaders since Vietnam.
"Back then, there was much more of a willingness to accept the government's word for things," said the expert, Ann Florini. "In this case, we're getting bombarded with information about how strongly the rest of the world opposes this war, and there's a real sense that we don't know why we're doing this."
There may also be fears that a war will hurt the sluggish economy.
"I think people from affluent backgrounds are finally getting it," said Yalonda Sinde, director of the Community Coalition for Environmental Justice. "The economy is waking people up to the fact that, in the scheme of things, it's about more than just getting their piece of the pie. When resources start to dwindle, that makes them see the injustice in a lot of things, including war."
Also, the Internet has helped motivate and organize people who typically would not venture from their homes to protest a war, experts said.
On the Web, for instance, Psychologists for Social Responsibility explains that people might support war because of a primal need to feel secure.
"When we have our banner at protests, others come up and say things like, 'Wow, psychologists are even against the war,' " said Tod Sloan, a member of the group who lives in Tulsa, Okla. "Then they tell us we should try to point out the mental health problems of our leaders. It's sort of comical."
Staff writer Michael Stetz contributed to this report.
----
Thousands Plan Antiwar Protests in Europe
February 14, 2003
New York Times
By ALAN COWELL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/international/europe/14CND-PROT.html
LONDON, Feb. 14 - From London to Paris to Berlin to Moscow, hundreds of thousands of protesters are set to march this weekend in what could be among Europe's biggest ever coordinated peace demonstrations. London's could be the most telling of all.
In some places, like Paris and Berlin, the protesters will be marching broadly in step with governments opposed to the United States-led drive to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. But in other capitals of this divided continent, including London, the marchers will be lambasting their own rulers for supporting Washington.
The magnitude of the protests, thus, will highlight different claims to legitimacy in advance of a European summit meeting on Monday: a huge turn-out in London could undermine Prime Minister Tony Blair, denying him a show of consensus in his own country, while mass marches in Paris or Berlin would strengthen the claims of President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to be responsive to the people who elected them.
That is where protesters hope Mr. Blair will prove most vulnerable. "Tomorrow the world will say no to war in rallies across the globe," said Andrew Murray, the head of the Stop the War Coalition in a newspaper article today. "But London will be the most important because ours is the war leader who can be broken. And if he remains deaf to a nation's plea for peace, he will be."
Britain, moreover, is Washington's main European ally, committing some 40,000 troops to join American forces in the Gulf far more than any other European nation and thus central to America's desire not be to seen to be acting alone.
"We feel that in Britain that we do have the historic responsibility," said Lindsey German, another leader of the Stop the War Coalition, formed after Sept. 11, 2001, as a grouping of hundreds of organizations from pro-Palestinian Muslims to hardcore left-wingers with a leavening of pacifists, politicians, celebrities, environmentalists, intellectuals and labor unions. "If Blair did change his mind, Bush would find it very difficult to go to war. People in the United States are very reluctant to go to war without allies," Ms. German said, referring to Prime Minister Blair and President George W. Bush.
So close have those two men become, in the eyes of many Britons, that The Daily Mirror tabloid, a sponsor of tomorrow's march, rigged a Valentine's Day front page photograph in a heart-shaped frame showing Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair kissing with the headline: "Make Love not War."
The sweep of the coalition has made some people uneasy about marching alongside other organizations with different long-term aims. One of the official slogan's of the London march is "Freedom for Palestine", raising fears among some protesters that the march will be seen as anti-Israeli or anti-semitic. "What we have always said is that this is a criticism of the state of Israel, not a criticism of Jewish people," Ms. German said.
The march here is co-sponsored by the Muslim Association of Britain which also has differences with other groups on the march. "These are not permanent alliances," said Assam Tamimi, a Palestinian organizer. "These are alliances on issues where we might find common ground with the left, the far left even like foreign policy, Palestine and Iraq. We don't see eye to eye on many other issues."
"The coalition is about stopping the war on terrorism, the war that Bush launched after Sept. 11," Ms. German said. So will that give succor to Saddam Hussein? That is not the intention, Ms. German said, but "if Saddam Hussein feels that he's in a stronger position after tomorrow, the British government has only got itself to blame."
The sheer breadth of the alliance is one reason why organizers are anticipating a big turn-out, in excess of the 400,000 who marched last year to support hunters and other rural Britons against the government and possibly over 500,000.
But another aspect is the sense that many people who would not usually march in protest have decided to do so this time, reflecting a wider unease.
"People do feel it can make a difference in a way that in some countries it would not affect the international stage," Ms. German said. "People feel very strongly that the evidence has not been convincing, conclusive enough to go to war. But I also think it fits into a more general discontent. Transport and health services are underfunded, but there's endless money for going to war."
The skepticism provided one of the few points of contact between the two aspects of the city today.
At Heathrow airport today, police briefly evacuated part of a terminal because of a suspicious-looking package. Yesterday, at Gatwick airport, an entire terminal was closed for hours after a man arrived on a flight from Colombia with a hand grenade in his luggage. Two people arrested west of London yesterday were released today, the police said. The authorities have not, however, explained the reasons behind the security alert one of the biggest in memory. And that has left people to ponder the real extent of the terrorist threat.
"The threat that has led to this unprecedented security is not from terrorists but from the peace march," said a letter to The Guardian newspaper signed by Simon Whitehead of Suffolk. "I wasn't going to go, but I will now."
----
Peace rally clogs Melbourne city streets
February 14 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927800451.html
A massive crowd gathers for the anti-war demonstration outside the Library in Swanston St, Melbourne. Photo: Shannon Morris
Tens of thousands of peace protesters packed Melbourne's city streets tonight in a show of strength against a US-led war in Iraq.
It was the first in a series of planned peace protests across Australia this weekend, which will culminate in rallies on Sunday in Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide. The weekend protests in Australia coincide with anti-war rallies around the world.
Touted as the biggest protest in Australia since the anti-Vietnam War marches of 30 years ago, today's Melbourne rally kicked off with mock air raid sirens to symbolise air attacks on Baghdad.
Protesters gathered outside the State Library in Swanston Street, waving placards with slogans including: "No War for Oil", "Howard's End" and "Will the Pollies' Kids Go to War?"
They were addressed by former Democrats leader Natasha Stott-Despoja and Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown.
"It is an amazing scene here with you today in a show of solidarity to send a strong message to Prime Minister Howard and the Australian government that Australians don't want war," Senator Stott Despoja told the huge crowd.
Senator Brown told protesters the possible war concerned United States president George W Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
"But this war is not Australia's war," Senator Brown said.
The protesters made their way down Swanston Street to Federation Square, where they were to be addressed by union and political leaders as well as rock singer and conservationist Peter Garrett.
The event, organised by churches, peace and student groups and unions, will wind up with a 90-minute music concert.
Police would not immediately put a figure on the size of the crowd, but organisers put it at up to 200,000.
Organisers say millions of people are expected to protest tomorrow in hundreds of cities around the world, from Vancouver and Mexico City to Tokyo and Hong Kong.
Hundreds of thousands are expected to march through central London tomorrow and will be addressed by US civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, playwright Harold Pinter and activist Bianca Jagger.
Up to 100,000 people are expected in New York, where Archbishop Desmond Tutu and actors Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover will address a Manhattan rally.
German anti-war groups say 80,000 will gather in Berlin. The French and German governments have led European opposition to a military strike.
In Japan, a demonstration is planned in front of the US Embassy at noon tomorrow.
Students, professors, artists and Muslims were planning a "March for Peace" through the Philippine capital Manila today that was to end in a candlelight vigil outside the US embassy.
Anti-war sentiment has even reached the tiny South Pacific island nation of Fiji, where the Fiji Anti-War Movement (FAWM) sent floral messages to foreign embassies imploring them to pressure the US and its allies to avoid war.
Several organisations in Hong Kong, including the Beijing-backed party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, staged protests today outside the US consulate.
A larger rally outside the US and British consulates was planned for Saturday.
Islamic Asia is also due to mark its opposition to the war. Tomorrow, hundreds of Malaysian activists are expected to protests in the capital Kuala Lumpur and on the island state of Penang.
And in the Islamic republic of Pakistan, the Lahore-based Pakistan Anti-War Committee, a coalition of labour and political groups, says it has protests planned for 20 cities.
Agencies
----
NEWS ANALYSIS
For Old Friends, Iraq Bares a Deep Rift
February 14, 2003
New York Time
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/international/europe/14EURO.html
BRUSSELS, Feb. 13 - As antiwar demonstrators prepare for what they are saying will be among the largest protest marches in history this weekend, many in Europe are asking themselves: how did trans-Atlantic relations, which were so good so recently, get so bad so quickly?
What has become clear to many here is that the Bush administration's preparations for a possible war with Iraq have provoked something far beyond the normal disagreements that sometimes take place among allies - as happened many times during the cold war and more recently over such questions as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming or the International Criminal Court, both favored in Europe but rejected in Washington.
Now, something deep and fundamental in the different views of Europe and the United States seems to have been brought to the surface by the Iraqi crisis.
Several hundred thousand antiwar protesters are expected Saturday on the streets of London alone, and it has become clear that the European public, from Britain to Poland, from "old" Europe to "new" Europe, is against war in Iraq.
Indeed, it is almost as if President Bush and his administration have unwittingly brought about a popular unity on this continent that belies the sharp differences among Europe's governments, which are openly divided on the question of a war to dislodge President Saddam Hussein.
With turmoil in NATO, divisions on the Security Council and undiplomatically angry words being shouted across the Atlantic, many here have started to worry about the prospect of permanent damage to the very structures on which European peace and prosperity have been based for the past half century and more.
"Everything's falling to pieces; that's really the case, I believe," Michael Stürmer, a professor of history and an editorial writer at the conservative German daily Die Welt, said in a recent conversation. "We have various problems, all knotted together."
It may be - and some diplomats here in the seat of the European community are predicting this - that over the next few weeks the trans-Atlantic gaps are going to be bridged and that such alarming spectacles as the current disarray in NATO will disappear.
In this optimistic view, after the report of United Nations inspectors on Friday, the United States will manage to get a resolution passed in the Security Council that will authorize force, and then the French, who have led the charge against war, will move from opposing military action to taking part in it.
But such an outcome looks remote today. One of the reasons the leaders of Germany and France have so publicly defied the United States - in the United Nations as well as in NATO - is that it is popular to do so.
Certainly, it did not look like that just a few weeks ago. To be sure, American opposition to the Kyoto treaty, coupled with a kind of visceral distrust of the Bush administration, might have prepared the ground for widespread European opposition to American plans for war in Iraq.
But essentially, last fall, sympathy prompted by the losses of Sept. 11 was widespread, and on the strategic front, developments seemed positive.
Both NATO and the European Union were in the process of historic and tandem expansions, incorporating the former members of the Eastern bloc and spreading the net of military security, economic expansion and democratic governments to the very borders of Russia.
A majority of Europeans supported the United States in earlier military actions, from the Persian Gulf war of 1991 to the Kosovo war of 1999 to the action in Afghanistan after Sept. 11.
Now all that has been turned on its head. The German government, for the first time in its postwar history, has put itself in direct conflict over a major issue with the United States, and this is a very big change.
For years, even though Germany was a close partner with France when it came to powering the European Community forward, it always resisted the Gaullist impulse to keep a certain distance from America.
In only a few weeks, however, Germany, Europe's largest country and its most important economy by far, has entered into a sort of informal coalition whose very identity is opposition to a policy that an American administration deems vital to the security of the United States and the world.
To some extent, the divisions express what some have identified as growing fundamental cultural differences between Europe and the United States.
Most conspicuously, in the wake of Sept. 11, a gap has opened up in the European and American perceptions of danger. It is not too much to say that while Americans intensely sense a new vulnerability and an urgent new need for self-defense, Europeans, after the end of the cold war, do not. Put bluntly, the people of Berlin now feel safer even as the people of New York sense a new danger.
"I do think that there are different perceptions of risks on both sides," Javier Solana, the foreign affairs chief for the European Union, said in an interview.
While Americans recently experienced an attack on their mainland, Europeans, as Mr. Solana put this, are enjoying "the most secure period of our history."
Americans, aware of European peace and security, believe that these happy conditions were made possible by 50 years of American military expenditures and protection, which they feel that Europeans appreciate less than they should.
Europeans, while aware of American military protection, perhaps because of it, feel safe, safer than they should feel, in the view of some here.
"My father fought in two wars, but it's impossible to think that my sons will fight in wars in Europe," Mr. Solana said. "But we are not aware enough of the danger of weapons of mass destruction, and we have to correct that. Weapons of mass destruction are not just an American problem, they are a problem for all of us."
It is not that Europeans, a clear majority of whom are shown by polls across Europe to be opposed to war, have any kind regard for Mr. Hussein and his government.
But few of them seem really to believe that Mr. Hussein is anything more than another of the world's dictators, perhaps one of the most cutthroat of them, but not the most dangerous. Kim Jong Il, North Korea's leader, probably holds that distinction in the minds of many Europeans.
By contrast, in many quarters in Europe, the public deems unbridled American power in the service of a pre-emptive strike to be the greater international menace.
"What happens in the future if China or Russia decide that some other country is a threat to them, and they decide to go to war?" asked an editor for a Germany publishing company attending an antiwar demonstration in Munich last weekend. "What are you going to do then?"
There are those analyzing European-American differences who find this discrepancy in the view of threats could have a long-term effect on the main organizations of American-European cooperation, especially NATO.
"The North Atlantic alliance could survive without a common threat," said Jonathan Eyal, director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies, a British research organization. "Actually it has gone from strength to strength in the years since the end of the cold war. But it cannot survive without a common perception of what constitutes a threat."
Other cultural differences, many of them described in an article by Robert Kagan, an American analyst, read widely on both sides of the Atlantic, have been cited to explain the deeper reasons for the trans-Atlantic conflict. Europeans, embedded for decades by now in a community that has required ever more sacrifices of sovereignty, have come to see their future as part of a network of states, in which war, once so common and so devastating on this continent has come to be seen as illegitimate and unjustified, except in self-defense.
Americans, by contrast, are still fiercely attached to their sovereignty. Moreover, certain Americans, specifically the conservatives and neo-conservatives who make policy in the Bush administration, nurture a strong distrust of international organizations like the United Nations, which, in their view, is afflicted by a kind of unrealistic piousness, the first principle of which is that war is never morally justified except in cases of direct self-defense.
Matters are made more complicated by the fact that Europe itself, or, at least, European elites, are themselves deeply split on the question of Iraq.
Three weeks ago, a group of countries across Europe, a geographic sample extending from Britain in the north, to Italy in the south and to Poland in the east, signed a letter supporting the United States on Iraq.
A week later, on the very day of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech at the United Nations, 10 former members of the Soviet bloc signed a similar statement.
"The intention of the letter was not to divide Europe, as was being said in Germany and France," Alexandr Vondra, a deputy foreign minister of the Czech Republic, said.
"But a few weeks ago there we were listening to Chirac's message on Iraq stating European policy to be peace, peace, peace, and he didn't consult with us about it," he said, referring to President Jacques Chirac of France. "We had to hear it on the TV news."
"In economic affairs, on matters of European integration, Germany and France can do what they want, I suppose," he continued, "but when our relations with the United States are at stake, I think they have to be much more careful."
The divide inside Europe could also have long-term implications, since, even with populations that are antiwar, the countries of the old East are viewed as both more closely attached to the United States than those of the West and more suspicious of France and Germany, Europe's powerful major instrument.
"No country in Eastern Europe is going to be dictated to by Paris or Berlin," Mr. Eyal, the research director in London, said.
Mr. Vondra said, "For 50 years the United States helped us; now it's time for once for us to help the United States."
But if the Iraq question has created obstacles to a common European foreign and defense policy, there appears to be little doubt that the main divide remains between the European public and the American desire for a military solution in Iraq. That divide does not look likely to narrow soon.
--------
THE INTELLECTUALS
A Sense of Fine Qualities Trampled and of Something 'Terribly Wrong'
February 14, 2003
New York Times
By SARAH LYALL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/international/europe/14LOND.html?pagewanted=all&position=top
LONDON, Feb. 13 - When asked what they think of the United States in these uncertain times, European intellectuals tend to draw a swift distinction between the American government and the American people.
But European anti-Americanism is more than just straightforward opposition to the policies of the current administration. There is a growing sense here, reflected in interviews with writers, cultural figures and other intellectual leaders in Western Europe, that many of America's most admirable qualities - its respect for its great cacophony of voices, its belief in freedom, its proud democratic principles - have been so trampled in the debate over war as to have been rendered toothless or even nonexistent.
"Something has gone terribly wrong in America," said Jacqueline Rose, a feminist scholar in Britain. "America established a certain tradition of public dissent, with the civil rights and feminist and anti-Vietnam movements. But post-Sept. 11 there is a feeling that the American left has largely gone silent."
In The Times of London last month, the author John le Carré went further, writing that "America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember." Comparing the current crisis to the McCarthy era, he said, "The freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded."
Opposition to the war is everywhere in Western Europe. Millions are expected to take part in antiwar protests around the world this weekend, and more and more people here have been signing petitions, publishing antiwar articles in newspapers and on the Internet, and giving speeches at antiwar rallies.
In France and Germany, dozens of influential writers, artists, scientists and others - including Günter Grass, Christa Wolf and Jacques Derrida - signed a statement opposing the war.
In Britain, a similar petition appeared today in The Guardian, signed by, among others, the musicians Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins, the playwright David Hare and the actors Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman. In Spain, where the film establishment turned a recent film awards ceremony into a virtual antiwar demonstration several weeks ago, the director Pedro Almodóvar plans to present an antiwar manifesto at a rally in Madrid on Saturday.
Some of the antiwar sentiment goes hand in hand with an outright hatred of all things American, a view that many believe belongs in the category of "stupid anti-Americanism," as the author Peter Schneider, a German, put it in an interview. But stupid or not, such an attitude is on the rise.
"I would say that even in the Vietnam years, I've never seen so much anti-Americanism all over Europe as I see now," Mr. Schneider said. "This is something America doesn't realize."
But the cause for a subtler approach toward the United States, which Mr. Schneider advocates, is not helped by the American government's perceived lack of subtlety. The Dutch writer Cees Nooteboom says one of the most distressing recent developments is how the Bush administration seems to dismiss even well-thought-out European disagreement.
"I get rather upset if I read American comments from people like Perle and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld that we are all anti-American," Mr. Nooteboom said. "I do not think I am anti-American; nor do I like it when people say I am, because of a difference of opinion."
In The Guardian today, Annick Cojean, a commentator from the French newspaper Le Monde, said the debate had descended into vicious name-calling from America's politicians, supported by a too-complacent news media. "This torrent of insults against France and Germany, these are insults that one thought belonged to a bygone century," she wrote.
Europeans have always been ambivalent toward the United States. Affections ebb and flow; each country has its own history and relationship with America. Cultural leaders might denounce the ubiquitousness of American influence, but they wear American clothes, read American books, listen to American music, watch (and make) American films, and cross the Atlantic as readily as they might cross the French-German border.
"Anyone who's sincere would admit to a certain degree of conflict or compromise in their own life about America," said Ian Jack, editor of the British magazine Granta. "You find that, even with writers who say, `I cannot stand what American culture has done for the world,' many of them have e-mail addresses ending in `harvard.edu.' "
The same is true among another growing anti-American group in Europe: young people who criticize what they see as imperialistic tendencies in the United States, bullying tactics, and an effort to turn the world into an American-owned subsidiary.
Such are those who might take part in antiglobalization demonstrations and buy anti-American books - several were on French best-seller lists last year - but they could also be seen dancing to Bruce Springsteen at a recent concert in Paris, shouting themselves hoarse.
"I don't believe one should blame America; America is many other things besides whether or not there is a war in Iraq," said the Italian commentator Alain Elkann, an adviser to the Italian culture minister. "Each one of us for one reason or another dreams of America, and America is everywhere."
Johano Strasser, president of the German PEN Center, the international writers' organization that defends freedom of expression, said that if disagreeing with the United States meant being anti-American, "I know many Americans who are also anti-American.
"I think it's nonsense to talk about pro-Americanism and anti-Americanism," he said. "People have different opinions on very important political questions. Let's talk about the opinions and not the motivation behind them."
In Italy, where there is a particularly deep affection for the United States, even opponents of war say that many Europeans are unfairly dismissing the profound sense of anger and vulnerability that are driving American policy. "I would prefer an approach from America that was more open to discussion and different points of view," said Furio Colombo, the editor and publisher of the Socialist newspaper L'Unità in Rome. "But anyone who was here and not in New York on Sept. 11 cannot understand in full the immensity of that tragedy."
But to many, even such sympathy is tempered by a real disillusionment in a country they once loved, or at least admired.
"As recently as the mid-80's, there was a view where you thought that America made mistakes but was a force for good in the world," said Will Hutton, chief executive of the Work Foundation in Britain and the author of "A Declaration of Interdependence: Why America Should Join the World." "Europeans, like Americans, were captivated by America's fantastic Constitution, by the promise of a whole continent consecrated by the idea of liberty."
"That's still there," he continued. "But there's another America which is rather threatening, a bullying America convinced of its own rectitude, profoundly disregarding the sensibilities of others."
That is the America that Mr. Nooteboom, the Dutch writer, said seems to be prevailing right now. "There's this enormous pressure by the United States to have it their way and do it their way," he said. "In the meantime, some very precious friendships and allegiances and great positive feelings toward one another are being ruined."
--------
City Leaders Carry Message Against War to President
By ELIZABETH OLSON
February 14, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/national/14CITI.html?ei=1&en=a87367576d32dedb&ex=1046249958&pagewanted=print&position=bottom
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 - Leaders from some of the 90 city councils that have adopted resolutions opposing military action against Iraq warned today that the costs of war would devastate already crippled municipal budgets and deprive citizens of crucial services.
Carrying blue-and-white placards with the outline of a dove, representatives cities including Chicago, Seattle, Baltimore and Santa Fe, N.M., met here to urge President Bush to heed citizens' concerns about war, and to call on Congress to oppose any pre-emptive military strikes.
"The war will be financed by deficit spending and drastic cuts in domestic spending," said Joe Moore, a Chicago councilman.
"In either case," Mr. Moore said, "my neighborhood and neighborhoods throughout the nation will suffer the consequences of a sagging economy and even more cuts in federally funded projects and programs."
Chicago's resolution, adopted on Jan. 16, passed by a 46-to-1 vote. "Chicago is not San Francisco or Berkeley or Madison, Wisconsin, which are well known as liberal," Mr. Moore said. "That Chicago would join in underscores the depth and breadth of the opposition across the country."
The antiwar effort, called Cities for Peace, is being organized by the Institute for Policy Studies, a political action group in Washington. The project director, Karen Dolan, said, "Over 100 additional city council campaigns are under way throughout the nation, and we learn of more every single day."
Most of the campaigners came here today from states that President Bush did not carry in 2000.
"This is a movement," said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, who spoke to the group. "These are not fringe groups or leftovers from Vietnam. This is cutting through the heartland of America."
Mr. Conyers told the group he would file a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Boston to block President Bush from starting an invasion of Iraq. Mr. Conyers, joined by five other members of Congress and a group of American soldiers and their parents, maintain in the suit, which was filed this afternoon, that the Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war.
"Get it?" Mr. Conyers said to the campaigners. "Only Congress."
A decade ago, members of the House and Senate filed a lawsuit against President Bush's father to avert the Persian Gulf war, but they were rebuffed by a federal judge.
The municipal peace advocates said the council resolutions reflected nationwide antiwar sentiment.
"It's a neighborhood-based resistance," said Nick Licata of Seattle. "We have 1,000 people with antiwar signs on the street, and 50 different community groups organized against war."
A councilman from Ohio, Jay Westbrook, said, "We're patriotic in Cleveland," as he huddled with the windblown group that gathered at the White House gate to deliver a packet of resolutions to President Bush. "But we see cities being put at greater risk, with less money, and there's an underlying sense that it's for the sake of controlling oil in the Middle East."
Some cities have rejected antiwar resolutions on the grounds that local councils should not be making foreign policy. Organizers said antiwar efforts had failed in Portland, Ore.; Minneapolis; and Los Alamos, N.M.
But Mr. Moore of Chicago said, "Few decisions will have a more profound effect on the quality of life in our cities than the decision to go to war."
-------
Anti-war group tries to enter Raytheon
DAVID PITTMAN
Tucson Citizen
Feb. 14, 2003
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/local/2_14_03raytheon.html
A drizzle fell from the dark sky as about 50 people in yellow hard hats, white lab coats and "U.N." armbands trudged up a two-lane road yesterday afternoon toward the main gate of a missile factory.
But these arms inspectors were in Tucson, not Iraq.
And they were not from the United Nations, but from a peace group calling itself United Neighbors. And the complex they were approaching was not some mustard gas factory in Baghdad, but Raytheon Missile Systems, south of Valencia Road off Old Nogales Highway.
And though the people claimed to have come to Raytheon to interview "scientists and inspect documents and production facilities for evidence of illegal weapons production," the truth is, they were not weapons inspectors at all, but protesters masquerading as such to draw attention from the news media.
They succeeded.
Television cameras whirred, newspaper photographers clicked, and reporters scribbled in notebooks made soggy by the rain.
Eight of the protesters wanted to be arrested as part of their statement against U.S. foreign policy in Iraq.
They were not disappointed.
Keith McHenry, one of those arrested, was identified as "general secretary" of the group.
"We are here to enforce international law," McHenry said as he led the crew toward Raytheon's main gate. "We want to verify that no weapons of mass destruction are here."
Once at the entrance, protesters were told by plant security to leave the property or be arrested by Pima County sheriff's deputies who were on hand for the scheduled protest.
"You folks are trespassing, and we are asking you to leave," said a plant security guard. "If you folks don't leave now I will ask the Sheriff's Department to arrest you."
Sheriff's deputies
Sheriff's deputies lead away protesters at Raytheon Missile Systems yesterday. Eight members of the group United Neighbors were arrested for trespassing at the facility. To demonstrate its disagreement with United States policy in Iraq, the group said it wanted to verify that no weapons of mass destruction existed there.
Eight protesters refused to go, insisting they wanted to inspect the factory. They were immediately arrested, given citations for second-degree criminal trespass, placed in a van, driven off Raytheon's property and released.
"It's actually the least serious criminal charge you can be charged with," said Tom Bailey, a Sheriff's Department spokesman.
The other 40 or so members of United Neighbors left without incident.
"The police behaved very honorably," said William Moeller, a Tucson carpenter who was among those charged. "They did stop us from inspecting the facility."
Moeller said that if allowed into the plant, the group was prepared to take photographs of missile production and search documents and send that information to the United Nations.
"Frankly, we didn't think we would get in," he said, "but we were prepared to do that if we had been allowed."
Moeller supports the U.N. inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he said it is hypocritical of the United States "to demand others stop producing weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. is the biggest producer of such weapons in the world."
Sara Hammond, a Raytheon spokeswoman, said the company's plant is "a secure facility" and that the only people allowed in are "employees, contractors and others who have business here."
Hammond said Raytheon does not produce weapons of mass destruction. "Our weapons are tactical and precision guided," she said.
THOSE ARRESTED:
Eight Tucsonans were arrested in an anti-war protest at Raytheon Missile Systems yesterday and charged with second-degree criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
Arrested and released by the Pima County Sheriff's Department were Keith McHenry, 45; Dwight Metzger, 37; Gretchen Nielsen, 70; and Patricia Birnie, 73.
Also arrested were Betty Schroeder, 72; William Moeller, 49; Christopher Ford, 32; and Dalton McClelland, 72. They have initial appearances in Justice Court set for March 6 and 7.
[Great!] Photos by NORMA JEAN GARGASZ/Tucson Citizen: "U.N weapons inspector" Betty Schroeder (center) and other members of the peace group United Neighbors yesterday march to the Raytheon Missile Systems plant, south of Valencia Road off Old Nogales Highway. The group said it wanted to interview "scientists and inspect documents and production facilities for evidence of illegal weapons production" at Raytheon.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/local/images/2_14_03raytheon1.jpg
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/local/images/2_14_03raytheon2.jpg
-------
------- 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.