Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Nuclear war risk grows as states race to acquire bomb
Australia's first nuclear dump
Defence firms call on EU to close gap with America
Co. Pleads Guilty to Pakistan Exports
UN urges swift postwar Iraq environment probe
U.S. expands health screening of returning troops
After the battle, toxicity abounds
Iraq's cancer children overlooked in war
Chirac, Schroeder back Euro defense union
Report: India tests medium-range missile
India Tests Nuclear - Capable Prithvi Missile
Top Iraqi Prisoners Deny Saddam Had WMDs
Iraqi Scientist Says U.S. Unlikely to Find Biological Weapons
U.S. Accuses Iran of Cheating on Nuclear Arms Pact
North Korea said to offer to scrap nuclear program
N.Korea Says Talks Useless Without U.S. Concessions
China Puts North Korea Talks in Brighter Light
North Korea offers new peace deal
North Korea Said to Offer Small Nuclear Steps, at a Price
N. Korea offers to dismantle nukes
U.S. Rejects North Korea Proposal on Nuclear Weapons
NASA Chief Touts Nuclear - Powered Craft
U.S. Beefs Up Atomic Power Plant Security Rules
Fire Shuts Controversial N.Y. Nuke Plant
Two Entergy Nuclear Units Shut
KUCINICH ON MILITARY SPENDING:
MILITARY
Forces chief questioned war legality
Avoid war for two years, says defence chief
Plans to set up UK military base near Basra - Jane's
Trade Accords Become a U.S. Foreign Policy Tool
Blair fears new Cold War over EU rift with US
'Old Europe' leaders to meet
American troops shoot children in Iraqi demo
Top Iraqi prisoners all denying Saddam had weapons of mass destruction
Iraqis agree to form government within weeks
American Forces Reach Cease-Fire With Terror Group
When war seemed worthwhile
U.S. Considering 'Odious Debt' Doctrine for Iraq
Russia questions whether Iraq did have banned weapons
Palestinian Parliament Confirms Prime Minister
Helicopter Attack in Gaza Kills One
Administration hails confirmation of new Palestinian leadership
Landmines make spinsters of young Afghan girls
Central America seeks U.S. engagement
U.S. to Withdraw All Combat Forces From Saudi Arabia
Why the U.S. Is Pulling Out of Saudi Arabia
Chirac: U.N. Must OK NATO Peacekeeping
Pakistan Peace Call Said An 'Icebreaker'
Camp Delta at 'Gitmo,' Afghanistan worlds apart
3 teens detained at Guantanamo
PIP request Vieques be included in Federal Superfund
U.S. Navy finished letter for the Vieques land transfer
Russia, ex-Soviet republics set up rapid reaction force
Bigger US presence in Africa?
U.S. Military Plans New Bases in Eastern Europe
Missteps by Press Color Iraqi Perceptions
U.S. voices concern about Belgian law
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Bush Names Former CIA Official as New Homeland Security Adviser
Patriot Raid
Report: Fewer Wiretaps Sought in 2002
Court Says Legal Immigrants Can Be Held Without Bail
ENERGY AND OTHER
U.S. to propose international partnership to develop hydrogen energy
Energy Developments (ENE.AX) falls 11 percent
Winter Lettuce May Come With Rocket Fuel
California Lawmakers Move to Fight U.S. Pollution Rules
Bush Urges Passage of Bill to Provide $15 Billion for AIDS
ACTIVISTS
Small commemorations mark Chernobyl disaster
U.S. fires on Iraqi protesters
Annual G8 summit shaping up as megameeting
Demonstrators Take Their Principles on the Road
D.C. Council Probing Police Conduct in Protests
-------- NUCLEAR
Nuclear war risk grows as states race to acquire bomb
By Peter Popham
29 April 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=401443
A conference on nuclear non-proliferation began in Geneva yesterday, in the shadow of North Korea's departure from the global treaty and with the bleakest prospects for progress in the pact's 33-year history.
John Wolf, US Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Non-proliferation told a news conference on the first day of the meeting that Iran has "an alarming, clandestine programme" to get hold of nuclear technology. "Iran is going down the same path of denial and deception that handicapped international inspections in North Korea and Iraq," he said.
But disarmament experts said that American lack of commitment to non-proliferation was as damaging as the behaviour of the proliferators.
Representatives of 187 countries are attending the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is the second of three sessions that will be held before the Review Conference in 2005.
North Korea became the first state ever to defect from the process - Israel, India and Pakistan, all known nuclear states, have never been members - when it announced its departure in January. More defections are feared.
This was the Treaty that was supposed to lead to a non-nuclear world, but experts say the risks of proliferation are worse now than for 50 years. In the past two years the multilateral effort to contain and reduce the nuclear risk has unravelled. At the last NPT review conference in 2000 all member states signed a 13-point programme that included an undertaking by the five declared nuclear-weapon states to nuclear disarmament.
"That agreement is now gathering dust on some filing cabinet somewhere," said Dan Plesch, senior researcher at the Royal United Services Institute. "For the first time since the 1950s there isn't a global framework ... to get rid of nuclear weapons."
Pyongyang's off-the-record announcement last week that it already had the bomb was a further blow. "Everyone is at a loss as to how to move forward on North Korea," said Kathryn Crandall of the British American Security Information Council, a research organisation. It is expected that the meeting will try to agree on a statement - but given the low morale it is more likely to be an invitation to return to the fold than a blast of brimstone.
At least as damaging as North Korea's departure have been successive moves by Washington to distance itself from nuclear disarmament.
In the run-up to the Iraq war, the US President, George Bush, signed National Security Presidential Directive 17, which said: "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 ..."
This assertion, analysts say, undermined an important prop of the NPT process: the so-called "negative security assurances", initially made in 1978 and strengthened by the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 984 in 1995, not to use nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear weapon states.
The assurances were considered vital in discouraging states from developing their own nuclear weapons. Now people wonder if they are worth the paper it they are written on.
The popularising of the term Weapons of Mass Destructionhas blurred the formerly stark distinction between nuclear and other weapons, and has paved the way for this change, claims Ms Crandall. She said: "Such terminology reduces the understanding of the unparalleled destructive capacity of nuclear weapons compared to the less destructive effects of chemical and biological weapons."
More and more states are likely to buy the argument that the only way to be secure in a unipolar world is to go down the nuclear road - "to pre-empt pre-emption", one analyst said. "People look at the different ways that the 'Axis of Evil' states - Iraq and North Korea - have been treated and they draw their own conclusions."
"What other countries are going to sit around after dinner saying, if Pakistan's got the bomb why haven't we?" said Mr Plesch. On the list of those likely to be holding such conversations, he said, are Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey and perhaps pre-eminently Japan, North Korea's uneasy neighbour.
No long-term ill consequences threaten those that go down such a route. After India, then Pakistan, tested nuclear weapons in 1998, sanctions were clamped and both countries widely condemned. But all that changed after 11 September 2001, when the US needed Pakistan's co-operation.
Last week, America's outgoing Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, spoke of India as "a rising great power of the 21st century" and of how the US and India "have made enormous strides" in the past two years towards "forging concentrated strategic collaboration". "Two years ago, there were economic sanctions ... against India related to its 1998 nuclear tests," Blackwill said. "Today, those sanctions are long gone." India congratulates itself that its stock in the world is higher now than before it got the bomb.
"It's a double hit," said Mr Plesch. "A failure to disarm the world at the end of the Cold War. And now proliferating countries and the United States all deciding that they are not interested in this or other treaties any more ... the whole future of the treaty is up for grabs."
ATOMIC NATIONS
ISRAEL
Believed to have between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, but has never acknowledged them. Refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and does not allow United Nations weapons inspectors into the country. Has around 90 Jericho 1 surface-to-surface medium-range (311 miles) missiles, and Jericho 2 long-range (1,000 miles) missiles, and 100 aircraft that could deliver nuclear devices.
IRAN
Development of nuclear power facilities at Busheher using Russian expertise has stoked US fears that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite an agreement that spent fuel rods will be disposed of in Russia. Recent tests of a new generation of Shihab 3 medium-range rockets has added to US concerns, and a Shihab 4 rocket capable of reaching Western Europe is believed to be near to testing.
INDIA
In 1974, India exploded what the government described as a "peaceful nuclear device", and has expanded its capability ever since, bringing nuclear-capable Agni (Fire) II surface-to-surface long-range (1,242 miles) missiles into service last year. Also has short-range Agni I missiles, and 40 or more aircraft capable of delivering nuclear devices. Has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
PAKISTAN
When hundreds of thousands of Indian and Pakistani troops amassed on either side of the line of control in Kashmir last May, Pakistan test-fired Ghauri, Ghaznazi (Hatf 3) and the Abdali (Hatf 2) missiles to show it was ready and capable of using short and medium-range nuclear warheads. It also has 40 or so aircraft capable of delivering nuclear devices. Has not signed the non-proliferation treaty.
NORTH KOREA
Signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1985 and pulled out in January this year. This followed a US-led decision to halt oil shipments over Pyongyang's admission it was restarting its nuclear programme. Believed to have one or two nuclear weapons, and testing of the long-range Pekodosan 1 (formerly the Taepodong 1) missile continues. Has two or more aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
-------- australia
Australia's first nuclear dump - and it's welcomed by site's neighbours
Aborigines outraged but miners say yes, put it in our backyard
David Fickling in Andamooka
Tuesday April 29, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,12070,945331,00.html
The Australian government is completing its examination of two outback sites, 25 miles apart, for its first nuclear waste repository.
The news, released this week, has dismayed politicians, environmentalists and Aboriginal groups.
Oddly, however, the people of the South Australian opal mining settlement of Andamooka are ready to welcome it on a spot 12 miles out of town.
"It's not going to hurt anything," says Max Franklin, a 55-year-old retired miner. "Everybody talks about uranium, but I've worked underground.
"I worked [in the uranium mines] at Radium Hill. It didn't do me any harm."
"We should have it," says Bev Bagley, 57, enjoying a Sunday bush barbecue at Bill's Ettamogah pub.
"Everyone just thinks: 'Not in my backyard,' but if you've got to put it somewhere, this is a great backyard for it."
The government agrees. After more than a 10 years of deliberation it has decided on Andamooka and Arcoona, 37 miles to the south, as the prime candidates for the repository.
But the proposal has been vigorously opposed by a coalition of environmental, community and indigenous groups, local politicians, and even a uranium mining company.
Most of them are exercised by the feeling that South Australia is the Cinderella state, expected to shoulder the problems of the rest of the country.
"We're happy to deal with our own material, but we don't want to be the bunny again for everyone else's waste," the state's Labor premier, Mike Rann, says.
He has threatened to hold a referendum if Canberra tries to foist another dump on the state. "The [John] Howard government will not want to fly in the face of a vote of South Australians telling them where they can stick their nuclear waste dump," he says.
Little more than a well-appointed shanty-town scattered among the tailings from the opal mines, Andamooka has long attracted misfits and chancers who have little truck with the views of those they call do-gooders and greenies.
Their casual attitude towards a nuclear dump is perhaps not as surprising as it at first seems: the north of the state has had a long association with nuclear technology.
The British government carried out nine atom bomb tests at Maralinga and Emu Plains, to the north-west of Andamooka, between 1954 and 1957, and the world's biggest deposit of uranium ore lies less about 30 miles away at the Olympic Dam mine.
The mine produced nearly 5,000 tonnes of uranium oxide in 2000, but even its owners, the Western Mining Corporation, are opposed to siting the dump at Andamooka, on land it jointly owns.
"We already have to spend a lot of money on security because of protesters targeting the mine site," its spokesman Richard Yeeles says.
"We don't need to be dealing with the same problems somewhere else."
By international standards, Australia's nuclear industry is small. France generates more than three quarters of its energy by atomic power: Australia's only nuclear pile is at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney, which is used mostly to generate isotopes for x-ray machinery, sterilisation equipment and smoke alarms.
The government says there is 3,500 cubic metres of nuclear waste to dispose of, compared with 25,000 cubic metres of comparable waste produced by Britain or France in an average year.
Most of it will consist of low-level waste contaminated by contact with nuclear material: protective clothing, glassware, instruments and soil.
But if that has left some older Andamooka residents indifferent to the prospect of a waste dump, it has galvanised others into opposition to the site.
Irati Wanti, an anti-nuclear group set up by Aboriginal women affected by the Maralinga and Emu Plains tests, now dedicates most of its time and resources to fighting the repository plans.
Eileen Unkari Crombie, an Irati Wanti member and Aborigine elder who experienced the Maralinga tests, said: "We've got water and bush tucker and bush medicine out on the land. It would poison our country.
"We don't want this stuff: we had enough at Maralinga. Wherever they make the poison, they should keep it there. If they make this poison in Sydney [at Lucas Heights] they should keep it in their own communities."
In particular, environmental groups object to the government's decision to bury the waste in trenches up to 20m below the ground, saying that it will risk contaminating the groundwater in the great artesian basin, a vast water catchment covering 680,000 square miles.
But the government says the site was specifically chosen because of its low water table, high ground stability and scanty rainfall: 20cm (8 inches) a year.
A decision on which site to use is expected in a fortnight.
-------- business
Defence firms call on EU to close gap with America
David Gow
Tuesday April 29, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,945588,00.html
Europe's three leading defence contractors - BAE Systems, EADS and Thales - yesterday joined forces to demand increased EU military spending to close the technological gap with the US.
The British, French and German groups, responding to the political divisions unleashed by the war in Iraq which underlined America's military superiority, urged greater consolidation of Europe's defence industry in land and naval systems.
In an open letter to EU governments on the eve of today's "old" Europe defence summit in Brussels, their chief executives backed a drive for a European armaments and strategic research agency.
They called on governments, especially the Germans, to increase defence spending as the gap between European military procurement, now $40bn (£27.6bn), and that of the US, $125bn and rising, widens.
The chief executives said: "We need to address the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic in order for Europe to be seen as a credible player on the international stage and a reliable partner of the US."
But they courted controversy by demanding "protection" of Europe's defence technological and industrial base in future procurement decisions - on American lines.
Daniel Keohane, defence research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, said: "The European defence industry is facing a crisis, and both it and taxpayers need a more open market."
----
Co. Pleads Guilty to Pakistan Exports
April 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Illegal-Exports.html
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- An engineering company and its chief financial officer pleaded guilty Tuesday to illegally shipping equipment to Pakistan that U.S. officials feared could be used for nuclear devices.
OMEGA Engineering Inc. and chief financial officer Ralph Michel, 53, of Stamford, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Hartford to violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Export Administration Act.
OMEGA has agreed to pay a $313,000 fine to the U.S. government. Michel faces up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine when he is sentenced on July 16.
Michel did not immediately return calls left at his office and home Tuesday afternoon.
The U.S. attorney's office said the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1997 rejected Omega's request for an export license to ship $187,000 worth of technological equipment to Pakistan.
Authorities were concerned the equipment would be used in nuclear explosive devices or nuclear fuel activities, prosecutors said, but the company shipped them anyway.
In its license application OMEGA said the equipment, including various laboratory components, was destined for the National Development Centre, which prosecutors said was controlled by the Pakistani government. But an investigation was unable to determine the exact destination of the equipment, and regulators denied the export license.
Michel sought reconsideration, but officials again denied the license. He then arranged for shipment of the equipment to OMEGA's subsidiary in Germany for ultimate shipment to Pakistan, the U.S. attorney's office said. Federal investigators confirmed that the materials reached Pakistan in the fall of 1997, but it was not clear what happened to the equipment after that.
The Commerce Department and U.S. Customs officials were notified about the shipment by an anonymous letter sent immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The writer cited the attacks as the reason for notifying federal officials, prosecutors said.
-------- depleted uranium
UN urges swift postwar Iraq environment probe
Story by Jon Boyle
REUTERS FRANCE:
April 29, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20612/newsDate/29-Apr-2003/story.htm
PARIS - The United Nations must be allowed into Iraq right away to assess environmental threats posed by weapons packed with toxic chemicals or depleted uranium, a senior U.N. official said.
The health of Iraqis could be at risk from tank-busting shells containing depleted uranium used in the 1991 Gulf War and the war that toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, U.N. Environmental Programme (UNEP) head Klaus Toepfer said.
Chemical weapons used in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war may have poisoned farmland, he added.
A UNEP report said about 290 tonnes of depleted uranium arms were fired in the 1991 war and an unknown quantity in the war that began on March 20, threatening Iraq's water supply and creating potentially dangerous radioactive dust.
Previous UNEP studies have highlighted risk of depleted uranium - a toxic and weakly radioactive substance which can attack the kidneys if ingested or cause lung cancer if inhaled - finding its way into the water supply.
"The main signal of this study is that we have to go as soon as possible into the field," Toepfer told a news conference.
"There is a field mission ready to go as soon as we have the chance. We recommend a solid assessment," he said, citing the precedent of previous UNEP weapons-risk studies in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory.
Toepfer made the call after presenting the 98-page UNEP report on the issue to environment ministers from the Group of Eight countries - the world's traditional economic powers as well as Russia.
U.S. RESPONSE
UNEP's hopes of entering Iraq depend on the United States, which swiftly seized power in Iraq and has opposed any quick return of the U.N. arms inspectors whose pre-war work Washington considered ineffective.
Christine Todd Whitman, head of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency, did not attend the final joint press conference, saying she had to catch a plane home.
British Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said London welcomed the UNEP study but declined to comment further as she had only just seen the document. Britain sent some 40,000 troops to fight in Iraq.
Toepfer was keen to stress that the U.N. body, which gets a large share of its funding from the United States, did not have a political agenda and its main goal was humanitarian.
"Our group is absolutely unbiased we are going not with any political topic," he said. The possible dispatch of a UNEP team to Iraq would be raised at the United Nations during a meeting yesterday in New York.
"But our (U.S. and British) colleagues are very, very open towards our work. Needless to say we are trying to do what ever is possible to try and contact the coalition," Toepfer said.
As well as the effects of depleted uranium munitions, experts would study chemical and other hazardous waste, the torching of oil-filled trenches and the damage to sewage systems in the latest war.
UNEP teams would also investigate the impact of chemical weapons used during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s which Toepfer said could have "very severe repercussions for agriculture".
----
U.S. expands health screening of returning troops
By Will Dunham
29 Apr 2003
(Reuters)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29230734.htm
WASHINGTON, April 29 - U.S. troops serving in the Iraq war will be required to give a blood sample and complete a detailed medical questionnaire after coming home, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, in an acknowledgment that too little was done after the 1991 Gulf War to track the health of veterans.
Many veterans of the 1991 war suffered a variety of illnesses after returning home that have been labeled Gulf War Syndrome, with experts inside and outside the U.S. government struggling to produce an explanation. Some theories include exposure to chemical agents, tropical infections or stress.
Critics have argued that the lack of detailed medical information about the veterans contributed to the difficulty of solving the mystery.
"There were some things that were not done in 1991 that made it much more difficult to determine what an individual might or might not have been exposed to," said Barbara Goodno, an official with the Defense Department's Deployment Health Support Directorate.
"It's a fair assessment to say that when it comes to individual health records, that often there was important information that was missing. And that's one of the reasons that there has been a focus on improving medical record-keeping," Goodno added.
Faced with concern in Congress and among veterans' groups, the Pentagon said it was taking steps to improve its process for assessing the health of troops after their deployment.
Troops returning from the war will be required to give blood samples within 30 days of leaving the Gulf region, officials said. These can be compared to blood samples given by the troops before the war, they added.
Returning troops will meet with health care providers -- although not necessarily doctors -- and will complete an expanded, four-page questionnaire detailing any symptoms experienced during their deployment to the Gulf region, officials said.
It asks about possible exposure to chemical or biological weapons, pesticides, smoke, radiation, lasers, depleted uranium and other substances, as well as any nightmares or symptoms of depression. It also asks where troops served during the war.
A Pentagon statement said the changes will "better assist medical personnel in evaluating the health of returning service members."
James Turner, a Defense Department spokesman, said Pentagon officials "want to have a much better picture of what might have happened, health-wise" to troops in this war than in the 1991 war.
"We saw illness in veterans when they came back from the war. After all the research, we still today haven't seen any one cause or series of causes," Turner said. "It's not a single syndrome. We've seen illnesses, and our first priority is to treat those illnesses. And then we've gone out and learned some lessons, one of which is keeping better records."
----
After the battle, toxicity abounds
By THOMAS WITHINGTON
Special to Newsday,
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Opinion&oid=21772
Withington is an independent defense analyst based at King's College, London.
War is a dirty business, and if Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was a precedent, then the battlefields of Operation Iraqi Freedom could be strewn with environmental hazards.
During the previous Persian Gulf War, the skies of Kuwait were blackened by more than 600 oil-well fires started by Iraq. This time around, the Anglo-American coalition took no chances. US Special Forces secured the northern Iraqi oilfields around Kirkuk, and regular troops moved right into the southern fields.
These efforts were successful, and crude oil vandalism was averted. Yet other hazards might be waiting for the Iraqi population. "Smart" bombs might have mercifully rendered the World War I fields of twisted tree stumps and endless quagmires of the Somme an anachronism, but the high-tech designs of modern weapons bring their own hazards.
Depleted uranium, which hardens shells and armor, was used in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan and is highly controversial. Its high density allows it to burrow through tanks' armor, cooking their interiors and occupants -- "crispy critters" in soldier parlance.
Studies in America after the 1991 Gulf War show that when depleted uranium burns, as much as 20 percent of it is released into the atmosphere as radioactive particles. Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, although it is only 60 percent as radioactive as natural uranium.
Despite this, birth-defect rates for Iraqi children have soared since 1991, along with a 262-percent rise in leukemia and lymphoma. Meanwhile, reports in the United States and Britain talk of "Gulf War syndrome," a malady affecting some Desert Storm veterans.
Yet the jury is deadlocked over how deadly depleted uranium might be. The World Health Organization stated in January that "No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans (that are attributable to depleted uranium)." Some medical experts believe that the oil pollution following the 1991 war, together with malnutrition caused by years of sanctions and Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons could be a more likely cause.
But the WHO adds that: "Where justified and possible, cleanup operations in impact zones should be undertaken if there are substantial numbers of radioactive projectiles remaining."
During the offensive, US forces used several weapons systems, including A-10 warplanes and AH-64 helicopters, which use depleted uranium shells. Given the dispersal of the particles, cleanup efforts could be difficult and expensive. The price for cleaning the closed 500-acre Jefferson Proving Ground in Indiana -- a firing range that might contain one-fifth of the depleted uranium used in Desert Storm -- could be between $4 billion and $5 billion.
Other "war trash" might litter the battlefield. For example, cluster bombs -- also highly controversial -- were used by coalition forces. These weapons release "bomblets" in midair to destroy lightly armored vehicles and troops. Experience in Kosovo showed that not all of the bomblets explode, and many lie dormant until they are disturbed -- often by inquisitive children -- and explode. Nato believes that during the Kosovo conflict, 8 to 12 percent of the bomblets detonated well after being dropped, eventually killing or injuring more than 200 people after hostilities.
Fortunately, there are organizations that specialize in the dangerous work of destroying unexploded ordnance. But it is not just the cluster bombs or depleted uranium that could plague Basra or Baghdad. A report to Congress on Gulf War syndrome described the Desert Storm battlefield as: "not just a war zone: [but] a cesspool of toxic substances."
Patriot antiaircraft missiles use perchlorate as a fuel, which leaves hydrochloric acid in the exhaust. Crews have to wash down the missile launcher after use. Artillery pieces use ammonia, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen cyanide to fire their shells. Oxides of lead, sulphur and hydrogen sulphide can also waft around the battlefield. Once again, it is a matter of cleaning up the battlefields of toxic residues, so that areas used by civilians for farming and living can be made safe as soon as possible.
While the air might hang heavy with the scent of battle, it might also buzz with electronic radiation. As exalted by the pundits, modern weaponry is connected to a complex web of command-and-control electronics.
Antiaircraft radars use intense beams of radiation, while powerful radios connect troops and lasers "paint" targets. Design works to ensure that radiation does not leak out of equipment, although there are concerns that so-called radio-frequency leakage could cause long-term health damage.
One warning carried in a Jane's Information Group survey spoke of: "radiation which can heat the body internally causing damage to internal organs such as the liver and kidneys: literally cooking living human flesh." Fortunately, most of this radiation will disappear with the departure of coalition troops and their equipment.
These hazards leave troops with a stark choice: environmental preservation versus the need to destroy the enemy quickly and at little cost to friendly troops. Discussing the Kosovo conflict, one US military spokesman said: "[the military] do a risk-benefit analysis, and blowing holes in tanks wins." Yet the people of Iraq might also hope that despite this calculation, the coalition will keep their country tidy and take out the trash.
Please send your comments or feedback to newsfeedback@abs-cbn.com
--------
Iraq's cancer children overlooked in war
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Online, in Nasiriya
Tuesday, 29 April, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2982609.stm
With Iraq's hospitals in disarray, the long-term sick are being passed over in a frantic effort to treat emergency cases. For the thousands of young leukaemia victims, the outlook is bleaker than ever.
There are countless children ahead of Munther in the queue for medical help in Iraq.
The seven-year-old is not suffering from one of the conditions associated with the war, such as gastroenteritis, pneumonia or shrapnel wounds. He has acute lymphatic anaemia, also known as leukaemia.
It is a deadly disease - a cancer of the white blood cells - and if Munther is not treated he will die but the war has dealt a potentially fatal blow to the young boy, from Nasiriya, in southern Iraq.
Munther has been unable to travel the 230 miles to Baghdad for his monthly treatment session at a specialist cancer care hospital, where he receives chemotherapy drugs injected into the spine and intravenously.
Safety has been a concern for Munther's father, Yahia al-Abbas, who has always gone with his son on trips to the capital. While there is still lawlessness, Mr Abbas is reluctant to venture far from home, although he believes the security situation is starting to ease.
More critical is that the hospital in Baghdad which looks after Munther was pillaged by looters in the wake of the fighting and is today barely functioning. Also, supplies of some cancer-treatment drugs have run out in recent weeks as Iraqi border controls have tightened and distribution networks have seized up.
Munther's medicine dried up a week ago and no-one knows if, or when, new supplies will be available.
"I've been to the American [military] hospital in Nasiriya and the Red Cross for help but they only handle first aid and they can't do anything," says Mr Abbas.
"My son's in bad health at the moment. He has vomiting, fever, anaemia and a suppressed immunity.
"I'm praying that the Americans and British and other countries will help Iraq's sufferers of chronic disease. My worry is that my son could die because of what happened. Because of this, I see a dark future for my family."
It's a story that is being repeated across Iraq, as cancer sufferers and others who are critically ill and in need of regular treatment, are passed over in the post-war rush to treat medical emergencies. Mothers with drips for children Hospitals are directing resources at emergency cases
"People come up to me many times a day asking for cancer drugs," says Dr Mary McLoughlin, based in Nasiriya with the humanitarian agency Goal. "I'm aware that many of these people will die because the emphasis at the moment is on primary healthcare."
Leukaemia, which affects blood and bone marrow, used to be relatively rare in Iraq. According to the former health ministry, cases of the cancer increased fourfold after the first Gulf War and many have blamed the use of depleted uranium munitions used by the allied forces in that conflict.
Even before the war, cancer patients had to rely on black market supplies to bolster medicines available through the state.
After Munther was diagnosed with leukaemia 14 months ago, Mr Abbas started to secure some drugs through unofficial channels, mostly with lorry drivers going to Jordan or Syria.
At up to $100, the price was prohibitive for Mr Abbas, who used to earn $40 a month as a department head at Nasiriya's technical college, until the war started. He has not been paid in two months.
Family, friends and religious associates used to help out with the cost, and Munther always received the treatment he needed, says his father.
At Nasiriya's Women's and Paediatric hospital, which is functioning at quarter capacity after an artillery round hit a wing of the hospital, doctors feel powerless to help such cases.
Last week, when a six-year-old girl called Zahra was diagnosed with acute lympoblastic leukaemia at the hospital, Dr Nima Altemimi told her to go south, to Basra.
His reasoning - that by sending her to a bigger city, her case might come to the attention of the Kuwaiti government, which has airlifted a handful of severely sick children from Iraq.
"We can't treat these people in Iraq now. The specialist hospitals in Baghdad and Basra have been looted. We're doing all we can just to concentrate on infections and some curable diseases," says the hospital's Dr Abdul Ghaffar al-Shadood.
A few minutes later he finds another case. By now, the facts are all too familiar. Mustafa Arif Hameed, eight, was diagnosed last August with acute lymphocytic leukaemia. He had been making progress but has been brought to the hospital by his father because his medicine has run out.
"If the treatment is discontinued now," says Dr Shadood, "his improvement will be reversed."
-------- europe
Chirac, Schroeder back Euro defense union
4/29/2003
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-04-29-euro-defense_x.htm
BRUSSELS (AP) - The leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg - all critics of the U.S.-led war on Iraq - agreed Tuesday to beef up their military cooperation in an effort to make Europe's defense less reliant on the United States.
However, they insisted their plans were not aimed at weakening the Atlantic alliance and would instead strengthen NATO by sharpening Europe's military edge.
"With a strong European defense we contribute to a strong NATO," French President Jacques Chirac said after the meeting. "This is in the best interest of Europe. It's also clearly in the interest of the Atlantic alliance."
Britain, Spain, Italy and other European nations who supported the war in Iraq opposed the meeting, fearing it would aggravate the divisions the war opened within NATO and the European Union.
Seeking to ease their concerns, Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and Luxembourg Premier Jean-Claude Juncker issued a statement after their two-hour meeting stressing "the trans-Atlantic partnership remains an essential strategic priority for Europe."
However, their plans included setting up a military planning "nucleus" based in Brussels "for operational planning and command of EU-led operations without recourse to NATO assets."
NATO officials warned that could lead to a wasteful duplication of the work of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Belgium and erode alliance cohesion.
Chirac insisted there would be no unnecessary overlap. "We have not decided to create a European SHAPE," he told reporters. "This is not about duplicating SHAPE, but eliminating duplication by national headquarters."
Other proposals they agreed to:
- A rapid reaction unit based around an existing Franco-German brigade, with Belgian commandos and a Luxembourg reconnaissance team. The unit will integrate into NATO and EU response forces.
- A European command for strategic air transport, with shared planes to fly troops to trouble spots, plugging a gap in Europe's military capacity.
- A joint European unit to counter chemical, biological or nuclear threats.
- A disaster response system able to deploy civil and military assets within 24 hours.
- European military training centers.
- A procurement agency to coordinate arms purchases.
The plans will be presented to the 11 other EU nations at a meeting of foreign ministers this weekend in Greece, where criticism is likely.
"European security and defense policy cannot become an exclusive project," Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said Tuesday. Speaking to lawmakers in Madrid, she said any "adventure" that sought to build a defense policy outside the EU "would have no right to call itself European."
Analysts said the four country's strong commitment to NATO may encourage other EU nations to go along with the plans.
Germany's Schroeder said any of the 15 EU nations, or the 10 mostly eastern European countries due to join the bloc next year, would be able to sign up for a proposed European Security and Defense Union bound by a pledge of mutual assistance in the face of external threats.
France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg also said they would increase their military capabilities, although without making any specific spending commitments.
Apart from France, they are among those in NATO who spend the lowest proportion of national wealth on defense.
According to NATO data, France spent 2.5% of gross domestic product on the military last year above the European average of 1.9%. However Germany spent just 1.5%, Belgium 1.3% and Luxembourg 0.9%.
The United States spent 3% of GDP on defense in 2002, its $350 billion almost doubling the total spent by all 18 other alliance members.
-------- india / pakistan
Report: India tests medium-range missile
4/29/2003
(AP)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-04-29-india-missile-test_x.htm
NEW DELHI, India - India successfully tested its most sophisticated medium-range Prithvi missile in eastern India on Tuesday, Press Trust of India news agency said. It was the second test in the past month and part of what the Indian government says is a routine series of weapons testing. The Prithvi is capable of carrying a nuclear payload.
The test-firing occurred a day after the first substantive talk between leaders of India and Pakistan in almost two years.
Pakistani Prime Minstar Zafarullah Khan Jamali's call to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajapayee on Monday evening was called a critical "icebreaker" in the standoff between the South Asian nuclear rivals.
No further details were available on Tuesday's testing of the Prithvi missile, which has a range of 95 miles.
In March, India also test-fired the Prithvi, from its Chandipur testing range in the eastern state of Orissa.
Pakistan tested a similar missile the same day.
Each missile was capable of reaching cities in the other country.
----
India Tests Nuclear - Capable Prithvi Missile
April 29, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-southasia-missile.html
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India tested on Tuesday a nuclear-capable short-range missile able to hit targets in Pakistan, a day after it held its first high-level contact with Islamabad since last year's military standoff.
A defense ministry spokesman said the test of the 90-mile range surface-to-surface Prithvi missile was routine.
``It has already been inducted into the army. This was a user trial. There is nothing big about it,'' he told Reuters.
Pakistan responded calmly to the test, saying it had been informed in advance.
``This was simply a reconfirmation that missiles are now a reality in South Asia,'' a Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman said.
The firing of the Prithvi from a launch site in the Bay of Bengal came after Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and his Pakistani counterpart, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, discussed ways to improve relations in a telephone conversation on Monday night.
It was the first such high-level talks since the nuclear-armed neighbors came to the brink of war last year after India blamed Pakistan-based militants for a raid on its parliament in December 2001. Pakistan denied involvement.
Analysts say the Prithvi, which means earth in Hindi, is mainly intended to reach targets in Pakistan. A 150-mile version is also being developed.
Last month, India also test fired a Prithvi missile.
The move triggered a tit-for-tat reply by Pakistan, which tested its locally made surface-to-surface Abdalimissile with a range of 110 miles.
Those tests came a day after New Delhi accused Islamabad of stoking violence in disputed Indian Kashmir where 24 Hindus, including women and children, were shot dead by suspected Muslim rebels.
India announced in January it planned to test the Prithvi, along with a range of other missiles.
-------- inspections
Top Iraqi Prisoners Deny Saddam Had WMDs
April 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Weapons-Search.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- High-ranking Iraqi prisoners are uniformly denying Saddam Hussein's government had any weapons of mass destruction before the war, U.S. officials familiar with their interrogations said Tuesday.
The officials said they believe many of the prisoners are lying to protect themselves.
Still, the denials are hampering U.S. forces' search for evidence of alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in Iraq, as the prisoners are not providing locations or other details interrogators are seeking. Advertisement
By denying Iraq had weapons, the prisoners may be trying to distance themselves from Saddam's rule, one official said.
American officials stand by their belief that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons and the means to make more, although none have turned up since the war started on March 19.
The Bush administration has cited intelligence pointing to prohibited Iraqi weapons programs as a justification for war.
Officials now say the weapons are either well hidden or were destroyed in the run-up to the war. There is no firm evidence they were moved to other countries, they say.
Saddam's government denied having any unconventional weapons until the end, saying it had destroyed them years before.
Fears that Saddam's military would use chemical weapons on the battlefield went unrealized, and U.S. officials have not reported any evidence that his military units were equipped with those weapons.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, under questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, predicted prisoners would yet help U.S. forces find the alleged weapons.
``They will be found,'' he said.
Former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz is among the Iraqis in custody who says his government had no prohibited weapons, officials said. So is Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, Saddam's alleged point man on chemical and biological agents.
One unidentified scientist cooperating with American interrogators has contended the government destroyed its weapons in the run-up to the war. But his information has not been verified, officials said.
Around Iraq, American forces are finding suspicious chemicals and other possible signs of weapons programs, but nothing conclusive, officials said. So far, thorough testing has not verified any of the chemicals are weapons.
Other signs include burned documents and other evidence of an attempt to destroy evidence, officials said.
After coming up empty, military officials have largely abandoned earlier methods of searching only suspected weapons sites that were noted before the war. Now, defense officials say they are primarily going where Iraqis point them.
Spurning the proposed re-entry of U.N. weapons inspectors, the Bush administration is sending 1,000 experts to join the 200 already searching in Iraq for evidence of weapons programs.
U.S. Central Command, the military authority in Iraq, has confirmed 14 of its 55 most-wanted Iraqi leaders are in custody, including Aziz, al-Saadi and several other key officials, including several alleged weapons scientists.
The latest capture, which took place on Monday, was Amer Mohammed Rashid, Iraq's oil minister and a top missile expert.
Another recent catch, Farouk Hijazi, is an alleged link between the Iraqi government and al-Qaida. But he has denied reports that he traveled to Afghanistan in late 1998 and met with Osama bin Laden, officials familiar with his interrogation said.
Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Tunisia and a former senior official in Iraqi intelligence, acknowledged meeting with al-Qaida operatives in 1994 in Sudan, but said the Iraqi government established no ties with bin Laden's network.
Alleged Iraqi ties to terrorism was another of the Bush administration's justifications for the war.
U.S. forces near Baghdad have also captured an alleged midlevel operative working for Abu Musab Zarqawi, a senior associate of bin Laden, a U.S. counterterrorism official said Tuesday.
The at-large Zarqawi has been linked to the death of an American diplomat in Jordan last year. He was in Baghdad for medical treatment in 2002 and represents one of the Bush administration's links between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime.
--------
Iraqi Scientist Says U.S. Unlikely to Find Biological Weapons
April 29, 2003
From CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/international/middleeast/29CNN-GERM.html
Iraq's biological weapons program was shut down by economic sanctions in the 1990s and U.S. search teams are unlikely to find evidence of those efforts now, a leading program scientist said Monday.
The scientist, Nassir Hindawi, left Iraq's bio-weapons program in 1989, and one of his students -- Rihab Taha -- eventually became notorious as Iraq's leading biological weapons expert.
But Hindawi told CNN that Taha -- who was nicknamed "Dr. Germ" in the West -- didn't have the practical capability to advance the program.
Hindawi said economic sanctions imposed after the first Persian Gulf War effectively halted the program, and it probably could not have been reconstituted with whatever materials that remained from the previous years.
Before 1989, Iraqi researchers conducted experiments on animals with botulinum toxin, anthrax and gas gangrene, and managed to test weaponized forms of the toxins, Hindawi said.
The anthrax was developed as a liquid form, not a powder. Hindawi said he alone in Iraq had the knowledge to produce a powdered form of anthrax, but he never did it.
He said he did not believe in the program and therefore intentionally worked only at half his full potential. Scientists were coerced into working for the program, Hindawi said. If they refused, they risked harassment, loss of employment, and prison.
Hindawi's team originally tried to import special drying ovens to make powdered anthrax, but were told by manufacturers of the equipment that they would have to change the specific gravity of their material, and the team was apparently unsuccessful at doing that.
Hindawi said he kept another method for making powered anthrax -- one that does not require using dryers -- to himself.
He rejoined the biological weapons program in 1991 as the director of the Al-Hakam plant, which produced single-cell protein, according to the Iraqi government.
He said he was instructed to lie to United Nations weapons inspectors, who were then in Iraq to enforce terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.
The cease-fire required Iraq to give up its chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.
Hindawi said he was told to say the plant was used only for peaceful purposes, when he knew it was a so-called dual-use facility that been used for weapons research.
The inspectors were not fooled, he said. The plant, which Iraqi officials said was built to provide animal feed, was destroyed under inspectors' supervision in 1996.
The advanced development of the Iraqi program was exposed by the defection of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, to Jordan in 1995.
Though Kamal was nominally the director of the program, Hindawi called him an "idiot" who had only a limited understanding of science.
Hindawi was imprisoned in 1997 and 1998 by Saddam after he was accused of attempting to leave Iraq. At the time, he said, he was trying to go to Libya as a "steppingstone" to get to the United States, where he was educated, and where two of his sons live.
But he has surprisingly benign comments regarding Saddam, calling him "simple, generous, polite and respectful."
He said he met with the Iraqi leader after he left the biological weapons program and returned to a university job. He said Saddam held him by the shoulders and asked him if he was willing to be called back, if needed. Hindawi agreed.
-------- iran
U.S. Accuses Iran of Cheating on Nuclear Arms Pact
Mon April 28, 2003
(Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2643912
GENEVA - A senior U.S. official on Monday accused Iran -- already under pressure from Washington over events in Iraq -- of cheating on its obligations under a key global pact to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
John Wolf, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Non- Proliferation, said that Iran had an "alarming, clandestine program" to get hold of nuclear technology as part of an illegal weapons effort.
Despite saying it wants nuclear energy only to generate electricity, "Iran is going down the same path of denial and deception that handicapped international inspections in North Korea and Iraq," Wolf declared.
President Bush labeled the three nations members of an "axis of evil" in a landmark speech at the United Nations in New York in September last year, accusing them of aiding terrorism and trying to build nuclear weapons.
Wolf was speaking at the opening of a two-week gathering at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva to prepare for a 2005 conference on reviewing and updating the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"Iran provides perhaps the most fundamental challenge ever faced by the NPT," he declared.
Iran, one of 187 signatories of the treaty, insists that it is working on a legal program based on the peaceful use of nuclear energy for economic development, including mining its own uranium and building plant to enrich it for use in atomic reactors.
But Wolf said recent revelations by private groups and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, "raise profound doubts about Iran's intentions."
Comparing Iran to North Korea and Iraq, which both had international inspections, Wolf said the world had "already seen the pattern of cheat and retreat before -- of begrudging compromises on process but obstinacy on real disclosure."
Iraq, another signatory to the NPT, was also accused by the United States and Britain of developing a secret nuclear program, as well as chemical and biological weapons, before they invaded the country last month and ousted its rulers.
Searches by U.S. and British forces have so far failed to find evidence of such weaponry, though both governments insist they will do so eventually.
In recent days, U.S. officials have suggested that Shi'ite Muslim Iran has been interfering in Iraq by pushing for a political role for Iraq's Shi'ites -- charges Iran has denied.
Wolf said the problem with Iran was not a bilateral one with the United States, which has had no diplomatic relations with Tehran for more than two decades. "This is an issue between Iran and the rest of the world," he said.
Last week France, which opposed the war on Iraq, itself urged Iran to accept stricter international inspections of its nuclear program and open up more sites to the IAEA.
Tehran has yet to sign an IAEA agreement that would give inspectors virtually unlimited access to any site at any time, and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin urged Iran to sign this Additional Protocol during a visit last week.
-------- korea
North Korea said to offer to scrap nuclear program
29 April 2003
By Arshad Mohammed and Benjamin Kang Lim,
Reuters
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-04-29/s_4145.asp
WASHINGTON/BEIJING - The United States and China said Monday North Korea had offered to scrap its nuclear weapons and missile programs, but Washington said the reclusive communist state demanded big concessions in return.
Western diplomats who received a rare briefing by a Chinese Foreign Ministry official in Beijing said North Korea had offered to end its nuclear program and had also offered to suspend ballistic missile tests and stop missile exports.
"They did put forward a plan that would ultimately deal with their nuclear capability and their missile activities, but they of course expect something considerable in return," Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters in Washington when asked about the Beijing briefing. "We are studying that plan."
Neither Powell nor the diplomats in China spelled out what Pyongyang sought in return for its offer, but a senior U.S. official said it included economic exchanges, oil, energy and normal relations with the United States. "It basically listed everything they have ever asked for," said the U.S. official.
The Western diplomats quoted the Chinese official as saying North Korea had warned of "extraordinary measures" if the United States played its "usual tricks."
The offers were made during three-way talks in Beijing last week with the United States and China, at which U.S. sources last week said North Korea admitted that it already had nuclear weapons.
However, the Chinese official, the Foreign Ministry's top North Korea expert, painted a different picture of the talks.
One E.U. diplomat quoted the official as saying North Korean negotiators had told U.S. officials led by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly that nuclear inspectors would be allowed into their country if Washington dropped its hostile attitude. He was also quoted as saying that North Korea had retreated from its previous insistence on bilateral talks with the United States and told Kelly it had no preference for any particular format for negotiations.
The Western diplomats present at the briefing said they were told North Korean negotiator Li Gun did not make any threats about "selling, testing, or possessing nuclear weapons" during the formal sessions of the Beijing talks. But there was ample opportunity to do so privately, the diplomats said.
FURTHER DISCUSSION
"The North Koreans acknowledged a number of things that they were doing and, in effect, said these are now up for further discussion," Powell said Monday.
Friday U.S. officials had said North Korea had made proposals but suggested these largely repeated things Pyongyang had demanded in the past. The U.S. officials appeared skeptical of the proposals but said Washington would analyze them.
The North Koreans "talked at some points about giving up nuclear weapons, about doing that in return for extra deals that would not be acceptable," said one official.
This official said the proposals included demands for "everything the North Koreans ever wanted ... There was an element to the talks of attempts to threaten and intimidate and elements of wanting to buy a Rolex."
Powell described last week's talks as "quite useful," and he played down suggestions that North Korea had threatened to test nuclear weapons, saying they never used that exact word. "It was useful to get it all out on the table and see where we go from here," Powell said.
"They've never used the word 'testing.' You suggest that they threatened to test, but they never used the word 'test.' They said that it is a kind of capability that one can display in one way or another, and we are talking all of this (with) seriousness. And now that Assistant Secretary Kelly is back we will be spending quite a bit of time going over his notes and his impressions on what he heard," he said.
Powell thanked China for having been a "full participant" in last week's Beijing talks, a comment that appeared designed in part to play down comments by analysts suggesting that China would largely be a bystander.
Powell did not repeat the U.S. position ruling out offering North Korea inducements to give up its nuclear programs, which Washington fears could be used to threaten South Korea and the 37,000 U.S. troops based there as well as other nations in the region.
However, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher ruled out offering such carrots and said, "We've made clear we're not going to pay for elimination of nuclear weapons programs that never should have been there in the first place."
President Bush last week said North Korea was "back to the old blackmail game," and he and other U.S. officials stressed that the United States would not be threatened or intimidated by North Korea.
In other developments, U.S. officials said they were discussing the possibility of a three-way meeting among U.S., Japanese, and South Korean officials widely expected to focus on North Korea but that nothing was scheduled.
U.S. officials have said they pressed during last week's meetings for Japan and South Korea to be included in the talks on North Korea, a view echoed Monday by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi while on a visit to Spain.
"It is essential that South Korea and Japan should participate," he told a news conference in Madrid. "Both the United States and South Korea must act with caution. We want to act in collaboration with the countries involved. This is different from Iraq."
In Seoul, a South Korean pool report from Pyongyang said North Korea had told South Korea it would discuss its suspected nuclear weapons program only with the United States but was happy to talk about boosting North-South economic cooperation and staging festivals together.
(Additional reporting by Carol Giacomo in Washington and Martin Nesirky in Seoul)
----
N.Korea Says Talks Useless Without U.S. Concessions
Reuters
April 29, 2003
By Martin Nesirky and Arshad Mohammed
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20030429_32.html
SEOUL/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea said on Tuesday more U.S.-North Korea talks would be pointless if Washington insisted Pyongyang disarm and rejected the North's offer to scrap its atomic arms in return for concessions.
U.S. officials in Washington and Western diplomats in Beijing said on Monday North Korea had offered at talks in China last week to give up its nuclear weapons and missile exports but wanted a shopping list of concessions in return.
A senior U.S. official called those concessions unacceptable.
"We're not going to pay for elimination of nuclear weapons programs that never should have been there in the first place," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher in Washington.
South Korean financial markets interpreted the North Korean offer as a step forward. Shares ended up five percent. But, predictably, the U.S. response did not go down well in Pyongyang.
"It is quite obvious that as long as the U.S. maintains such a stand, the two sides will only waste time no matter how frequently they negotiate," said Minju Joson, a newspaper published by the North Korean cabinet.
North Korea's KCNA news agency went further, saying Washington's stance that it will not "reward" Pyongyang was a mark of ignorance among Bush administration policymakers.
"This cannot be construed otherwise than ridiculous jargons of political imbeciles," it said.
The State Department said on Monday North Korea told U.S. officials in Beijing during three days of talks last week, that included China, that Pyongyang had nuclear arms. North Korea has yet to repeat this publicly.
NORTH EXPECTS CONCESSIONS
Western diplomats briefed by a Chinese Foreign Ministry official in Beijing said North Korea had warned of "extraordinary measures" if the United States played its "usual tricks."
Asked about the briefing, Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "They did put forward a plan that would ultimately deal with their nuclear capability and their missile activities but they of course expect something considerable in return."
A senior U.S. official said the concessions included oil, energy, economic exchanges and normal relations.
South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan confirmed in parliament on Tuesday North Korea had offered to resolve the nuclear crisis on condition Washington guarantees the survival of Pyongyang's communist system. He did not comment on the offer.
Yoon and Unification Ministry officials were briefing foreign diplomats. They will be keen to gauge whether Seoul leans toward Beijing's assessment of the outcome or Washington's. China now faces its own dilemma -- whether to back long-time ally North Korea or the U.S. line on dismantling Pyongyang's arsenal.
South Korea has a high-stakes interest in a peaceful solution to the crisis as it borders the heavily armed communist North.
South Korean National Security Adviser Ra Jong-yil left for Washington on Tuesday to prepare for President Roh Moo-hyun's visit next month. Ra told reporters: "We clearly state we will not accept a nuclearized North Korea."
South and North Korea were holding a third day of talks in Pyongyang and still differed over whether to mention the crisis in a joint statement, pool media reports from Pyongyang said.
German activist Nobert Vollertsen, who worked as a doctor in the North before being expelled, said in an email food shortages were getting worse in North Korea. He said high-ranking party members were eager to defect. Vollertsen is well connected in the North but gave no sources for his information. (Additional reporting by Carol Giacomo in Washington, Benjamin Kang Lim in Beijing and Samuel Len and Song Jung-a in Seoul)
----
China Puts North Korea Talks in Brighter Light
Unusual Briefing Suggests Beijing Is Eager to Keep Talks Between Washington, Pyongyang on Track
By John Pomfret and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48359-2003Apr28?language=printer
BEIJING, April 28 -- After four days of negative commentary about talks here last week between North Korea, the United States and China, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official conducted an unusual briefing for 20 Western diplomats that left a far more positive picture of the meeting, diplomats said tonight.
The Chinese official suggested that North Korea offered last week to work out a deal with the United States that included dismantling its nuclear program if the United States would change its antagonistic attitude toward North Korea. North Korea also offered to suspend ballistic missile tests and halt missile exports, said the diplomats, who asked not to be identified.
While U.S. officials had previously disclosed the North Korea offer, they had characterized it in far more negative terms. According to U.S. officials, North Korea had said it would only give up its nuclear weapons and missiles after the United States fulfilled a long list of conditions, including full diplomatic relations with both the United States and Japan and completion of light-water nuclear reactors. As the United States met its obligations, North Korea offered only to announce its intention to give up its nuclear programs, officials said.
"It basically listed everything they have ever asked for," a senior State Department official said in Washington.
At the talks, U.S. officials have said, North Korea also asserted it possessed nuclear weapons and might conduct "a physical demonstration or transfer" the weapons. President Bush last week labeled the talks as "blackmail" and said he looked forward to hearing how the Chinese felt about being rebuffed by the North Koreans.
U.S. officials are now debating whether to proceed to another meeting with North Korea. But tonight's briefing suggested that China, demonstrating a newly assertive role in the issue, was eager to keep discussions between North Korea and the United States on track.
"The Chinese seemed to think this was a significant offer," said one diplomat who said he agreed with Beijing's views. "The briefing certainly gave us the impression that North Korea came to the table with a pretty significant proposal."
Diplomats said that while the briefing was not rare, it was unusual for China to give such a detailed account of the talks to almost two dozen diplomats from the European Union. One diplomat speculated that China gave such a detailed briefing to counter reports in the United States that the talks, the first between North Korea and the United States in six months, had been a failure.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, asked about the Chinese briefing in Washington, acknowledged that North Korea had made a proposal. "The North Koreans acknowledged a number of things that they were doing and, in effect, said these are now up for further discussion," Powell told reporters. "They did put forward a plan that would ultimately deal with their nuclear capability and their missile activities, but they, of course, expect something considerable in return."
U.S. officials said that while the North Korean proposal might offer some basis for further discussion, it was unacceptable in its current form. "We've made clear we're not going to pay for elimination of the nuclear weapons programs that never should have begun in the first place," State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said. "That remains our policy, a very clear policy that we've taken."
The North Koreans also told U.S. negotiators that nuclear inspectors would be allowed back into their country if the Bush administration -- which has labeled North Korea part of the "axis of evil" -- changed its "attitude" toward North Korea, one diplomat said. In exchange, diplomats said, North Korea was seeking a security assurance from the United States, moves toward diplomatic recognition and money.
The diplomats said North Korea believes it should be compensated for delay in the completion of light-water reactors under a 1994 pact in which Pyongyang agreed to freeze its nuclear program.
Last week, U.S. officials leaked word that Li Gun, the senior North Korean at the talks, claimed North Korea has a nuclear arsenal.
But the Western diplomats today quoted the Chinese Foreign Ministry official as saying that publicly Li made no such statements during talks with Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly.
Last week, U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, reported that Li had made the remarks when he pulled Kelly aside during a break. At the time, Boucher, the State Department spokesman, refused to confirm the reports.
But today, after the Chinese remarks to the diplomats were publicized by news services, Boucher asserted that at the talks North Korea claimed to possess nuclear weapons. "They said they had nuclear weapons," Boucher said. "They said they were reprocessing [spent fuel rods]."
The diplomats quoted the Chinese Foreign Ministry official as saying North Korea backed down from its previous insistence on bilateral talks with the United States and told Kelly it had no preference for any particular format for negotiations. But, according to the Reuters news agency, which also cited diplomats, North Korea warned of extraordinary measures if the United States played its "usual tricks."
Kessler reported from Washington. Correspondent Doug Struck in Tokyo contributed to this report.
----
North Korea offers new peace deal
US to study nuclear weapons proposal
Julian Borger in Washington and Jonathan Watts in Tokyo
Tuesday April 29, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,945543,00.html
North Korea has offered to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, stop missile exports and readmit foreign inspectors in return for a US pledge not to attack, it was revealed last night.
The offer, announced yesterday by the Chinese foreign ministry, represents the first clear sign since the Iraq war that Pyongyang could be interested in negotiating away its nuclear ambitions.
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said America was examining the proposals, which were apparently made at a Chinese-brokered meeting in Beijing last week. But US officials cautioned against over-optimism, saying that North Korea had a history of sending out confusing signals, mixing conciliation with apocalyptic threats.
In the aftermath of the war in Iraq there has been intense speculation that the Bush administration would now turn to North Korea.
The Pyongyang government had earlier declared that the Iraq war demonstrated the need for a powerful deterrent to American aggression. It also told the US delegation at the Beijing meeting that it already had nuclear warheads and was ready to prove it, which was widely interpreted as a possible threat to test its bombs.
However, the latest details of that meeting show that North Korea also offered significant concessions. Alongside its longstanding offer to halt its nuclear programme in return for a non-aggression pact, it promised to stop exporting missiles and allow nuclear inspectors into the country.
Pyongyang expelled inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency late last year, but it was not immediately clear whether it was prepared to readmit IAEA staff.
The offer that it would not sell missiles to any other country addresses one of the key anxieties of the Bush administration: that North Korea, as a so-called "rogue state" and member of the "axis of evil", would not only become a nuclear threat in its own right but would act as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.
It is known that Pyongyang has traded ballistic missile technology with Pakistan in return for nuclear secrets.
A European diplomat also said yesterday that North Korea is prepared to consider multilateral talks with its neighbours, as demanded by the US, dropping an earlier insistence on two-way talks with Washington.
"The initial reports from the talks focused on the negative," said Eric Heginbotham, the director of the Korea task force at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "This news at least indicates the North may still be interested in an agreement. Of course it's hard to tell if they are serious or not."
The Chinese foreign ministry revealed the North Korean offer in a briefing for western diplomats in Beijing, possibly in an effort to counter the downbeat assessment of last week's trilateral talks by the world's press.
In response, Mr Powell told reporters: "The North Koreans acknowledged a number of things that they were doing and, in effect, said these are now up for further discussion.
"They did put forward a plan that would ultimately deal with their nuclear capability and their missile activities," the secretary of state added. "But they, of course, expect something considerable in return."
Most importantly, the North Korean offer is contingent on the US signing a formal non-aggression treaty, something the Bush administration has so far been reluctant to do, arguing that Pyongyang broke a 1994 agreement, and that the US Congress would not ratify a formal pact. However, US officials have said that other forms of assurance could be negotiated.
"The North Koreans have said a lot of contradictory things in the past. We are going to have to look at what they have said this time and determine what it means," a US official said, adding that the bottom line in Washington's position remains unaltered.
"They need to verifiably and irreversibly end their nuclear weapons programme. That's the outcome we're seeking."
During the formal periods of discussion last week, Chinese representatives said North Korea had made no admission of its nuclear weapons programme, though they conceded there were plenty of opportunities for off-the-record talks between the two sides.
Although still unconfirmed, last week's reports that the North has declared itself a member of the nuclear club caused shockwaves in Asia and increased the likelihood of a reprimand and sanctions by the UN security council.
White House officials have been pushing for such tough measures since North Korea kicked out the IAEA inspectors. Pyongyang says it would treat sanctions as an act of war - a threat China, South Korea, Japan and Russia have taken seriously enough to try to block US moves to increase pressure on the North.
China's disclosure of Pyongyang's compromise offer could be aimed at forestalling a fresh attempt by the US to tighten the economic blockade.
Pyongyang is concerned that Washington's real intention is regime change. Without a non-aggression treaty guaranteeing the country's sovereignty, it fears an inspection process could increase its vulnerability, as was the case in Iraq.
----
DIPLOMACY - North Korea Said to Offer Small Nuclear Steps, at a Price
April 29, 2003
The New York Times
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/international/worldspecial/29KORE.html
WASHINGTON, April 28 - Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that North Korea had put forward a plan in its meeting with American and Chinese envoys last week under which it would "deal with" its nuclear programs but would "expect something considerable in return."
Speaking to reporters at the State Department, Mr. Powell seemed to be softening the administration's tough talk over North Korea, saying that the North Korean offer would be discussed with other Asian nations and could possibly lead to further negotiations to defuse the crisis.
Mr. Powell declined to provide other details of North Korea's offer, but other administration officials said North Korea had asked for a step-by-step package under which it would receive oil shipments, food aid, security guarantees, energy assistance, economic benefits and construction of a light-water nuclear reactor. In return, they said, North Korea had offered to take very small steps.
The officials said that under its proposal North Korea would dismantle its nuclear weapons only at the end of the process. Moreover, they said, it was not clear that this would affect both its plutonium weapons program, frozen in 1994, and the highly enriched uranium program disclosed last year.
American officials said that North Korea's offer was seen throughout the Bush administration as almost absurdly unacceptable. They said this was the view of both hard-liners, who oppose negotiations with North Korea, and moderates, who favor continued diplomatic contact.
To underscore that view, administration officials described themselves last Thursday as angry and disappointed after it was disclosed that North Korea acknowledged in Beijing earlier in the week that it possessed nuclear weapons and had begun making bomb-grade plutonium.
President Bush, reflecting his own tough view, accused North Korea of going "back to the old blackmail game."
Today the tone was somewhat different. Asian diplomats and American officials said that after the disclosures last week, Mr. Powell was seeking today to present a more positive face because of pressure from China, South Korea and Japan, all of which favor further dialogue with North Korea.
Responding to reporters' questions after a meeting with the Jordanian foreign minister, Mr. Powell said the Beijing session actually "turned out to be quite useful," adding that North Korea "acknowledged a number of things that they were doing and, in effect, said these are now up for further discussion."
The changed tone also reflected the continuing divisions in the administration over how to handle North Korea, with hard-liners favoring more economic, diplomatic and possibly military pressure, and moderates advocating a continuation of diplomatic contacts and a possible negotiated solution.
On the need for future talks, however, a self-described hard-liner said today that all sides actually favored continued efforts to talk, at least for now - if only because they felt that if North Korea continued its intransigence, a tougher approach would be more acceptable down the road.
"There are some people in this administration who argue that there's little point in talking to the North Koreans because they are always going to cheat," one official said. But he added that North Korea's latest proposal was such a "nonstarter" that it was worth pursuing in order to show the futility of negotiating with the North.
Another official said that since the Beijing meeting last week there had been nothing but negative publicity about how unacceptable the North's proposals were. Disclosures that North Korea had effectively ended the three-part discussions on the first day fed an atmosphere of disappointment and dismay.
Mr. Powell, this official said, sought to balance the reporting of the meeting by suggesting that the situation was dire but not hopeless. An Asian diplomat familiar with the administration's thinking echoed that view.
"Like any meeting, the Beijing meeting contained good news and bad news," the Asian official said. "The bad news is that they said they had nuclear weapons. But the good news is that they came with their own bold approach, so to speak, and we didn't have enough time to clarify what they meant."
He added that the "bad news" was disclosed last week, whereas the details of the North Korean proposals had only circulated over the weekend, with the return of James A. Kelly, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs, who had been the senior American envoy to meet with the North.
An administration official added, "There was so much bad news in the last five days that it was decided to tone things down a little."
Administration officials said all three negotiating partners - China, Japan and South Korea - were disappointed by North Korea's response last week. But all three favored a more conciliatory tone and continued discussions to get more details of North Korea's thinking.
The next step in the process, they said, would be for more discussions among the three, possibly meeting together as Secretary Powell did with his Asian counterparts in Mexico last year.
China, several officials said, was embarrassed by the failure of the Beijing meeting, since Chinese leaders had worked hard to set it up and had high hopes. On the other hand, China was described today as still eager to keep the conversation going.
President Bush is known to be highly skeptical of negotiating with North Korea. He has said he loathes its leader, Kim Jong Il, a mercurial and reclusive dictator of a country that is enduring widespread deprivation and starvation. But American officials say that after the Iraq war, they are reluctant to embark on any more confrontations, at least for a while.
Hard-liners, for now, are not pressing for penalties against North Korea, though some in the Pentagon had sought to discourage the last round of talks in Beijing - or, alternatively, to select the envoys or control the agenda.
Should diplomacy fail, Defense Department officials are ready to try to persuade Mr. Bush to seek economic penalties against the North, but Washington has little leverage. It would have to persuade Japan, China and South Korea to cut their considerable ties to the North, which is likely to be an uphill battle by all accounts.
----
N. Korea offers to dismantle nukes
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 29, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030429-562595.htm
North Korea has offered to dismantle its nuclear weapons and missile programs in exchange for "considerable" concessions from the United States, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said later that the North Koreans laid out a long list of demands during talks last week in Beijing, where Pyongyang acknowledged for the first time that it had nuclear weapons. These were the first direct talks between the United States and North Korea in six months.
The demands list, which a senior State Department official called so extensive as to defy a "concise description," included resumption of free heavy-fuel oil shipments, security guarantees, and the normalization of relations with the United States.
"The North Koreans acknowledged a number of things that they were doing and, in effect, said these are now up for further discussion," Mr. Powell told reporters after a meeting with visiting Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Jamil Al-Muasher.
"They did put forward a plan that would ultimately deal with their nuclear capability and their missile activities," the secretary said. "But they, of course, expect something considerable in return."
He said the Bush administration was "studying" the North's proposal and "examining it with our friends and allies," including South Korea, Japan, Russia and Australia.
"It was useful to get it all out on the table and see where we go from here," he said of the April 23-25 talks in Beijing.
Today, North Korea said future nuclear talks with the United States would be useless if Washington sticks to its demand that Pyongyang disarm, without considering the North's offer to scrap its atomic arms for concessions.
"If the U.S. stance is left as it is, future talks would be a waste of time and it is as clear as fire that such talks would offer no help in resolving the nuclear problem," said Minju Joson, a newspaper published by the North Korean Cabinet.
Yesterday, Mr. Powell dismissed as "nonsense" reports that North Korea had informed the State Department on March 31 that it had begun reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods and that the rest of the Bush administration was kept in the dark about it. "Our intelligence community still cannot give us any validation or confirmation of what North Korea has said at various times and in various places with respect to reprocessing," he said.
"What we were told on the 31st was shared within the administration. I'm not sure if everybody in the administration got it, but it isn't relevant because it didn't seem to be anything that was terribly new or different from what we had been told on a regular basis over the last several months. It was not, in our judgment, anything that was particularly new or newsworthy."
On April 18, North Korea issued a statement saying: "As we have already declared, we are successfully reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at the final phase."
The statement, which prompted some Bush administration officials to call for canceling the Beijing talks, led to confusion in Washington, where intelligence sources said there was no indication that reprocessing had actually begun.
The State Department blamed the confusion on a bad translation from Korean to English by the North's Korean Central News Agency. According to the department, the statement said Pyongyang was in the final stages of preparing to start reprocessing.
Three days later, the KCNA published a different and ungrammatical translation, saying: "As we have already declared, we are successfully going forward to reprocess work more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at the final phase."
Pyongyang's admission that it has nuclear weapons came on the first day of the Beijing talks. Some U.S. officials say the North fears that the quick military victory in Iraq might embolden Washington to use force against Pyongyang. North Korea, with Iran and prewar Iraq, constitute President Bush's "axis of evil."
U.S. intelligence agencies estimated years ago that North Korea had one or two nuclear weapons. But Pyongyang's admission is significant in terms of how the rest of the world views the North Korean threat, diplomats and arms-control analysts said.
The United States wanted South Korea and Japan to participate in the meetings with North Korea, but Pyongyang insisted on direct dialogue with Washington. The three-way meeting hosted by China was a compromise.
The head of the U.S. delegation, James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, is the highest-ranking Bush administration official to visit Pyongyang. During a trip there in early October, he confronted the North with intelligence that it had developed a secret uranium-enrichment program, violating a 1994 nuclear deal known as the Agreed Framework.
The North, which then reportedly admitted to having the program, reopened its nuclear complex in December and expelled weapons inspectors from the United Nations. In January, it withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
----
U.S. Rejects North Korea Proposal on Nuclear Weapons
April 29, 2003
The New York Times
By JOEL BRINKLEY
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/international/asia/29CND-KOREA.html
WASHINGTON, April 29 - The White House today rejected North Korea's proposal to abandon its nuclear arms program and to stop selling its ballistic missiles, if the United offered aid and recognition to Pyongyang.
``We will not provide them with inducements for doing what they always said they were going to do,'' said the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer. ``What we seek is North Korea's irrevocable and verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear weapons program.''
Administration officials said that during talks in Beijing last week North Korea had asked for a step-by-step package under which it would receive oil shipments, food aid, security guarantees, energy assistance, and economic benefits, among other requests. In return, they said, North Korea had offered to dismantle its nuclear weapons, but only at the end of the process.
Separately, North Korea and South Korea issued a joint statement today in which they agreed to hold more bilateral talks in July. The two countries did not say what would be on the agenda for the cabinet-level talks in Seoul, but the joint statement did say ``the two Koreas will discuss each other's position earnestly over the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and continue to cooperate in resolving the nuclear standoff peacefully through a dialogue,'' the joint statement said.
After offering more measured remarks on Monday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also criticized North Korea today, saying that Pyongyang's proposed deal ``is not going to take us in the right direction.''
Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Powell added: ``We will not be intimidated by their claims and threats. As the president has said, we will not be blackmailed.''
Last week, President Bush, accused North Korea of going ``back to the old blackmail game.''
Administration officials said North Korea's offer was seen by practically everyone in the Bush administration as almost wholly unacceptable. They said this was the view of both hard-liners, who oppose negotiations with North Korea, and moderates, who favor continued diplomatic contact. Still, Fleischer said the United States will continue talking to North Korea.
``This is the diplomatic process,'' he said, ``and the diplomatic process is a long one. The president is going to pursue it at length. And so if it takes time, it will take time.'' Senior administration officials are planning to meet early next week to decide how to proceed.
North Korea acknowledged last October that it had restarted its nuclear weapons program. Pyongyang demanded bilateral negotiations with the United States. The Bush administration insisted that any talks ought to include other countries, and North Korea finally agreed to multi-lateral talks earlier this month shortly after the United States-led military victory in Iraq.
The talks last week, where James A. Kelly, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs, represented the United States, collapsed after North Korea told Kelly that it already had nuclear weapons.
Mr. Bush called the leaders of both Japan and South Korea this morning to tell them the United States would continue pushing for an ``irreversible and verifiable'' end to north Korea's nuclear weapons program, the White House said.
-------- space
NASA Chief Touts Nuclear - Powered Craft
April 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Shuttle-OKeefe.html
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- The ability to explore planets beyond our solar system will require the use of space vehicles with nuclear-powered propulsion systems, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said Tuesday.
Using nuclear power on future spacecraft could cut the time it takes to reach the edge of our solar system from 15 years to five years, O'Keefe told several hundred people attending Space Congress, an annual space industry conference in Cape Canaveral.
NASA's past efforts to use nuclear power in space has met opposition from environmentalists. In 1997, hundreds of people protested the launching of the Cassini interplanetary robot craft, which was powered by plutonium.
Developing the new propulsion system has been allotted $3 billion over five years in NASA's budget and given the name Project Prometheus. Besides making space trips speedier, it would also ``enhance the ability of our robotic spacecraft to perform scientific investigations of planets,'' O'Keefe said.
If used on manned spacecraft, nuclear propulsion would mean astronauts spend less time in space, reducing the amount of radiation exposure and bone and muscle loss they experience, he said.
``We could do these kinds of things safely,'' O'Keefe added.
Although he doesn't know details about Project Prometheus, Frank Jackalone, Florida staff director of the Sierra Club, said NASA has shown that the space program isn't risk-free.
Jackalone's group opposed the Cassini launch. ``There is no way NASA can say for certain that something is 100 percent safe.''
NASA has previously used nuclear energy to power spacecraft but never in a propulsion system. Currently, space ships are launched with rocket power, but once in space they rely on momentum to carry them to their goal, since they cannot carry enough heavy rocket fuel to continue accelerating through space.
Development of nuclear fusion or fission engines would enable a space vehicle to continue increasing its speed once away from Earth, shortening the time needed to reach distant planets. These engines also could provide electrical power instead of relying on solar cells or batteries, making it possible to operate more scientific instruments.
During his speech to the Space Congress, O'Keefe reiterated his goal to have space shuttles flying by the end of the year.
www.nasa.gov
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
U.S. Beefs Up Atomic Power Plant Security Rules
April 29, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-utilities-security.html
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday ordered atomic power plant operators to further tighten security at the nation's 103 nuclear reactors to better thwart attacks or sabotage. The changes are part of the NRC's effort to beef up security at nuclear reactors in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.
The NRC said it had approved three security orders, including changes in the so-called design basis threat that private security forces protecting the power plants must be prepared to meet.
Details of the changes will not be made public, the NRC said.
The other two orders specify work schedules, training and qualifications required of plant security guards who are hired by utilities to protect their facilities.
The orders are effective immediately, the NRC said.
Some U.S. lawmakers and activist groups are concerned that a Sept. 11-type attack against a nuclear plant could penetrate the reactor or pool where used fuel is stored and spread deadly radioactive materials for miles.
``With the completion of these complementary orders, the public should be reassured that the nation's nuclear power plants are well-secured against potential threats,'' said NRC Chairman Nils Diaz in a statement.
The commission intends to continue to work closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies, as well and state and local law enforcement and emergency planning officials to ensure an integrated approach to the security of nuclear plants, Diaz said.
Since the attacks, the nuclear power industry has worked to enhance security in several ways, among them more employee training, hiring more guards, increasing security coordination with law enforcement agencies, extending security boundaries and adding more barriers around the plants.
In January, the NRC ordered plant operators to tighten security screening of anyone trying to get access to the plants, including new employees and contractors.
-------- new york
Fire Shuts Controversial N.Y. Nuke Plant
April 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Plant-Fire.html
BUCHANAN, N.Y. (AP) -- A fire early Tuesday damaged equipment in a non-nuclear section of the Indian Point 3 power plant and forced the shutdown of the reactor, a spokesman said.
The cause was unknown but there were no signs of sabotage or terrorist acts, and no radioactive material was released, said Jim Steets of Entergy Corp., the plant's owner.
The other plant on the site, Indian Point 2, was already out of service, having shut down automatically because of an unrelated electrical outage Monday evening. The twin shutdowns completely remove Indian Point, the region's top producer of electrical energy, from the power grid.
Since the terror attacks of 2001, many people living nearby have focused their fears on the Indian Point complex, 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan, as a possible target. Critics who want the two plants shut down say the densely populated area could not be protected if radiation were released in a major accident or attack.
The fire was classified as an ``unusual event,'' the lowest of four levels of alert on a scale used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Indian Point 3 was shut down within minutes after the fire was discovered in the insulation around piping for the main steam-powered turbine around 3 a.m. The fire was extinguished within the hour and no one was injured.
Damage was visible on part of the turbine as well as the insulation, Steets said. He did not know how long it would take for the plant to resume operations.
``We're not going to bring it back until we understand the cause of the fire and check out all the equipment,'' he said.
Indian Point 2 shut down ``as it's designed to do'' when the electrical outage occurred outside the plant at about 5 p.m. Monday, Steets said. Con Edison said the power failure, which lasted several minutes and affected 51,000 customers, happened when feeder cables malfunctioned.
On the Net:
Entergy Corp: http://www.entergy.com
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov
--------
Two Entergy Nuclear Units Shut
April 29, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-utilities-entergy-indianpoint.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Both units at Entergy Nuclear's 1,978 megawatt (MW) Indian Point nuclear plant in New York were shut by early Tuesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in its power reactor status report.
The company told the NRC in an events report the 951 MW unit 2 automatically tripped ``possibly due to the loss of output breakers'' at about 4:45 p.m. EDT time on Monday, while the company manually tripped the 1,027 MW unit 3 due to a fire in the high pressure turbine at about 3:13 a.m. Tuesday morning. Advertisement
The company said the fire in unit 3 was at a height 53 feet in the turbine building and lasted about 47 minutes. No additional information was available on what damage the fire might have caused.
Unit 2 was operating at full power when it tripped and unit 3 was operating at 60 percent of capacity when it was shut.
The Indian Point station is located 24 miles north of New York City.
-------- us politics
KUCINICH ON MILITARY SPENDING:
"They're Both Wrong" (Please circulate)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003
From: Kucinich Campaign <info@kucinich.us>
FROM THE KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN
A debate recently erupted between two rival Democratic campaigns, with one candidate quoted as saying "We won't always have the strongest military," and a rival campaign attacking the candidate for implying he'd compromise "America's military supremacy."
In response, presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich [http://kucinich.us], the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform subcommittee that monitors the Pentagon, issued the following statement:
"They're both wrong. The U.S. military is the strongest in the world by far, and will remain so. But Democrats cannot lead the nation without being strong enough to confront the bloat and waste in the Pentagon budget."
"Our military budget is almost as big as that of all other countries combined. While we have unchallenged superiority in military strength, we also have more people without healthcare than any other advanced industrial country -- and Democrats must be bold enough to say the two issues are linked."
"I don't agree with other Democrats that we can continue to increase military spending, and still deliver on our domestic agenda for middle class and working Americans. We can't. That's voodoo budgeting.
"In this campaign, I plan to make a major issue of hometown security -- healthcare, jobs and education for all -- and misspent Pentagon dollars, even as other Democratic candidates join President Bush in pressing for still more exorbitant military budgets."
-------- MILITARY
-------- britain
Forces chief questioned war legality
By Michael Smith
29/04/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/29/nirq29.xml/
The head of the Armed Forces said yesterday that he had at first questioned the legality of invading Iraq before being satisfied by the Attorney General's ruling that the war would be legal.
Adml Sir Michael Boyce
Adml Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, counselled against a rush to join the US in any further wars against rogue nations, saying that the Armed Forces were too over-stretched to do so for up to a year.
He also suggested that a victory parade for returning troops might "seem arrogant or patronising about the Iraqi people".
Speaking on his retirement, he said it would have been irresponsible if he had not questioned the war's legality.
"But I was satisfied before we went in," he said, referring to the Attorney General's ruling. "I could say to our people, 'Yes,you have a legal basis for what you are going to do.' "
Questioning whether there should be a victory parade, he said the "excellence" of the forces should be recognised, but the war had been different from the 1991 Gulf war and the Falklands conflict when victory parades were held.
"In 1991 we were liberating Kuwait. In the Falklands we relieved the Falkland islanders. I would have some difficulty saying the same thing for Iraq. If you are an Iraqi person, is that how you see it? We do not want to seem arrogant or patronising about the Iraqi people."
Senior ministers, including Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, backed Tony Blair's belief that a war would be legal long before the Attorney General ruled.
The Prime Minister, strongly defended his war aims yesterday, warning those who had opposed war against "crowing" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. He said there was "no doubt" that such weapons existed.
Adml Boyce, who once described the American approach to the war on terrorism as like "a high-tech posse in the Wild West", said that early British involvement in any new wars could not be achieved without "serious pain" to the Services.
"The Government would have to be pretty convinced it was important," he said.
The forces, which still have 19,000 troops committed to covering for firemen's strikes and substantial numbers in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Northern Ireland, needed "to draw breath".
With more men and women expected to leave, the forces would be more over-stretched than ever.
Service chiefs were concerned that the Treasury might use an end to the conflict in Northern Ireland to seek "a peace dividend", Adml Boyce said. The Services had to maintain manning levels and hoped to use any of the 14,500 troops in Northern Ireland who were released for other duties to "bail us out".
Adml Boyce introduced women into the front line in the Royal Navy but ultimately ruled against such a move for infantry forces.
He confirmed that the Ministry of Defence was examining the need for all 232 Eurofighters ordered for the RAF. Some will be converted to ground attack aircraft, but the third tranche of 88 Eurofighters is expected to be axed.
Adml Boyce said that Britain should not be drawn into any expansion of the European defence initiative.
Speaking on the eve of a a meeting of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to discuss its expansion, he said that the forces must remain closely aligned with the US.
"They have the technological lead. There are areas where we are better, but they are the most powerful country in the world."
While Britain had to work with its EU partners as well, it could not "have its cake and eat it".
"What we do not need to see are structures set up that duplicate Nato and what we certainly do not need to have is things done that are simply designed to cause friction."
----
Avoid war for two years, says defence chief
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
April 29, 2003
UK Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-662978,00.html
BRITAIN'S Armed Forces should not pursue another war until at least 2005, the Government's top military commander said yesterday.
Forces were overstretched and both troops and equipment needed time to recover from the Iraqi campaign, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who retires as Chief of the Defence Staff at the end of this week, said.
He said that British Forces could not engage in another war between now and the end of next year without "serious pain", even if the Americans asked for help.
He also announced that the Ministry of Defence was conducting a major "lessons learnt" exercise, which might lead to some cuts in orders for equipment, including the huge £18 billion Eurofighter order.
The focus will be on "reshaping" the forces and the equipment bought for them to ensure they can engage in similar types of warfare in the future. Although fundamental restructuring has already taken place since the end of the Cold War, Admiral Boyce made clear he wanted further changes to try to match America's high-tech military prowess.
He also said that he favours a memorial service this autumn to mark the achievements of the British troops in the war, rather than a victory parade.
The "blitzkrieg" against Iraq will send a message to other rogue states, he said, and he hoped that British forces would not be "marching off to war again in a couple of years".
The admiral's message came as Tony Blair made plain that there were no plans to extend military action to countries such as Syria and Iran, whose actions have been criticised by Washington.
Admiral Boyce said that the Forces were overstretched because of the campaign in Iraq, which had involved 45,000 British military personnel out of the total manpower of 210,000. Both troops and equipment needed time to recuperate.
He admitted that if the Northern Ireland peace process were resolved it could mean reducing troops in Ulster to 5,000 from 13,000. But he warned the Treasury not to regard this as a "peace dividend" and force manpower cuts. The soldiers from the Province would be needed to fill gaps elsewhere, he said.
Admiral Boyce said that the Armed Forces could not handle another "discretionary" war, a conflict waged "by choice", if it were launched in 2004. Speaking to defence journalists as part of his farewell, Admiral Boyce said that if the United Kingdom were threatened, every man and woman in the Services would fight to defend the country.
However, a war in the style of the Iraqi campaign was not something that could be repeated again and again.
Did this mean Britain would not be ready to act with America if President Bush decided to pursue a military option in dealing with the other "rogue" nations in the so-called "axis of evil"? "I don't think, if we were asked to do another largescale operation in 2004, that we could do it without serious pain. We need to draw breath," Admiral Boyce said. "If it was to be something of the scale that we have done this time, it would have to be something that the Government is convinced is pretty important."
The Iraq campaign had already had a "moderating" impact on Syria, he said. "North Korea is behaving in its own way, they are having a blink test with the Americans," Admiral Boyce said. He added: "I hope that we might have a better world rather than marching off to war again in a couple of years."
The Tories welcomed the admiral's remarks. Bernard Jenkin, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said: "Once again, Sir Michael Boyce bluntly tells the truth about the sorry state of the British Armed Forces. The fact is that it is only our Armed Forces' supreme professionalism that makes up for all the shortcomings in training, manpower and equipment."
Sir Michael also indicated his personal view that a "victory parade" through the streets of London for the returned troops might not be appropriate. However, he did not rule it out and suggested that a parade could not be held until at least September. He questioned whether the Iraqi people might view a parade as "arrogant or patronising". He said: "I'm all for honouring the troops with a memorial service. I'm neutral about a parade, but this is a different situation from the 1991 Gulf War and the Falklands in 1982."
In emphasising the difficulties the Services were facing with manpower shortages, he said there was a risk some military personnel returning from Iraq might decide that "they have had their war and will leave the Services". There could be a problem with retention, he said. After the 1991 Gulf War, several hundred troops are believed to have left the Services. Sir Michael said that he anticipated cutbacks in some "legacy weapons" - systems developed for the Cold War. He praised the role of tanks in the war in Iraq but he said it was clear that the Government's commitment to ordering 232 Eurofighters would have to be re-examined. The full order would cost taxpayers £18 billion.
Admiral Boyce also gave warning to France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, which are holding a joint defence summit today in Brussels, not to take any action that would undermine Nato.He said: "We certainly don't need duplicate structures. We don't need to have things that cause friction between Nato members."
Admiral Boyce acknowledged that during his 26 months in the top military post he had spoken his mind in public when he felt the need to. He said that he had "a good and friendly working relationship" with Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary.
-------- britain
Plans to set up UK military base near Basra - Jane's
Apr. 29, 2003,
IRNA
http://www.irna.com/en/world/030429173117.ewo.shtml
London -- Like the US military, the UK is also planning to construct its own major base in Iraq near Basra to support its troop presence in the country, according to Jane's Defence Weekly.
Plans were being developed to turn Basra International Airport into a major logistics and helicopter base, the magazine quoted senior UK officers saying.
Elements of the UK's Joint Helicopter Force, including Chinooks and Pumas, were reported to be already moving to the airport in support of Armoured Division troops operating in and around Iraq's second biggest city.
Jane's said that it was not yet clear if the UK will establish a fully fledged airbase in Iraq, but that in the meantime, Air Force Harrier GR7 ground attack aircraft were remaining in Kuwait to provide air support for British forces.
It suggested that the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr was also likely to be increasingly used by shipping supporting the UK forces, replacing Kuwaiti ports.
The British plans follows reports that the US were intending to build four air bases inside Iraq that would become the logistic hubs for ground troops in much the same way as Bagram air base was used in Afghanistan and Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo.
Jane's believed that the estimated 150,000 US and 30,000 UK troops operating in Iraq will be able to reduce as the security situation improves and local police and security forces evolve.
But it said that while political uncertainty clouds US military planning, it was clear the Pentagon did not envisage an early end to its troop presence either inside Iraq or the Persian Gulf.
-------- business
Trade Accords Become a U.S. Foreign Policy Tool
Pact With War Supporter Singapore Gets Expedited, but Deal With Opponent Chile Is Delayed
By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51389-2003Apr28?language=printer
Here's a benefit a country gets for supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq: Its trade agreement with Washington moves ahead lickety-split. And here's a drawback a country suffers for opposing the war: Its trade deal gets stalled.
That is what is happening with Singapore and Chile. Both countries shook hands with Bush administration negotiators around the same time late last year to establish free-trade accords with the United States. But while Singapore backed Operation Iraqi Freedom, Chile demurred.
For students of diplomacy as practiced by the Bush White House, the disparity in timing the two trade pacts are experiencing should come as no surprise.
President Bush is scheduled to take part next week in a ceremony in which the U.S.-Singapore free-trade agreement is signed, with Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong getting the red-carpet treatment. Once signed, the accord will be submitted to Congress for approval. But no date has been set for signing Chile's free-trade deal, even though the negotiations for it were completed before Singapore's.
One of the official explanations of the delay -- which draws hoots of derision from trade experts -- is that translations of legalese into Spanish, and back into English take time. More candidly, U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick told reporters recently that "people are disappointed" in Chile for having opposed the U.S. stance during debates in the U.N. Security Council.
"We hoped for their support in a time that we felt was very important," Zoellick said, adding, "I have no doubt that ultimately we'll proceed" with the U.S.-Chile agreement because "it's good for both countries." His deputy, Peter Allgeier, noted in a separate appearance: "We simply follow the direction of the State Department and the National Security Council" on such matters, because they set foreign policy.
The administration's use of the pacts to reward and punish countries for their foreign policy positions is drawing sharp criticism from business groups, trade experts and some members of Congress. They contend that the White House is endangering its effort to persuade countries to lower trade barriers, especially its efforts to strike a deal that would expand the North American Free Trade Agreement beyond Mexico to the rest of Latin America.
"If it looks like we're backing away from negotiated commitments with one of our staunchest and most supportive trading partners, it will give pause to other countries in the hemisphere," said Jeffrey Schott, a scholar at the Institute for International Economics. "They'll say, 'Maybe we shouldn't be so forthcoming in negotiating with [the United States] because they'll back away and leave us hanging high and dry.' "
A group of eight pro-trade Democratic senators and congressmen has sent Bush a letter warning that holding up the Chile agreement "would undermine our longer-term objectives by announcing to the world the U.S. is not serious about steering the global economy back onto the path of greater integration and truly free markets."
Business lobbyists are fuming, too. The trade representative's office was made separate from the State Department decades ago because of the need to keep trade from being used as a chit in foreign policy, said Calman Cohen, head of the Emergency Committee on American Trade, an organization of multinational firms.Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell hinted that the administration's freeze on Chile might be nearing an end, speaking warmly of the U.S.-Chile trade accord during a speech. Chilean Foreign Minister Soledad Alvear, who was in the audience, said in an interview, "we have no indication when it will be signed," but she added that she remains hopeful it will be before the U.S. electoral season begins to distract Congress. [Story, Page A17.]
Another recent administration trade decision that has aroused suspicion of foreign policy influence came Friday evening when the White House announced its rejection of a recommendation to slap tariffs on wire hangers made in China. The administration is hoping that Beijing will play a crucial role in defusing the crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
Although the action involves a tiny market, the decision has potentially major importance as a precedent. Trade experts said it may signal that the administration is unlikely to approve other requests for tariffs on Chinese products that some U.S. industries are hoping to obtain under a new legal provision to guard against "surges" of Chinese imports.
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the decision was made strictly on economic, not foreign policy grounds. But Fred Waite, a lawyer who represented the U.S. hanger companies, noted that the U.S. International Trade Commission, an independent body, recommended the tariffs.
"Exercising a little gallows humor, I suppose if this had gone to the White House the week our surveillance aircraft was forced down, we might have seen a different result," Waite said.
Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
-------- europe
Blair fears new Cold War over EU rift with US
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
29/04/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/29/weur29.xml/
Tony Blair issued a warning yesterday that the world would be plunged back into an era of insecurity and tension reminiscent of the Cold War unless Europe and America quickly repaired the transatlantic relationship.
On the eve of talks in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin, who strongly opposed the war in Iraq, Mr Blair said there was a real danger that the advanced world would split into rival power blocs.
"My fear is that if we do not deal with the world on the basis of a partnership between Europe and America, then we will in a sense put back into the world the divisions that we wanted to get rid of when the Cold War finished.
"I think that would be just a disaster for the world."
The Iraq war split the European Union between those countries that backed Washington, led by Britain and Spain, and those that opposed military action, headed by France and Germany.
Mr Blair fears that the bad feeling caused by the war will exacerbate anti-Americanism in Europe, leading to a permanent rift.
Aiming his comments mainly at President Jacques Chirac, he said European leaders were facing a crucial time that would shape the future of global diplomacy. If they saw themselves as competitors to America, the dangers for world security and the global economy would be profound.
"I think it is a fundamental decision as to whether the world breaks into different centres of power that I think would very quickly become rival centres of power, or whether we see our task as trying to construct a partnership with America that others can join," he said.
"If you end up with two rival centres of power, you find a very, very difficult situation."
Mr Blair dismissed suggestions that he was being snubbed by France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium, which meet in Brussels today to discuss their vision of European defence.
The four nations are expected to lay out plans for common defence forces that are as independent as possible of Nato.
Mr Blair, who developed the idea of a European defence with M Chirac early in his first term as Prime Minister, rejected suggestions that he was losing control of EU defence planning.
He said Britain would "not accept anything that undermines Nato or conflicts with the basis of European defence we have set out".
In a strong defence of his war aims, Mr Blair cautioned those who had opposed war against "crowing" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He said there was "no doubt that weapons of mass destruction existed".
He said 1,000 sites in Iraq were being examined but most had not yet been analysed and no announcements would be made until they had.
The Prime Minister said it was clear that before military action began there had been a six-month programme of concealment by the Iraqis. One benefit of this for the allies was that it had made the weapons much more difficult to use during the conflict.
Urging rapprochement with France, he said it remained an "important ally" of Britain.
The two countries were the leading defence nations in Europe, had extensive interests in Africa and shared positions on most leading security and political institutions.
Negotiations on world trade would be one of the most important issues over the next six months, he added.
"Are Europe and America going to fight each other or come to a common position and drive that through?"
Mr Blair said he hoped that today's talks with Mr Putin would mark a turning point in relations between Europe and Washington. "My contacts with other European leaders and President Putin lead me to believe that a better atmosphere is developing."
They will discuss sanctions on Iraq and the role of the United Nations in achieving a stable government there.
----
'Old Europe' leaders to meet
By Philip Delves Broughton
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
April 29, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030429-12664027.htm
PARIS - Leaders from the four European countries most hostile to the war in Iraq meet in Brussels today to rekindle plans for a European defense force to rival NATO and show America that "old Europe" is down but not out.
France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, dubbed "old Europe" by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld before the war began, invited other European Union countries to attend, but found no takers. Critics have dubbed the gathering the "praline summit."
Britain and many of the EU's other powers are too concerned with the aftermath of the Iraq conflict, the future of NATO and the damage wrought to Europe's trans-Atlantic relationship by the war to go chest-beating for a European army that has long been pushed by Paris. The summit was called by the Belgians months ago when France and Germany still believed they could pressure Washington to delay the invasion of Iraq.
The summit's length and agenda have been pared down, but it still reflects an ambition to establish Europe as a diplomatic and military counterweight to the United States. That ambition has been fueled rather than sapped by the war.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who declined an invitation to attend, told the Reuters news agency that the gathering could be worthwhile if it gave fresh impetus to existing plans for European defense cooperation and spurred governments to spend more on defense budgets.
"If this meeting mobilizes the countries themselves to get better expenditure on defense, and that mobilizes others to do the same, that would be good news for the whole European Union," he said.
But he also said it was inconceivable to build a common European defense effort without Britain, the bloc's leading military power, at its core.
The four countries will lay the groundwork for a joint military command, a European armaments agency, which will prevent countries from duplicating their equipment and resources, and a European defense college.
British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said the summit participants risk sending a message of division between NATO and the EU.
Critics say the summit validates Mr. Rumsfeld's jibe, bearing no relation to the realities of an expanding Europe in which several newly invited members in central and Eastern Europe put far more trust in NATO, which helped free them from the Soviet Union, than in an undefined Franco-German blueprint.
There are signs that Washington is seeking ways to narrow the trans-Atlantic breach caused by the war.
United Press International reported yesterday that the Bush administration has proposed forming a high-level contact group with the Europeans to discuss sensitive policy issues in advance to avoid conflicts such as happened over Iraq.
The proposal, floated so far with German and British diplomats, is part of a reconciliation process with Europe that will see Secretary of State Colin L. Powell visit German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on a trip to Berlin next month.
Paris and Washington are also discussing ways to involve NATO in the peacekeeping mission in Iraq, but the bilateral relationship still faces major hurdles.
France opposed U.S. plans to end United Nations economic sanctions imposed on Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Mr. Powell has said France will suffer "consequences" for its active opposition to the war.
-------- iraq
American troops shoot children in Iraqi demo
BY BILL JACOBS WESTMINSTER EDITOR
Tue 29 Apr 2003
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=489802003&tid=518
UNITED States soldiers shot back at anti-American protesters, hitting at least seven, including three young boys, after being fired on in a town near Baghdad. A local hospital director said 13 people were killed.
The shooting took place on Monday night in the town of Fallujah, about 30 miles west of the capital. Though residents reported 15 deaths, Col. Arnold Bray of the 82nd Airborne Division said seven people in the crowd were hit.
But Dr Ahmed Ghanim al-Ali, director of Fallujah General Hospital, said there were 13 dead, including three boys under 11 years old. He said his medical crews were shot at when they went to retrieve the injured, which he said numbered 75.
Residents said the demonstration was conducted by children and students between the ages of 5 and 20, but Bray said some were armed. "Ask them which kind of schoolboys carry AK-47s," he said.
The troops were headquartered in a schoolhouse, and some of the protesters fired on the building, Bray said.
Arab television channel Al-Jazeera quoted residents as saying the troops opened fire after someone threw a rock at the school. The demonstrators were reportedly protesting against US troops' presence in the city.
Local Sunni Muslim cleric, Kamal Shaker Mahmoud, said the demonstrators were unarmed students who had gone to the school to ask the troops to leave.
"It was a peaceful demonstration. They did not have any weapons. They were asking the Americans to leave the school so they could use it.
"They opened fire on the protesters because they went out to demonstrate."
Meanwhile the US reacted angrily to suggestions that a Belgian lawyer might sue its Commander in Chief in the Gulf Tommy Franks for war crimes such as the looting of hospitals, firing on an ambulance, and the deaths of Iraqi civilians.
The Bush administration said there would be "diplomatic consequences" for Belgium if it did not block the move.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "We believe the Belgian government needs to be diligent in taking steps to prevent abuse of the legal system for political ends."
In a separate development, the head of Britain's armed forces has warned that the UK military is overstretched and should not pursue another war for 18 months.
Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who retires as chief of the defence staff at the end of this week, said the Army, Navy and Air Force must be allowed to "draw breath" before going into major action again.
His comments were seized on by Tory defence spokesman Bernard Jenkin who said the government had to decide whether to reduce Britain's military commitments or increase defence spending.
Sir Michael spoke out as former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz claimed Saddam Hussein was still alive and on the run.
Meanwhile Tony Blair was flying out to Moscow today to try to mend relations with Russian president Vladimir Putin strained by the war.
Admiral Boyce said that the military action against Iraq had put a huge burden on Britain's armed forces .
He said: "If you asked us to go into a large scale operation in 2004, we couldn't do it without serious pain. We must allow ourselves time to draw breath.
"If it was to be something of the scale that we have done this time, it would have to be something that the government is convinced is pretty important because I would tell them it would take a while to recuperate."
He said that the armed forces could not handle another "discretionary conflict, a conflict waged by choice" if it were launched in 2004.
He also questioned the need to spend £18 billion on 232 Euro fighters when bombers had proved much more important than fighters in the conflict. But he did say that the plan for two new "super aircraft carriers" had been proved necessary by the diplomatic difficulties of flying planes over sensitive countries in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
A new poll shows that six out of ten Britons think Mr Blair's decision to go to war alongside the US in Iraq has increased the risk of a terrorist attack on the UK.
Forty three per cent of those questioned by Mori think the attack could come in the next six months.
Concern will be increased by Mr Aziz's claim that Saddam walked away after coalition air strikes aimed at killing him on two occasions - March 19 and April 7.
The loyal aide to the Baghdad dictator said Saddam - who turned 66 yesterday - was now on the run in Iraq.
An opposition leader in the country Ahmed Chalabi said that Saddam and his two notorious sons Uday and Qusay were on the run separately in Iraq but opponents had an idea of where they were heading.
Prime Minister Mr Blair was in Moscow today to meet President Putin and to try and heal the rift which has grown with Russia over the action. It was partly the Russian threat to refuse to back a second UN resolution authorising military action which led Britain and America to act unilaterally.
Russia is now calling for UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq to verify any findings of weapons of mass destruction.
President Putin is also objecting to a lifting of sanctions on Iraq by the UN without further discussions.
Mr Blair and Mr Putin were expected to discuss questions of co-operation within the UN Security Council in the rebuilding of Iraq.
War with Iraq:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=518
Websites:
Ministry of Defence - Operation Telic http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/index.htm
US Central Command http://www.centcom.mil/
UNMOVIC http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/
UN - Office of the Iraq Programme http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/
UN News Centre http://www.un.org/News/
FCO - Policy towards Iraq http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394374
US Dept of State - Iraq Update http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/
Iraqi Presidency http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/
Iraq Watch http://www.iraqwatch.org
----
Top Iraqi prisoners all denying Saddam had weapons of mass destruction
JOHN J. LUMPKIN,
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/29/national1740EDT0764.DTL
High-ranking Iraqi prisoners are uniformly denying Saddam Hussein's government had any weapons of mass destruction before the war, U.S. officials familiar with their interrogations said Tuesday.
The officials said they believe many of the prisoners are lying to protect themselves.
Still, the denials are hampering U.S. forces' search for evidence of alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in Iraq, as the prisoners are not providing locations or other details interrogators are seeking.
By denying Iraq had weapons, the prisoners may be trying to distance themselves from Saddam's rule, one official said.
American officials stand by their belief that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons and the means to make more, although none have turned up since the war started on March 19.
The Bush administration has cited intelligence pointing to prohibited Iraqi weapons programs as a justification for war.
Officials now say the weapons are either well hidden or were destroyed in the run-up to the war. There is no firm evidence they were moved to other countries, they say.
Saddam's government denied having any unconventional weapons until the end, saying it had destroyed them years before.
Fears that Saddam's military would use chemical weapons on the battlefield went unrealized, and U.S. officials have not reported any evidence that his military units were equipped with those weapons.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, under questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, predicted prisoners would yet help U.S. forces find the alleged weapons.
"They will be found," he said.
Former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz is among the Iraqis in custody who says his government had no prohibited weapons, officials said. So is Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, Saddam's alleged point man on chemical and biological agents.
One unidentified scientist cooperating with American interrogators has contended the government destroyed its weapons in the run-up to the war. But his information has not been verified, officials said.
Around Iraq, American forces are finding suspicious chemicals and other possible signs of weapons programs, but nothing conclusive, officials said. So far, thorough testing has not verified any of the chemicals are weapons.
Other signs include burned documents and other evidence of an attempt to destroy evidence, officials said.
After coming up empty, military officials have largely abandoned earlier methods of searching only suspected weapons sites that were noted before the war. Now, defense officials say they are primarily going where Iraqis point them.
Spurning the proposed re-entry of U.N. weapons inspectors, the Bush administration is sending 1,000 experts to join the 200 already searching in Iraq for evidence of weapons programs.
U.S. Central Command, the military authority in Iraq, has confirmed 14 of its 55 most-wanted Iraqi leaders are in custody, including Aziz, al-Saadi and several other key officials, including several alleged weapons scientists.
The latest capture, which took place on Monday, was Amer Mohammed Rashid, Iraq's oil minister and a top missile expert.
Another recent catch, Farouk Hijazi, is an alleged link between the Iraqi government and al-Qaida. But he has denied reports that he traveled to Afghanistan in late 1998 and met with Osama bin Laden, officials familiar with his interrogation said.
Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Tunisia and a former senior official in Iraqi intelligence, acknowledged meeting with al-Qaida operatives in 1994 in Sudan, but said the Iraqi government established no ties with bin Laden's network.
Alleged Iraqi ties to terrorism was another of the Bush administration's justifications for the war.
U.S. forces near Baghdad have also captured an alleged midlevel operative working for Abu Musab Zarqawi, a senior associate of bin Laden, a U.S. counterterrorism official said Tuesday.
The at-large Zarqawi has been linked to the death of an American diplomat in Jordan last year. He was in Baghdad for medical treatment in 2002 and represents one of the Bush administration's links between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime.
----
Iraqis agree to form government within weeks
By Phil Reeves in Baghdad and Rupert Cornwell in Washington
29 April 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=401445
Almost 300 rival Iraqi leaders set aside their differences yesterday and said they would choose a transitional government within a month.
The new Iraqi government will pave the way for elections and will be chosen during a national conference to be held in Baghdad, they agreed.
The US role in the interim government remains a divisive issue, with many fearing Washington will impose its will on Iraq. The 10-hour Baghdad meeting was convened by Jay Garner, the retired US general who is to lead the administration in Iraq to oversee reconstruction work until an interim government takes over.
George Bush said yesterday that the rebuilding of post-Saddam Iraq would be a long task. But he vowed the US would see the job through to make sure Iraqis chose the government they wanted, that guaranteed human rights and gave a voice to all citizens. Reiterating Washington's demand for a lifting of UN sanctions, Mr Bush declared the country was recovering not just from weeks of conflict but from decades of totalitarian rule. "The former regime impoverished Iraq in every way," the President said, citing the example that only half as many hospitals existed in Iraq as in 1990.
Every day, life in Iraq was improving, the President told a boisterous and largely Iraqi-American audience in Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit where 300,000 Arab-Americans live. The US had said it would get rid of a repressive regime and had kept its word. "Now America pledges to help Iraq build a prosperous and peaceful nation, and we will keep our word again." Iraqi oil was flowing again to fuel Iraq's power plants, Mr Bush asserted.
Much work, though, remained to be done. Congress had allocated $2.5bn (£1.5bn) for reconstruction. But "it's time for the UN to lift sanctions so Iraqis can use their own resources to build their own prosperity." He promised that the Iraqi people would choose their own leader and government. "America has no intention of imposing our form of government or culture. But we will ensure all citizens have a voice and all have their rights protected. Iraq will be democratic."
The mystery over Saddam Hussein's fate deepened yesterday when American officials confirmed that Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister who surrendered, has told interrogators he saw Saddam alive early this month. Mr Bush said last week that US intelligence had some evidence suggesting Saddam might be dead but there would be no formal statement without proof.
In public, Washington professes indifference about whether Saddam is alive or dead but, in private, the issue is becoming as much of a concern as the possible whereabouts of any chemical and biological weapons in whose name Britain and America invaded Iraq in the first place.
----
American Forces Reach Cease-Fire With Terror Group
By DOUGLAS JEHL with MICHAEL R. GORDON
April 29, 2003
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/international/worldspecial/29TERR.html
WASHINGTON, April 28 - American forces in Iraq have signed a cease-fire with an Iranian opposition group the United States has designated a terrorist organization, and expect it to surrender soon with some of its arms, American military officials said today.
Under the deal, signed on April 15 but confirmed by the United States Central Command only today, United States forces agreed not to damage any of the group's vehicles, equipment or any of its property in its camps in Iraq, and not to commit any hostile act toward the Iranian opposition forces covered by the agreement.
In return, the group, the People's Mujahedeen, which will be allowed to keep its weapons for now, agreed not to fire on or commit other hostile acts against American forces, not to destroy private or government property, and to place its artillery and antiaircraft guns in nonthreatening positions.
The accord is apparently the first between the United States military - which in early April was bombing the group's Iraqi camps - and a terrorist organization, and it raises questions about how consistently the Bush administration intends to apply a policy that had vowed to crack down on terrorist groups worldwide.
The Iranian group, which is led by a woman and has an estimated 10,000 members in Iraq, has no known ties to Al Qaeda, but its members killed several American military personnel and civilian contractors in the 1970's and supported the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
It has carried out dozens of bombings that were aimed at Iranian military and government workers, but that also killed civilians.
It was added to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations in 1997.
An American military official said the group could provide intelligence regarding Iranian government activities both in Iraq, and in Iran itself.
A spokesman for the Central Command, in Doha, Qatar, who was responding to a reporter's inquiry, issued a three-sentence statement today that provided the basic outlines of the cease-fire.
A senior military officer said he expected the accord to be followed in the next few days by a formal capitulation agreement, and he indicated that the group would eventually have to give up some of its arms.
The accord with the People's Mujahadeen reflects a pragmatic approach to a security problem for an American military that already has its hands full trying to stabilize Baghdad and other areas of Iraq. But it raises the issue of how to square the accord with the administration's antiterrorism policy.
A State Department official said tonight that the deal was not inconsistent with the broader effort against terrorism. The official said the agreement with the group, which operated with support and protection from Saddam Hussein's government, would help the United States learn more about Iraq's ties to terrorism and the nature of its former government.
"You can't get information out of a dead man," the official said. He said the decision to call a halt to American bombing and other attacks against the group did not reflect any change in its terrorist status. "It's a cease-fire," he said, "that's all it means."
As recently as last week, senior Pentagon officials described the group as a vicious entity that had served as a de facto security organization for the Iraqi government. At the same time, however, supporters of the People's Mujahadeen, including dozens of members of Congress, have portrayed the decision to label the group as terrorist as one that was taken by the Clinton administration largely as a positive gesture to the Iranian government, which regards the People's Mujahadeen as a serious foe.
A senior American officer said several approaches, or "courses of action" were being considered by the United States government as to what to do about the group and its weapons over the long run.
Asked why American commanders would sign a cease-fire with a terrorist organization, a Central Command spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Owens, said he had no further information. He noted that the State Department was responsible for decisions about the status of terrorist groups.
At a time when United States forces are stretched thin in Iraq, the Mujahadeen organization is one of the few groups of armed fighters that had been affiliated with the Hussein government that is not a threat to American forces, they said. American military officers in Iraq said they expected that some of the group's weapons might be confiscated once the capitulation agreement was signed.
One motivation for allowing the People's Mujahadeen to keep some weapons, they said, was to leave in place a balance of power between the group and the Iranian-backed fighters known as the Badr Brigade. Some of those fighters are based in Iraq and have continued to focus on the organization even since the fall of the Hussein government. If the Mujahadeen group were disarmed, American forces would have to assume the responsibility of separating the two antagonists, a task the heavily burdened American forces do not want to assume.
Muhammad Mohaddessin, a top People's Mujahadeen official, said in a telephone interview from Paris that "this cease-fire agreement gives us the right to keep our weapons in noncombat formations and the right to defend ourselves" against attacks from Iranian-backed forces. None of the group's members had been taken into custody by American forces, Mr. Mohaddessin said.
The statement issued by the Central Command said the cease-fire had been signed by "a coalition forces commander and a Mr. Mahdi Baraie of the National Liberation Army of Iran," the armed wing of the Mujahadeen organization.
Military officials declined to identify the "coalition forces commander," but senior military officers said the agreement was being enforced in areas north of Baghdad under the control of the Army's V Corps. Mr. Mohaddessin, the People's Mujahadeen official, identified Mr. Baraie as a senior official of the organization and a member of its army's general staff.
As recently as April 22, the Central Command spokesman in Doha, Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, declined to say whether a cease-fire with the People's Mujahadeen, known to the United States government as the Mujahedeen Khalq, or M.E.K., had been signed.
"We certainly know that the United States has maintained the M.E.K., as we describe it, on the terrorist list, and they still are," General Brooks said at the time. "So, until that changes, we view them that way. However, there's still discussion that's ongoing right now to determine exactly what the condition and what the status will be and how we'll handle them. It's premature for me to describe exactly what that will be at this point."
The disclosure that a cease-fire had been signed on April 15 suggests statements by American officers lagged events.
On April 17, General Brooks said at a briefing in Doha that work intended "to secure some agreement that would be a cease-fire and capitulation" would "most likely unfold within the coming days."
A senior military officer said a formal capitulation from the group was likely to be taken in coming days by the Army's Fourth Infantry Division, which is conducting peace enforcement in Tikrit and areas in northern Iraq.
Photo: Saraiha Behzadi, a member of a combat unit of the People's Mujahedeen, performing maintenance on Monday on her tank at Camp Ashraf, the group's military base just north of Baghdad. http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/04/29/international/29terr.jpg
----
When war seemed worthwhile
THE BLACK WATCH AT WAR
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN,
Tue 29 Apr 2003
The Scotsman
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=487322003&tid=518
IF THE battle for Baghdad was an all-American, all-guns-blazing production, then the battle for Iraq's second city, Basra, was a curiously British affair. Weeks of careful manoeuvring and probing, testing out the defences, were followed by one piece of military magic which knocked the defending militia men off balance and brought the Iraqi regime in the south tumbling down.
But while that Sunday when the Black Watch punched their way into Basra was the culmination of the British military campaign, the seeds of victory had already been sown in a much more understated, but just as significant manner, in the nearby town of Az Zubayr. It should come as no surprise to learn that the same man was involved in both events.
From the moment Lieutenant Colonel Mike Riddell-Webster took off his helmet and flak jacket and strode out into the heart of Az Zubayr, the red hackle of the Black Watch standing up proudly on his Tam O'Shanter, the Iraqi militia were as good as beaten. In that moment, the British had demonstrated that they were not afraid of the gunmen any more, and that they did not want the ordinary people to be afraid of them either.
Instead of fear and intimidation, they had decided to offer the hand of friendship.
Attempts were made to restore the water supply; medicines which had been locked up by the Baath party and denied to the town's children were distributed by British military doctors; food and water were handed out. With people still moving fairly freely between Az Zubayr and Basra, word of the British handling of the town did not take long to get back to those inside the besieged city.
When British tanks finally disposed of the crust of opposition on the outskirts of Basra and pushed into the city centre, they were greeted by waving crowds who appeared genuinely pleased to see them.
Not that we knew any of these things would happen the morning the invitation arrived from the CO to join him on his stroll along the same streets where the Black Watch had been attacked so often in the preceding days, where men with rocket-propelled grenades had pursued us wherever we tried to stop and dropped mortars down on us when we tried to hand out the first-aid supplies.
What we were expecting was another day of raids and skirmishes. The day before, the main street had still been regarded as too dangerous for vehicles such as Land Rovers. Only tanks and other armoured vehicles had been allowed to make the trip from one side of town to the other.
Now this softly spoken man in his steel-rimmed glasses was suggesting we dispense not only with the reassuring solidity of the armoured vehicles which could absorb the impact of a rocket-propelled grenade, he was also asking us to take off our helmets and the body armour which contained the ceramic plates designed to stop an AK47 bullet. It was 1 April, and at first it seemed like an April Fool's Day prank.
But when we arrived, he was deadly serious. Helmets and flak jackets would give the wrong impression, he said. If we were to persuade people that we meant them no harm, we had to look as if we meant it. So we took off our protection and fell in behind him as he walked out through the gates and off towards the town centre. We still had an armed escort, we knew, or thought we knew, that he would have snipers following our every move, and there were still tanks and Warriors dotted about the town, but as the crowd pressed in around us we felt very vulnerable. We need not have been so concerned. The tactic worked.
People clustered round curiously, fascinated to meet at last this foreign army which had turned up in their town and driven out the Baath party officials and the militia men. They were still anxious to have their services restored, still worried about the tanks and the intentions of the British soldiers, still complaining about the effects of the fighting, but the calm reassurance of the British officers and their apparent willingness to help were defusing the situation. Riddell-Webster talked to them, listened, shook hands, conceded that they had to restore the water supply if they were to win over the town, sought out water engineers and brought in his own engineers to work with them to begin the task of getting the town back on its feet.
From that moment onwards, Az Zubayr gave us no more trouble.
So we turned our attention to Basra. There had been talk of some sort of uprising in the western slums, but it had come to nothing. When a thousand people had tried to flee the city, the Iraqi militia men had fired at them with mortars and machine-guns, and the British had to rush in to rescue them and cover their escape.
The raids so far had concentrated on taking out television masts and knocking over significant statues of Saddam in the hope that the ordinary people, who had no love for the Baath party, would be convinced that they could rely on those outside the city to come to their aid if they took matters into their own hands, but still they seemed reluctant to commit themselves, remembering perhaps what happened to them the last time they rose up and no-one went to their aid.
So the Black Watch took a couple of days out of the line to regroup and left the other regiments camped on the bridges into the city to mount their own raids. The men were frustrated, the officers were frustrated. Riddell-Webster confided that he wanted to take the city then and there, but those above him would not give the orders.
And then came Sunday morning, and we were back in the line, given the task of mounting what was supposed to be yet another raid into the city to test the water. But this time there was an air of purpose that hinted at more to come. Riddell-Webster had told his officers the night before that instead of getting in and out quickly, as they had done several times before, this time he was inclined to hang around looking for trouble.
As we sat on the roofs of our vehicles at the edge of the partially drained marshes on the outskirts of the city, watching the first tanks racing over the bridge as the sun came up and listening to the radio transmissions from the fighting units, it became evident that the CO had brought up the entire battle group to wait outside the city in case an opportunity presented itself.
And then another very British, very Scottish, moment. As the sound of the explosions rolled across the water of the Shatt al Basrah canal, a lieutenant sitting waiting for his orders to advance brought out his bagpipes and perched on the turret of his Warrior and started to play.
Maybe it was clichéd, as some later suggested, maybe it did sound as if it came straight out of the script of some B-movie in which chaps in clipped accents gave Johnny Foreigner what for before popping home for a game of cricket and a nice cup of tea, but it happened all the same.
The clatter of the US marines' Cobra gunships buzzing overhead as they positioned themselves to join the attack and the sounds of gunfire drifting across the marshes mingled with the strains of Scotland the Brave coming from Lt William Colquhoun's bagpipes.
And not for the first time you found yourself grateful that these people were on your side - and felt sorry for those who were about to come up against them.
The fighting went on for much of the morning, tanks and Warriors reporting that they were coming under fierce attack from RPGs. But the Iraqi defenders were being forced to come out into the open and they were paying a heavy price. Time and again tank commanders would report that they could see men in their sights armed with RPGs, and would request permission to fire, and the radios played out the last few seconds of someone else's life, and then there would be the puff of smoke from a little way ahead and the sound of the explosion, several seconds later, and then those disembodied voices again, reporting that the job was done.
By then they were so far into the city that all their objectives were taken and Riddell-Webster was telling them to press on. Why not have a look a bit further into the city, why not go for the docks and the Baath party HQ and the other targets that they knew to be there but which had not seemed possible earlier on? And back at brigade headquarters, Brigadier Graham Binns had clearly decided that there was nothing to be gained by hanging back any longer. The other regiments, which had raids of their own planned for later in the day, were pushed forwards.
By mid-afternoon, virtually all of the city was in British hands. Driving into the city that afternoon seemed strange, finally to see up close this place that had held out for so long. Everywhere there were signs of carefully planned defences, bunkers along the main roads, tanks dug into defensive positions.
Everyone who drove along that road marvelled at how easy it had eventually been, and how much harder it could have been if the Iraqi army had stood and fought.
But the truth was that the ordinary Iraqi soldiers had never had the stomach to face the attacking forces. Those we talked to later said they had had enough of war - the war with Iran, the first war in the Gulf 1991. They had no wish to die for Saddam Hussein, so they did not stay to fight. And the militia, while they had the will and the incentive to fight on, did not have the training to use the weapons that the army had left behind. Had they been able to fire some of the missiles the British troops found later, they could have inflicted heavy casualties.
There was certainly enough military hardware around to have made a fight of it, missiles in university buildings, missiles in oil processing plants, missiles in well-protected bunkers. But the British concluded that they simply had no idea how to operate the more complicated weapons, and had stuck to what they knew, the RPGs, machine-guns and mortars. Maybe that's what happened with the chemical weapons, if they ever did exist.
As for the ordinary citizens of Basra, they seemed happy enough to see the British troops. Talk of cheering crowds and people handing flowers to soldiers may sound like propaganda, but those were the scenes that really did greet the British troops as they swept through the city.
Children did come running out of their homes, young men did press up to the tanks to shake the hands of the soldiers. Yes, there were still complaints about the lack of water and, yes, people did make it clear that the British were welcome to stay just as long as it took to set up an Iraqi government of the people's own choosing, but they were happy too that the Baath party had gone, and anxious that they should not be given the chance to emerge again once the British left. When the tanks and Warriors went out to patrol the streets, people came up to point out the places where the militia were still hiding or where they had abandoned their weapons' caches. They didn't like the militia men, and they didn't like their children playing with the explosives which they had left behind.
Then the fighting was dying away and there was the looting to worry about. How could they loot the hospitals, people asked at home? But the hospitals we came across weren't their hospitals. They were just places where people with money or influence, or both, could be treated. If you were an ordinary Iraqi, they were just another place you couldn't go. When Kevin Beaton, the senior medical officer, found out about the hospitals, he went to the CO and told him it was time the doctors discovered the importance of treating everyone according to their need, not their status.
And the banks? Just somewhere for the rich to put that wealth which had been denied to those who had got on with their lives and received a pittance for their troubles.
And the schools? All fortified, like the hospitals, the school books thrown out to make way for the rockets and guns, now just somewhere where the Baathists could indoctrinate a new generation and turn out more young men to die for a cause they believed in only because they knew no other truth, or so said the schoolteacher who wouldn't tell me his name because he was afraid that once the British left the Baath party would return and would remember that he and his friends had helped the foreign troops. And for telling the lies he was forced to tell, he said, he was paid $15 a month and given the chance to live in a two-room flat with his wife and three children.
So the looting was not right, and maybe more should have been done to stop it more quickly. Some people were afraid of the lawlessness which came with the collapse of the old regime, but talking to the people who thronged around the troops as they drove through the city, it was difficult not to believe that they were pleased the British had come to their city.
It seemed it was too easy to conclude, as so many had done before the fighting started, that the war must be wrong, easy to say innocent people would die, easy to point to the politicians and question their motives, point to personal grudges and a lust for the wealth that Iraq's oil would bring. But it was not so easy to look at the faces of the children who ran on to the streets to greet the tanks and to scrabble in the dirt and filth at the side of every street for the sweets the soldiers threw to them, and believe what happened in Iraq these past few weeks was necessarily wrong.
Why should they have been denied the chance of the better life that those who opposed the war for good and just and genuinely held beliefs already enjoyed? And so a small boy lost his arms and had his picture in every paper and on every television screen and was held up as an example of why war is bad.
But what about the thousands of other children who didn't get caught in the bombing and now have a chance to grow up and learn and receive health care under a regime that does not teach them that the only worthwhile person is a Baath party member and that a man and his family who cared nothing about them should plunder their country and be venerated in return? Didn't they deserve a chance too?
And what of Barry Stephen? And all the other young men who died on both sides? Did they worry about the politics that day the British Army crossed the border and went to war? Amid the filth and the flies, worn down by the heat and the constant fear, the ever-present knowledge that the next moment could be their last, did they stop to worry about the rights and wrongs?
Maybe they didn't all believe they were fighting for a just cause but they fought all the same, fought alongside their friends and worried about the little things that conspired to make their war that bit more unpleasant and tried to forget about the bullets and the bombs they could do nothing about. And when they died, at least they died among friends who mourned their passing, just as they would have mourned the passing of their friends had their roles been reversed. They were soldiers, after all.
For all those who suffered unfairly and for whom death came unexpectedly and untimely, it seemed there were so many more who were given a chance of something better.
Maybe it was, as some said, a war for the wrong reason. But maybe the result was right all the same.
----
U.S. Considering 'Odious Debt' Doctrine for Iraq
Tue April 29, 2003
By Alan Elsner
(Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2652489
WASHINGTON - Some in the U.S. administration are pushing to invoke a controversial financial doctrine to free Iraq from a mountain of debt amassed by Saddam Hussein but if history is any indicator it appears unlikely.
With Iraqi debt restructuring or forgiveness now a major issue in the effort to rebuild the country, the idea to declare the hundreds of billions of dollars owed to foreign creditors as "odious debt" is being promoted by some conservatives in the Bush administration.
The "odious debt" doctrine holds that obligations incurred by "repugnant" governments should not be passed on to their successors. But, while enunciated more than a century ago, it has never been endorsed in international law and strong resistance is likely to emerge in Iraq's case as well.
Harvard University economist Michael Kremer said the Iraqis could make a case for the relief in light of the tremendous debt amassed by Saddam.
"The Iraqi people have a strong case to argue that much of that money was spent lining the pockets of Saddam and his cronies and on banned weapons and on their own repression so they should not have to pay it back," Kremer said.
He suggested an international organization be set up to declare regimes as "odious" as a way of warning potential lenders they might not be repaid if the repressive government is eventually replaced.
EXACT DEBT UNKNOWN
Nobody knows exactly how much oil-rich Iraq owes now that Saddam has been deposed but it could be as high as $385 billion -- including loans from foreign governments, banks, companies and institutions, compensation claims and pending contracts.
According to one study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Iraq owes $199 billion in unresolved claims for compensation from creditors in more than a dozen nations arising from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait; $127 billion of debts owed to other nations, and $57.2 billion in pending foreign contracts both public and private.
Other sources give slightly differing figures, depending on how they calculate interest, since Iraq has not been servicing most of its external obligations for more than a decade.
Major debtors include Russia, which has an estimated $12 billion outstanding, much of it for arms; Kuwait, $17 billion, the Gulf states, $30 billion, and smaller sums to Turkey, Jordan, Morocco, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland and Egypt.
The United States has only around $2 billion outstanding, making it vastly easier for Washington to back calls for debt relief or forgiveness since it is talking mainly about other peoples' money.
U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the key architects of the war, told a U.S. Senate committee earlier this month that Russia, France and Germany should consider writing off "some or all of the debt" facing Iraq's new government.
"I hope ... they will think about the very large debts that come from money that was lent to the dictator to buy weapons and to build palaces and to building instruments of repression," Wolfowitz said.
The doctrine of "odious debt" originated in 1898, after the Spanish-American War. During peace negotiations, the United States argued neither it nor Cuba should be held responsible for debt the former Spanish colonial rulers of the island incurred without the consent of the Cuban people, which was not used for their benefit.
Spain refused to accept the validity argument but ultimately assumed the debt. But the doctrine did not acquire international legitimacy since it would have opened the way for many governments to try to evade debts accumulated by their predecessors.
In recent times, the doctrine was not applied after the fall of the apartheid government in South Africa or the collapse of the Soviet Union. In those cases and others, the successor governments took responsibility for the "odious debts" left by their predecessors.
Still, forgiving or restructuring Iraqi debts may be seen as more pressing since Iraq's obligations amount to more than 12 times the country's annual gross domestic product of around $30 billion.
After the First World War, Germany was saddled with reparations totaling about twice its gross domestic product. The debts proved to be an impossible burden, destabilizing the country and contributing to the rise of Nazism.
"It is extremely important that most of Iraq's oil resources are reinvested back into the country to give the Iraqi people and the Iraqi economy a chance," said Nancy Geenen, who from 1998-99 worked for the United Nations Compensation Commission that handled claims arising from the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent war.
Geenen said currently 30 percent of Iraq's oil revenues allowed under the U.N. oil-for-food program went to repay those claims.
Even if there is wide agreement that Iraq's debt needs to be reduced, some countries and creditors seem certain to argue strongly it should not be entirely eliminated.
The Paris Club -- a forum in which 19 creditor nations have negotiated the rescheduling of debt repayments since Argentina's debt crisis in 1956 -- broached the issue of Iraqi debt during regular talks in the French capital last week.
--------
Russia questions whether Iraq did have banned weapons
April 29, 2003
Village Voice
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_775492.html
Tony Blair has discovered the depth of the continuing international tensions generated by the Iraqi war during discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Following several hours of talks at Mr Putin's private residence near Moscow, the Russian leader made clear he is not ready to support Mr Blair's call for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq.
Putin also appeared to question whether Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction.
He has called for United Nations inspectors to have the key role in establishing whether such weapons were in Iraq or not.
Standing next to Mr Putin at a joint news conference, an impassioned Mr Blair warned of the "real danger" facing the world if the international community failed to put behind it divisions created by the Iraqi conflict, with Europe, Russia and others embracing a new strategic partnership with the United States.
The British Prime Minister warned that the alternative to a new strategic partnership was the kind of stand-off the world had seen in the run-up to the Iraqi conflict.
He told the news conference: "The first test of whether it is possible to have that new strategic partnership will be over the role of the United Nations in post-conflict Iraq.
"The issue is very simple. Are the coalition forces prepared to accept that there should be a central role for the UN?
But are our other colleagues on the Security Council prepared to accept that our soldiers, having fought and died in respect of this war in Iraq, cannot simply hand over Iraq to the sole charge of the UN whilst coalition forces are there on the ground stabilising the situation."
-------- israel / palestine
Palestinian Parliament Confirms Prime Minister
April 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) -- The Palestinian parliament approved Mahmoud Abbas as prime minister Tuesday, clearing the final obstacle to the launch of a U.S.-backed plan that holds the first real hope of ending 2 1/2 years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting and renewing peace talks.
The plan, sponsored by the ``quartet'' of Mideast mediators, could be unveiled by Thursday, a diplomat said.
In his first speech to parliament, Abbas stuck to traditional Palestinian positions toward Israel. But he also pledged to disarm militias, a promise that could set up a violent showdown between the Palestinian Authority and militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
``I think that I can meet all my obligations in the government, for the sake of our people,'' a smiling Abbas said after the vote.
But the task facing the 68-year-old premier, who despite a long career has little experience in the power politics of day-to-day government, appears overwhelming.
He'll have to keep at bay Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who remains popular, retains some powers -- including control of some security organizations -- and has already tried to sabotage him by objecting to his Cabinet selections.
And in a sign of the troubles ahead, the Islamic militant Hamas warned it has no intention of disarming or ending attacks on Israelis.
The United States and Israel are eager to do business with Abbas, an outspoken opponent of violence among the Palestinian leadership. But the international support has hurt Abbas at home, with many Palestinians considering him a U.S. puppet.
Underscoring the difficulties was the violence that continued to rage, with Israeli troops killing three militants and a bystander even as the lawmakers gathered in Ramallah to confirm Abbas' Cabinet.
The confirmation -- by 51-18, with three abstentions -- clears the way for the unveiling of the so-called road map to Palestinian statehood. U.S. officials have said the plan would be formally unveiled once Abbas was installed.
The first stage calls for a cease-fire, a crackdown on Palestinian militias, an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian towns and the dismantling of Jewish settlements erected since 2001. A Palestinian state with provisional borders could be established by year's end and full statehood within three years, according to the timetable.
A quartet diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the plan could be published Wednesday or Thursday, after consultations among the mediators -- the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia.
In his speech, Abbas affirmed his acceptance of the road map, but rejected changes by Israel, saying: ``The road map must be implemented, not negotiated.''
Israel says Palestinians must stop all violence before it makes any peace moves.
Among the abstainers was the activist Hanan Ashrawi, who complained that Abbas had chosen ministers based on personal loyalty.
Abbas, who favors suit-and-tie attire in contrast to Arafat's penchant for military-style dress, delivered his agenda as he sat next to the Palestinian leader on a dais, facing a packed reception hall in Arafat's West Bank headquarters.
Legislators traditionally hold part of their session in Arafat's office because he is afraid of leaving the compound, fearing he will be targeted by Israel. For the vote, the parliament moved to its own building in downtown Ramallah.
Abbas staked out familiar positions on peace talks. He said the Palestinians ``will not accept anything less'' than a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, and a dismantling of all Jewish settlements.
He appeared to be taking a softer stance on the fate of 4 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, saying there should be a ``fair and acceptable'' solution but not insisting explicitly on their ``right of return'' to Israel.
In perhaps the strongest denunciation of terrorism by a senior Palestinian official, Abbas said: ``We are convinced that such methods do not lend support to a just cause like ours, but rather destroy it.'' Arafat has condemned attacks on Israelis, but in ambiguous fashion, and Israel has accused him of encouraging, and even financing, attacks.
Abbas promised to weed out corruption, including among the security forces, and hinted at a crackdown on militias. ``The unauthorized possession of weapons ... is a major concern that will be relentlessly addressed,'' he said, adding that there would be ``one authority, one law.''
A Hamas leader, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, said the group would ``never drop its weapons and will not allow anyone to disarm it.''
Addressing the Israelis, Abbas took a rarely heard conciliatory tone: ``We do not ignore the suffering of the Jews throughout history.'' His aides said he added the sentence to the speech -- delivered on Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day -- because he felt stung by accusations that in his doctoral thesis in the 1970s, he diminished the scope of the Nazi genocide.
Israel said it would judge Abbas by his actions. ``Any Palestinian government and any prime minister will be judged by two criteria -- the extent to which he will execute the most urgent, necessary reforms in government and the extent to which he's going to perform the necessary steps to stop terrorism,'' said Raanan Gissin, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Gissin said Sharon was ready, in principle, to invite Abbas for talks in Jerusalem. The two have met repeatedly in the past.
During a four-hour debate that preceded the vote, Abbas was grilled about a possible crackdown on militias. Abbas held his own in the often stormy discussion, commanding silence when some legislators tried to interrupt.
Several legislators said they were skeptical about Abbas' reform promises and complained that he missed a chance for a sweeping Cabinet overhaul.
His critics noted his appointees included several marred by corruption charges, particularly Mohammed Dahlan, who was chosen to lead the campaign against the militants.
In Tuesday's violence, an Israeli helicopter gunship fired four missiles at a car in the Gaza Strip, killing Nidal Salama, a senior member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a small radical PLO faction, and a bystander. Troops in the West Bank fatally shot two members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a militia linked to Arafat's Fatah movement.
--------
Helicopter Attack in Gaza Kills One
April 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Missile-Attack.html
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- An Apache helicopter fired four missiles at a car in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, killing one person and wounding three others, Palestinian hospital officials said.
Officials at the Nasser Hospital in the southern city of Kahn Yunis said that one of the wounded was in a critical condition. They did not have the victims' identities.
The car was driving south of Khan Yunis at the time of the attack. It was not clear how many passengers were in the car, and Palestinian security sources refused to identify the car's occupants.
An Israeli army spokeswoman had no immediate comment.
Israel's military has killed dozens of suspected militants and bystanders in missile strikes and other attacks during two-and-a-half years of fighting with the Palestinians.
Palestinians say the strikes amount to extra-judicial assassinations. Israel believes they're necessary to stop militant groups from dispatching scores of suicide bombers who've killed hundreds throughout Israel.
Ambulances and firefighters arrived at the scene and a cloud of smoke was seen rising above the car, which had been reduced to a mass of twisted metal.
Witnesses said helicopter gunships continued to hover over the area after the attack.
--------
Administration hails confirmation of new Palestinian leadership
4/29/2003
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-29-us-mideast_x.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration on Tuesday welcomed the approval of a new Palestinian leadership, saying it would spur a burst of U.S. peacemaking efforts in the Middle East.
Secretary of State Colin Powell will go to the area to begin trying to advance Palestinian statehood once the newly confirmed cabinet begins its work, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
Administration officials said confirmation of Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and his Cabinet would trigger the announcement of a roadmap, or blueprint, for peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians.
"We plan to present the roadmap to both parties shortly after Abu Mazen is sworn into office, a step likely to occur tomorrow," a State Department official said.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "The president looks forward to working with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people as well as the Israeli government and the Israeli people to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East."
Fleischer and State Department officials said they did not know exactly when the roadmap would be released and under what circumstances. It calls for establishment of a Palestinian state by 2005.
Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the administration would work hard to reopen negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. However, he ruled out meeting with Abbas on a trip to the region that Powell is taking this week.
"He has some work to do and I don't want to burden him on Day One," Powell said.
Declaring he hoped Abbas would speak out immediately about terrorism, Powell said progress toward peace "is going to require acceptance of obligations, performance, by both sides."
Boucher said Powell would leave on Thursday and go to Spain, Albania, Syria and Lebanon and return to the region on a second trip.
After a few days' respite in Washington, Powell is expected to go to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Russia.
It was a year ago in Madrid that the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, acting as a self-described quartet, decided to use the roadmap to get Israel and the Palestinians back to the peace table with the aim of Palestinian statehood and rolling back Israeli settlements on the West Bank.
In Tirana, the capital of Albania, Powell is due to oversee signing by Albania, Croatia and Macedonia of a regional cooperation agreement called the Adriatic Charter Partnership. It calls for cooperative reform efforts by each in their quest for eventual membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
In Syria, Powell is expected to hold tough talks with President Bashar Assad on U.S. allegations that Syria permitted fighters to cross the border into Iraq during the Iraq war, did not stop Iraqi officials from seeking refuge in Syria as Saddam Hussein's government crumbled and supports terrorism.
Syria is expected to be named a sponsor of terrorism again in the annual terrorism report the State Department is issuing on Wednesday.
Referring to the fall of Saddam and U.S. hopes for democracy in Iraq, Powell told the committee: "I hope President Assad and his colleagues look at what is happening in the region and factor that in."
"They have a different neighbor," Powell said.
At the same time, he sought to discourage Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., from pressing ahead with legislation that would threaten Syria with sanctions. He said "it would not help" while the Bush administration was using diplomacy in Syria.
In Lebanon, Powell is expected to focus on activities by the militant group Hezbollah, which has fought a cross-border conflict with Israel.
The Palestinian parliament confirmed Abbas, known also as Abu Mazen, and approved his Cabinet after a bitter internal fight. Fifty-one of the 85 legislators supported Abbas. Eighteen opposed Abbas' proposed Cabinet, with three lawmakers abstaining.
A senior State Department official, welcoming the confirmation, said the department had worked with the Palestinian community on the emergence of the new leadership.
-------- landmines
Landmines make spinsters of young Afghan girls
Story by David Brunnstrom
REUTERS AFGHANISTAN:
April 29, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20608/newsDate/29-Apr-2003/story.htm
SHOMALI PLAIN, Afghanistan - Ten-year-old Shakila may never marry.
Three years ago she walked out of her house on Afghanistan's Shomali Plain and stepped on a landmine that blew off her right leg.
Shakila is one of the tens of thousands of Afghans who have fallen victim to land mines, indiscriminate weapons that do not distinguish between combatants trying to defend turf and civilians trying to live their lives.
After 23 years of war, the countless numbers of mines that remain buried in Afghanistan still kill or maim more than 100 people every month. The injuries they cause are devastating for all victims, but especially so for women.
Workers at an International Committee of the Red Cross orthopaedic centre in Kabul say that while the injuries carry little social stigma for men, this is not true for women in a conservative Muslim country where females are expected to be perfect models of conformity.
Physiotherapist Rohafza Naudri lost a leg to a mine when she was 11. She said it is difficult for women with such injuries to find a husband.
"Nobody wants to marry them, they don't have much of a chance," she said after fitting Shakila with a new prosthesis.
"People think they can't work at home and they can't look after the house. It's also difficult for them to make friends, nobody really accepts them."
Asked if Shakila, a shy girl with a pretty smile and a cute orange dress, would be able to find a husband, she replied: "It's very difficult."
Alberto Cairo, Italian head of the ICRC project, estimates there are as many as 40,000 war amputees in Afghanistan, nearly 30,000 of whom are treated at Red Cross centres which also help victims of polio and congenital deformities.
BUSY LIMB FACTORY
As well as being a place for treatment, the Kabul centre is a small factory where production lines churn out 350 state-of-the-art prostheses every month.
All the workers on the line are themselves disabled, though it is often difficult to tell.
The carefully fitted and moulded prostheses mean that with practice, most can walk with barely a trace of a limp.
In an irony that still amuses Cairo after 13 years on the job, the rubber used to make shock absorbers for the heels of the prostheses is recycled from Russian tank treads.
"It gives us some pleasure to take something meant for war and put it to peaceful use," he said. "It's the best quality rubber - we are very grateful to the Russians!"
Many of Afghanistan's mine victims are wounded by weapons left over from the 10-year Soviet occupation in the 1980s.
Others are hurt by mines laid during civil war in the 1990s, while the United Nations says at least 180 sites were "contaminated" by munitions, including thousands of deadly cluster bomblets, dropped during the U.S.-led bombing that ousted the Taliban in 2001.
Dan Kelly, head of the U.N.'s Afghan mine clearing operation, says an estimated 850 square km (320 square miles) of Afghanistan's land is mined, denying land to returning refugees, for agriculture and vital infrastructure rebuilding projects.
The U.N. says it will take another five years to clear areas designated high priority and a further five years to finish the job to make life safe for children like Shakila.
It launched a mine awareness month on April 15, with the goal of encouraging both the government and local factional commanders to start destroying stockpiles in accordance with Kabul's accession last year to the global ban on landmines.
Kelly said that in the past 13 years, the Afghan programme, the biggest in the world with more than 7,000 employees, has cleared about 2.7 million items of ordnance, including a quarter of a million anti-personnel and 30,000 anti-tank mines.
DANGEROUS, EXPENSIVE WORK
It is a costly, dangerous and painstaking task and the U.N. programme this year will require $61 million. Although the project is seen as high priority by donor countries, only about 65 percent has so far been offered and there are concerns that demand for post-war Iraq could slow donations.
"Currently we have no actual stoppage of funds because of Iraq, but as happens throughout the world when there is an emergency, donor fundings do get diverted," Kelly said.
He said 75 deminers had been killed and 250 wounded in the past 13 years, but there is no shortage of recruits in Afghanistan, where demining is considered noble work.
Abdul Razaq, clearing part of the Shomali Plain north of Kabul, said he would rather be doing the work than pursuing another calling for Afghan males - jihad, or holy war in the name of Islam.
"I respect human life and it is a great honour for me to save the life of another by risking my own, especially as my fellow citizens are proud of me," he said.
Razaq said five people and eight farm animals had been killed by mines where he was working - part of the front line between Taliban and opposition forces from 1999.
"Recently, in this garden opposite me, a small boy lost his leg and four animals were killed by a mine," he said.
Razaq said mine clearance should by the highest priority in international assistance to Afghanistan.
"Every day we have one or two incidents here. As long as mines exist, nobody is able to do anything. Farmers cannot work their fields and there won't be jobs for the people."
Razaq said the effort was also vital to the success of the government's faltering bid to disarm rival factional armies. "If a man gives up his gun to the government, what can he do if he cannot work because there are mines everywhere?"
-------- latin america
Central America seeks U.S. engagement
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 29, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030429-24117364.htm
Honduran President Ricardo Maduro yesterday called on the United States to actively engage Central America economically and politically or risk seeing the region slide once again to the left, erasing years of strides toward free-market democracies.
The region, poised to become a success story, was at "a very crucial point," he told editors and reporters at a luncheon at The Washington Times.
"Central American presidents have put their political capital on the line for very significant reforms," he said, referring to efforts by new democracies to fight corruption, establish fiscal responsibility and reform judicial institutions.
But those very leaders need increased support to ensure that the benefits of such reforms make it down to the grass-roots level, or they risk having themselves and their long-term objectives rejected by voters.
"I do believe we are seeing the possibility of a pendulum swing" from democracy back to anti-free-market leftist leaderships, Mr. Maduro said. "We have to provide the people with some real gains quickly. However, the attention we are getting from the international community is not up to the full task."
Mr. Maduro was in Washington on a three-day trip during which he was to meet with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and members of the House and Senate, and address the Council of the Americas meeting at the State Department.
He called on Washington to help the region reach an additional $2.5 billion to $3 billion in annual investments through increased access to international markets. This, he said, would give the region the economic push it needed to keep reforms going.
In a rare show of unanimity, the five Central American nations of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Costa Rica were working together to negotiate with the United States a free-trade agreement that would eliminate tariffs and other barriers on goods, agricultural products and services.
"I have no doubt that if we partner together ... we will be creating success for the future. ... We hope to get [a trade deal] done by the end of the year," he told the Council of the Americas forum.
Honduras also is talking with the United States on extending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) covering more than 90,000 Hondurans living here.
Remittances from these residents are the main source of foreign exchange for Honduras, whose major cash crop, coffee, has been hit by a drop in price profits. Remittances are expected to reach $1 billion by year's end.
Honduran Foreign Minister Guillermo Perez Cadalso Arias said he was optimistic that an agreement to extend the TPS would be reached.
-------- mideast
U.S. to Withdraw All Combat Forces From Saudi Arabia
April 29, 2003
By ERIC SCHMITT
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/international/worldspecial/29CND-RUMS.html
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, April 29 - The United States said today it would withdraw all combat forces in Saudi Arabia by this summer, ending more than a decade of military operations in this strategic Middle East nation.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his Saudi counterpart, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, said at a news conference here that the end of the Iraq war and Saddam Hussein's government in Baghdad meant that America's military mission here was over. Only a small military training program will remain.
"It is now a safer region because of the change of regime in Iraq," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The aircraft and those involved will now be able to leave."
Even before today's announcement, American forces in Saudi Arabia, which doubled to 10,000 during the Iraq war, had started pulling out of sprawling desert airbase used by United States warplanes since 1991 to patrol the no-flight zone in southern Iraq.
By this summer, all 200 airplanes based there in the war will be gone, Rear. Adm. Dave Nichols, the deputy air commander, said. On Monday, the military moved its major air operations center for the Middle East from Saudi Arabia to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
The presence of American forces since the 1991 Persian Gulf war has been a contentious issue in Saudi Arabia. The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was born in Saudi Arabia, has called for the withdrawal of "infidel" American troops from the land of the two holiest sites in Islam.
Prince Sultan denied today that Saudi Arabia had asked the United States to withdraw its forces. "There is no need for them to remain," he said. "This does not mean that we requested them to leave."
But today's news conference was broadcast on Saudi national television, announcing a pullout of troops that the Saudis have always been reluctant to acknowledge were even here. In the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia refused to allow American journalists to join military units based here.
Earlier this year, Saudi officials said the departure of American soldiers would set the stage for a series of democratic reforms, including an announcement that Saudi men - but not women, at least initially - would begin electing representatives to provincial assemblies and then to a national assembly.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers involved were Saudis, prompted members of both parties in Congress to urge wide-ranging reform in the conservative kingdom.
The withdrawal from Saudi Arabia comes at a time that the Pentagon is reassessing troop levels and basing agreements around the globe, but especially in Europe, the Persian Gulf and the Korean peninsula.
Still, the departure of virtually all American military forces from Saudi Arabia (except for about 500 troops near Riyadh, who will continue a longstanding training mission) would mark one of the most important milestones in the history of a relationship that dates to World War II.
Since the end of the gulf war, when the United States sent 550,000 troops to the Saudi desert, the two nations reached a security agreement to confront and contain Mr. Hussein. American engineers have built supply depots and a sophisticated air operations center 50 miles south of Riyadh, at Prince Sultan Air Base.
By the mid-1990's, the security of American troops here became a major concern for the Pentagon. Five Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Riyadh in 1995 and 19 servicemen were killed in a bombing at the Al Khobar barracks in Dhahran a year later.
Tensions between the two allies flared shortly after the air operations center open in 2001, just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In the first day of the Afghan air campaign, Saudi Arabia did not allow American warplanes to fly through Saudi air space, an American official said. The issue was quickly resolved but the delay rankled American commanders.
The Saudi government barred the United States from launching airstrikes against Afghanistan or Iraq from Prince Sultan Air Base. One reason the Pentagon built the back-up air command center in Qatar was because officials fear the Saudis might deny us use their site in the Iraq war.
Life for the roughly 5,000 troops based here permanently has been difficult. The 1,600 Army troops operating Patriot missile batteries that have protected the kingdom cannot officially discuss their mission because of Saudi sensitivities.
Tough security restrictions bar troops from going into Riyadh except on official business. Few American troops get a chance to meet Saudi civilians.
Now all that is going away.
The air patrols over southern Iraq flew more than 286,000 missions since they started in 1991. The F-16 fighters, EA-6B radar-jamming planes, and JSTARS ground-radar planes are all readying to leave in the next few months.
Saudi and American officials said security cooperation would continue, and they noted that American forces and warplanes could return someday if future Saudi rulers faced a new threat.
In the huge, air-conditioned hangar at Prince Sultan Air Base, where Mr. Rumsfeld thanked several hundred American and allied forces for the efforts in the war, Admiral Nichols said the Pentagon has not decided whether to keep a skeletal crew at the installation to restart it quickly in an emergency.
The air command center will be moth-balled. "Nothing's going to be torn down," Admiral Nichols said. "It'll remain wired, but most of the computers and what not will be taken out."
----
Why the U.S. Is Pulling Out of Saudi Arabia
Q&A: Time Middle East bureau chief Scott MacLeod says Saddam's overthrow eliminated the need for a U.S. military presence in the kingdom. Still, extremists may smell an opportunity
Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003
TIME.com
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,447940,00.html
The U.S. has announced it will pull most of its troops out of Saudi Arabia, and has already begun redeploying. Have the Saudis asked for the troop withdrawal, or does it reflect a downgrading of Saudi Arabia's significance as a U.S. ally in the region?
Scott MacLeod: My sources are telling me that the decision was reached by mutual consent, and on a friendly basis - Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's meetings in Saudi Arabia over the past couple of days have been cordial and friendly, with good vibes reported on both sides. The reason for the withdrawal, my sources are saying, is that there had been a desire for a long time to make the U.S. military presence in Saudi "over the horizon" rather than immediately visible. It'll be there if the Saudis need it, but it won't be there permanently. The end of Saddam Hussein's regime has allowed both sides to scale back their security relationship to where it had been in 1990, before the first Gulf War. Back then, the U.S. had maintained a close military relationship, in terms of training, arms supply and so on, that stretched back decades without causing the sort of domestic political problems that have accompanied the stationing of U.S. troops inside the kingdom since Operation Desert Shield. Now they can revert to that relationship, because the demise of Saddam means the official reason for the U.S. troop presence no longer exists.
Operation Iraqi Freedom had brought an additional 20-25,000 U.S. troops into Saudi over the past few months, and those are obviously no longer needed. Also, the changed landscape of the region means that a facility of the scale of Prince Sultan airbase, from which it was possible to direct thousands of simultaneous air operations, is no longer required. The duplicate facility built in Qatar for the current conflict, which is more state-of-the-art and also more portable, is more than adequate for the new situation.
Saddam's ouster has also significantly increased the U.S. strategic presence in the region, raising questions about what sort of military facilities the Americans will ask for or get from a new Iraqi government. But recent war also showed that you didn't need a major commitment from Saudi Arabia to achieve U.S. military goals in the region - the Gulf States and U.S. aircraft carriers were able to stage much of the air war, because the Saudis didn't want the U.S. to fly direct combat missions against Iraq from their territory. Still, the relationship worked pretty well during the war. The Saudis did allow air missions, refueling, the staging of Special Forces and other operations - the U.S. got the minimum of what it asked for.
TIME.com: Even though the Saudis mooted the prospect of a U.S. withdrawal some time ago, some may be inclined to see the withdrawal as some form of punishment for the Saudis for not wholeheartedly supporting the U.S. war effort?
MacLeod: Some politicians in Washington may be inclined to cast this decision as a slap in the face to the Saudis, but I see no sign that at the highest level of the U.S. government that Saudi Arabia is being abandoned as a strategic ally. The fundamentals of that relationship - which long predated the deployment of U.S. troops there and are based on Saudi Arabia's oil production, its geographic location and its longstanding friendship with the U.S. - remain unchanged. Even in the best-case scenario in Iraq, it take a very long time before the government and people of Iraq are as closely aligned with the U.S. as the Saudis are.
TIME.com: How will the announcement be received inside Saudi Arabia?
MacLeod: Some in the Saudi leadership will welcome the news, because they have been upset by what they see as the U.S. acting as if it owned Saudi Arabia. There's a lot of nationalism in the royal family, not to mention on the streets. And those elements will be happy to see U.S. troops withdrawn, and won't see any downside. But there will be others in the leadership who will worry about the reality, or the perception, that the withdrawal downgrades Saudi Arabia's strategic importance to the U.S. The Saudis believe they need to be under a U.S. security umbrella. And some may be concerned that this withdrawal creates the impression among internal Saudi opposition forces, and also Iran, that Saudi Arabia's importance to the U.S. has diminished, and this may encourage them to mount new challenges to Saudi regime.
TIME.com: Ironically, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia has long been one of the primary grievances of Osama bin Laden and his organization. How will the withdrawal play for bin Laden and his supporters?
MacLeod: Well, remember, for bin Laden, it wasn't simply a question of the U.S. troops; it was the idea that the presence of those troops showed just how subservient the royal family had become to the U.S. The extremists perceive the Saudi regime as agents of the U.S. and that perception won't change with the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Saudis won't hide their continued agreements and cooperation with the U.S. and the hard-line fundamentalists will continue to see Americans as dominating Saudi affairs. It may even be worse, because there are now some 250,000 U.S. troops just over the border in Iraq, a bigger footprint than ever, and it was put there with a degree of cooperation from the Saudis.
TIME.com: Will the U.S. withdrawal help or hinder the quest for domestic political reform in Saudi Arabia?
MacLeod: Some Saudis will be very concerned about the message this sends about the strength of their regime. After all, the strength and visibility of that relationship reinforced an aura of invincibility at home. That may have been important for the regime, but it may also have been a liability. Ordinary Saudis, not only fundamentalists, feel their government has been too subservient to the U.S. So this may actually work in favor of those pushing for internal reform, because the U.S. presence had soured many on the royal family. Now that the Americans are getting out and the relationship will be recast as one of mutual respect, it will help government reformists focus on domestic issues related to Saudi Arabia's development.
-------- nato
Chirac: U.N. Must OK NATO Peacekeeping
PAUL AMES
Associated Press
Tue, Apr. 29, 2003
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/5743390.htm
BRUSSELS, Belgium -NATO would need a U.N. resolution requesting it to intervene before planning a peacekeeping operation in Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac said Tuesday.
Chirac told a news conference he had discussed proposals for the alliance to take a role in postwar Iraq with U.S. President George W. Bush when the two leaders spoke recently on the phone.
"There is a need for a U.N. resolution to ask NATO to intervene, if that were the case, we would want to discuss the modalities," Chirac said.
Chirac was in Brussels for talks on European defense with the leaders of Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, who all opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
NATO has been considering a possible Iraq mission since U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell proposed the idea at a foreign ministers meeting at alliance headquarters April 3.
Diplomats said the allies were open to a NATO role helping to stabilize Iraq, but most agreed that a U.N. resolution would be needed before the alliance could move to deploy.
Officials said no decision on Iraq was expected at the regular meeting Wednesday of the alliance's policy-setting North Atlantic Council.
Taking on a peacekeeping operation in Iraq would follow the alliance's recent agreement to take command of the international stabilization force in the Afghan capital Kabul later this year - a further sign that NATO is moving way beyond its traditional European theater.
France had been wary of NATO extending its reach so far. However, Paris signaled a change of heart this month by dropping objections to NATO's move into Afghanistan.
-------- pakistan / india
Pakistan Peace Call Said An 'Icebreaker'
April 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Pakistan-India.html
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan's information minister said Tuesday a telephone call from Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali to India's prime minister was a critical ``icebreaker'' in the decades-long standoff between the South Asian nuclear rivals.
India was cautious to the overture, and on Tuesday said it successfully tested its most sophisticated medium-range Prithvi missile -- the second test in the past month of the missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry played down the test's significance, saying Islamabad was informed in advance.
Meanwhile, a five-hour gun battle between suspected Islamic militants and government soldiers in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed at least 16 militants and six soldiers, a police officer said on condition of anonymity. India accuses Pakistan of supporting the militants -- a charge Pakistan denies.
In a peace overture, Jamali called Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Monday urging a resumption of talks to ease tensions over Kashmir. Jamali said he was ready to go to India or welcome Vajpayee to Pakistan.
``It is a good start. We hope and expect that Prime Minister Jamali's gesture will help ease tension in the region,'' Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told The Associated Press.
``I think the direct contact between the prime ministers of Pakistan and India was an icebreaker and we are very hopeful of a formal positive reply from New Delhi.''
In New Delhi, India's former foreign secretary and ambassador to Pakistan, Mani Dixit, said the pressure is on for dialogue between the two uneasy neighbors, who have been quarreling for decades over the disputed Kashmir region.
``The general pressure on India and Pakistan to resume dialogue to avoid nuclear confrontation is the main policy plank of the Americans,'' Dixit told The AP.
``Pressure is on. India is responding, so is Pakistan. But Prime Minister Vajpayee has said that cross-border terrorism must end. I will be cautious.''
The neighbors have fought two wars over Kashmir, which is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed in its entirety by both. Kashmir is Hindu India's only Muslim-dominated state. A bloody secessionist uprising is being waged by dozens of groups.
Pakistan has offered to post international monitors along the disputed border to prove it is doing everything possible to stop militants from moving into Indian-controlled Kashmir.
So far, India has refused.
Past offers of talks by Pakistan have been spurned by India, which demands that Islamabad first rein in militants headquartered in its territory.
On Monday, Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayyat vowed a further crackdown on militant groups. He warned banned groups against resurfacing under new names.
Hayyat ordered provincial governments to investigate several new groups and shut them down if they are found to be old outlawed groups with new names.
``We have always said that we are ready for talks,'' Rashid said. ``This time we have seen positive signals from the Indian side. I think diplomats from the two sides will also meet soon.''
In Kashmir, the fighting lasted more than five hours and took place in the Doda district, 110 miles northeast of Jammu, the winter capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir, the officer said. Two Indian soldiers were wounded.
Elsewhere, paramilitary soldiers shot and killed two suspected Islamic guerrillas trying to sneak into a military camp early Tuesday near the Line of Control dividing Kashmir, police said.
Editors: AP Correspondent Ashok Sharma in New Delhi contributed to this report.
-------- prisoners of war
Camp Delta at 'Gitmo,' Afghanistan worlds apart
By Larry Luxner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 29, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030429-25534632.htm
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba - "Welcome to Camp Delta," said U.S. Army Col. Adolph McQueen as he greeted two visitors at the outer gates of the prison camp housing 664 captives of the United States' war on terrorism.
The bright blue waters of the Caribbean beckon just beyond the prison's edge, but once inside Camp Delta, the only colors are tan, beige and the camouflage green of the guards' uniforms and M-16 rifles.
Occasionally, one can see a few bearded inmates in their orange jumpsuits and black prayer caps being transported in handcuffs and leg irons from one place to another.
It's not clear how many of these 664 "unlawful enemy combatants" from the war in Afghanistan know they're at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because reporters are not allowed to interview detainees or even get close to them.
But one thing is certain: Unless they cooperate with their interrogators, the prisoners won't be getting out anytime soon. "Every detainee in this camp is a threat to the United States," said Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
"We have already exploited quite a bit of intelligence. We are in the business of looking for golden threads and links, and every day we get something new."
As the base known as "Gitmo" by generations of American sailors marks the 100th anniversary of its lease from Cuba, critics say it might become a permanent dumping ground for anyone the Bush administration wishes to permanently deprive of judicial review.
"The United States has devised a criminal jurisdiction whereby we can lease property anywhere in the world and create a Devil's Island where individuals have no access to the U.S. court system to determine whether they're being held legally," said Bill Butler, chairman emeritus of the International Commission of Jurists.
Human rights lawyer Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, noted that "from the U.S. point of view, Guantanamo has a lot of advantages."
"It's close to the United States, so they can send personnel back and forth all the time. And unlike with military bases in other countries, the U.S. has complete jurisdiction.
"There's no other lease like that, and there's no access by reporters unless the government decides to let you in. Fourthly, nobody has any rights, so the military can do whatever it wants," Mr. Ratner said.
Both lawyers spoke at a seminar last month in Washington focusing on the future of Guantanamo, the oldest foreign U.S. Navy base in the world and the only one in a communist country.
The lease agreement signed by the U.S. and Cuban governments Feb. 21, 1903, established the legal basis for Guantanamo's existence: In exchange for helping Cuba win independence from Spain and an annual payment of $2,000, later raised to $4,085, Cuba granted the United States 45 square miles of land at Guantanamo Bay for the Navy to use as a ship coaling and refueling station.
The lease "was virtually a conveyance of national territory to the United States," said Washington lawyer Robert Muse, who specializes in Cuba matters.
Since 1959, Cuban President Fidel Castro has refused to deposit the annual $4,085 checks sent by the U.S. Treasury, saying that doing so would indicate acceptance of U.S. sovereignty.
In the mid-1990s, more than 45,000 Cuban and Haitian refugees were intercepted on the high seas and brought to the naval base at Guantanamo for incarceration before being resettled in the mainland United States or sent back to their countries of origin.
In January 2002, the United States began transporting certain prisoners captured in Afghanistan to the base in Cuba. The Castro government, eager to show it was participating in the war on terrorism, issued a statement saying that "although the transfer of foreign war prisoners by the U.S. government does not abide by the provisions regulating [the lease], we shall not set any obstacles to the development of the operation, and we are willing to cooperate."
Capt. Bob Buehn, a former commander of the naval installation, said the United States will maintain the lease.
"It's a key part of the global war on terrorism, and this mission would be difficult to do anywhere else," he said.
"One of our missions is forward presence," Capt. Buehn added. "And if Roosevelt Roads Naval Base closes, that would leave Guantanamo as the only U.S. base in the Caribbean. We'd be the only game in town." Roosevelt Roads is in Puerto Rico.
Capt. Buehn, whose tour of duty at Guantanamo ended March 27, says that despite war in Iraq and the presence of 664 possibly dangerous men from 42 countries at Camp Delta, he's seen little tension between the U.S. Marines and the Cuban Frontier Brigade that patrols the fence line.
"There's been no visible change in our relationship since the arrival of the detainees," said Capt. Buehn, who for the past three years met his Cuban counterpart, Brig. Gen. Solar Hernandez, on the third Friday of every month for informal talks.
"We alternate - one month on their side of the fence, one month on our side. These talks are strictly about local issues," he said.
"We also discuss natural disasters like brush fires and hurricanes. This helps keep tensions low and information flowing."
Camp Delta, parts of which are still under construction, replaced temporary chain-link cells at Camp X-Ray five miles to the north, where captives were initially housed upon arrival in Cuba. The new 816-unit compound is in a remote corner of the base, which is off-limits except to the military or visitors on official business.
At barriers on the only access road, Marines with M-16 rifles check cars and trucks for explosives, and review the identification documents of all passengers. "No photography" signs appear every 20 feet along the outer fence, and anyone caught snapping pictures risks having the camera and film confiscated.
"We leave this block empty so we can refine our training techniques," Col. McQueen, of Detroit, said as he dispersed a group of 15 or 20 soldiers engaged in a top-secret training exercise.
A metal-mesh detention unit measures 8 feet long, 7 feet wide and 8 feet high.
The units consist of a metal bed frame raised off the floor, a squatting toilet recessed in the floor and a stainless-steel sink - "lower to the ground to help accommodate foot-washing for Muslim prayer needs," according to a Camp Delta fact sheet.
An arrow indelibly stenciled on each bed points toward Mecca, 7,932 miles away.
Camp Delta cost $42 million to build, but Gen. Miller, the Joint Task Force commander, declined to discuss the prison's operating budget.
The camp is surrounded by guard towers, powerful spotlights and four concentric 20-foot-high fences topped with razor wire. Troops patrol the perimeter fence. Even if a captive escaped, his orange jumpsuit would give him away.
And Mr. Castro has vowed to return to U.S. authorities any detainee caught on Cuban soil. Since their arrival, 25 inmates have been sent home, mostly to Afghanistan.
Asked how much longer Guantanamo will be host to these "illegal combatants," Capt. Buehn said: "This mission could last at least five years."
Camp Delta's prisoners spend most of their time being interrogated or reading the Koran in their cells. Five times a day, the Islamic call to prayer is played over the camp's loudspeakers - thanks to Youssef Yee, a Muslim chaplain with the Army who downloads the chants onto a CD from a Saudi Web site that lists the prayer times for different locations around the globe.
"During Ramadan, we change the feeding schedule," Mr. Yee said. "One of the traditions is to break the fast with dates and water, so every detainee gets some dates to break the fast just as the sun goes down.
"On the holiday of Eid al-Adha, which commemorates the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, we also give them a holiday meal, which includes traditional Mediterranean sweets like baklava.
Between 15 percent and 20 percent of the captives speak English, and some of them even translate for prisoners who don't.
Although most of the captives come from mainly Muslim countries, the captives include two Australians, two Britons, a Swede and a Dane.
Most of the inmates at Camp Delta eat military ready-to-eat meals, get two 15-minute periods of exercise and take a minimum of two showers a week. When being transported, they are restrained with handcuffs and leg shackles, and are escorted by at least two guards.
But Gen. Miller said a new wing of Camp Delta, known as Camp 4, houses "more cooperative" prisoners. They live 10 to 12 in a cluster, wear white jumpsuits instead of orange ones and enjoy three recreation periods a day - two of 30 minutes each and one of an hour.
"There's been a fairly significant increase in cooperation through the detainee award and penalties program," Gen. Miller said. "This program was initiated in November and includes small comforts such as books in the cellblock, water tumblers and up to seven showers a week. But if they don't follow the rules, they lose the benefits."
The soldiers who watch over the captives don't know their names, as the prisoners are referred to by numbers. Likewise, the guards hide their name tags with Velcro strips to protect themselves against retribution.
"We don't engage in casual conversation with the detainees," said Capt. Brian Pitts of the 132nd Military Police Company. "Soldiers are rotated on a regular basis, so they don't get too close to the detainees."
In civilian life, Staff Sgt. Horace Miller of Columbia, S.C., works in the vending-machine business. But before that, he was a corrections officer.
"I don't want to be friendly with the detainees, because if I have to use force on them, I don't want to feel it later. When you make friends, they'll use that against you."
He added, "They're in here because they might have done something bad, but if you don't treat them like dogs, they'll respect you."
Since the operation began, Camp Delta has had 22 attempted suicides, with one resulting in serious injuries.
Gen. Miller said at least 75 of the men have mental illnesses. At the new prison hospital, propaganda posters in Arabic, Farsi and English advise inmates that "the road to return must be paved with your complete truth and cooperation."
"Despite the rhetoric, a good portion of the men jailed at Camp Delta are probably innocent," said Mr. Ratner, the human rights lawyer who represented about 400 HIV-positive Haitian refugees detained at Guantanamo during the 1990s.
"In some ways, the Guantanamo detainees are the lucky ones, because they're not sitting in Diego Garcia or Bagram," he said. Diego Garcia is in the Indian Ocean, and Bagram is in Afghanistan. Red Cross personnel visit Camp Delta on occasion, but have said its presence should not be considered an indication of whether torture is occurring.
Last month, the Pentagon hinted that Iraqi "enemy combatants" who use civilians as human shields or otherwise violate the rules of war in Iraq could be shipped to Guantanamo, adding to the legal problem of what to do with the 664 men languishing at Camp Delta.
"Gitmo might as well be on another planet, floating somewhere out there in space," Mr. Ratner said. "It's a lawless situation, and not one I, as a human rights lawyer, find acceptable."
----
3 teens detained at Guantanamo
By Toby Harnden
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
April 29, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030429-32866365.htm
The Pentagon defends the detention at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba of at least three teenagers ages 13 to 15 captured in Afghanistan.
"I would say, despite their age, these are very, very dangerous people," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday.
"They are people that have been vetted mainly in Afghanistan and gone through a thorough process to determine what their involvement was. Some have killed. Some have stated they're going to kill again."
"So they may be juveniles, but they're not on a Little League team anywhere. They're on a major league team, and it's a terrorist team. And they're in Guantanamo for a very good reason."
The children arrived at Camp Delta in Cuba in recent months and do not have legal representation. Once their age was established, they were separated from other al Qaeda and Taliban suspects.
Officials from the International Committee for the Red Cross have frequently visited Camp Delta and have raised the issue of the children as a "particular concern."
-------- puerto rico
PIP request Vieques be included in Federal Superfund
Tuesday, April 29th, 2003
(AP)
http://www.puertoricowow.com/html/general-detail.asp?amaspHidden_listActive=true&amaspField_newshd=PIP%20request%20Vieques%20be%20included%20in%20Federal%20Superfund%20&amaspHidden_newshd_dataType=string
SAN JUAN - The Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) urged Gov Sila Calderon on Monday to request that Vieques be included as a place to be treated environmentally under the Superfund Federal law.
"This is something that the governor can do today if she wanted to," said PIP Vice-President Maria de Lourdes Santiago in a press conference at the party headquarters where she gave information regarding the massive mobilization of party members to Vieques to commemorate the end of military practices on the island's target range.
Executive President Fernando Martin said the party will participate in a march that would leave the town square at 11 a.m. towards the main entrance of Camp Garcia. Once there President Ruben Berrios Martinez will address the crowd.
Martin added that the PIP will not participate in any gubernatorial activity but "will celebrate with the people of Vieques who supported us so much during that year in which Ruben stayed at Gilberto Concepcion de Gracia camp."
Martin added there are still issues pending such as getting the transfer of the land to local authorities instead of having the federal government retaining jurisdiction of the land.
----
U.S. Navy finished letter for the Vieques land transfer
Tuesday, April 29th, 2003
(AP)
http://www.puertoricowow.com/html/general-detail.asp?amaspHidden_listActive=true&amaspField_newshd=U.S.%20Navy%20finished%20letter%20for%20the%20Vieques%20land%20transfer&amaspHidden_newshd_dataType=string
SAN JUAN - Officials of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Virginia announced that U.S. Navy legal advisors have finished drafting the letter for the Vieques land transfer to the U.S. Department of the Interior.
"We've already done everything for the transfer and the letter is ready to be sent. Nothing will stop the transfer," U.S. Navy Lt. Scott McIlnay said in published reports.
McIlnay explained that the transfer of 14,500 acres of land in the eastern part of Vieques has been specified in the letter that only contains information of the transfer. However, attorneys of both federal agencies have yet to finish drafting the agreement memorandum that would specify the responsibilities of each agency regarding the lands.
-------- russia / chechnya
Russia, ex-Soviet republics set up rapid reaction force
Tuesday April 29, 2003-- Safar 26, 1424 A.H.
Pakistan International News
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2003-daily/29-04-2003/world/w1.htm
PUGUS, Tajikistan: Russia and five former Soviet republics have set up a joint military command to oversee a rapid reaction force amid increased security risks in Central Asia, their leaders said Monday.
The announcement was made after a summit here by the leaders of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which make up the Collective Security Treaty Organization (DKB).
"The main goal of the DKB is to assure the security and territorial integrity of the member countries. To work more efficiently, we had to create the appropriate instruments," Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists after the summit, held at the summer home of Tajik President Emomali Rakhmanov outside the capital Dushanbe. "For the first time, a joint general staff of the armed forces of DKB member states has been created -- we have defined its composition and its financing," said Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev.
The summit also named Nikolai Bordiuzha, the 53-year-old former head of the Russian Security Council, secretary general of the organization.
The DKB was set up in 1992 to boost cooperation on shared security threats such as terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime. The leaders also said that they would set up a system to facilitate arms sales between member countries.
"According to the DKB, if there is a threat of aggression against one country, other member state can give help, including military aid," Nazarbayev said.
The doctrine is similar to that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an alliance that was founded to counter the growing Soviet threat in Europe after World War II.
Alexander Lukashenko, the authoritarian president of Belarus, said the grouping moved to focus on building up its common armed force following the war in Iraq, launched by the United States and Britain without the backing of the United Nations.
"The situation in the world has prompted us to do this -- we must ensure the security of our countries and our people," Lukashenko said.
"We have noticed that certain forces within the United Nations are attempting to break the global system and its key link, the United Nations," he said.
Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev said his country would welcome an air rapid deployment force and would officially open a base to house the aircraft in June.
-------- us
Bigger US presence in Africa?
29/04/2003
(SA News 24)
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1353131,00.html
Washington - The United States plans to boost its military presence in Africa to respond to new threats, Nato's supreme commander of allied forces in Europe, General Jim Jones, said on Monday.
"We might wish to have more presence in the southern rim of the Mediterranean, where there are a certain number of countries that can be destabilised in the near future, large ungoverned areas across Africa that are clearly the new routes of narco trafficking, terrorists training and hotbeds of instability," Jones said.
He also spoke of "potential threats to the Alliance and our interests."
"As Africa becomes more and more of a challenge and a focus, not only for us but for the alliance," he said the United States would consider "that the carrier groups of future and the expeditionary strike groups may not spend six months in the Mediterranean but I bet they will spend half the time going down the west coast of Africa."
Washington has stationed 1 300 troops in the tiny east African country of Djibouti as part of its anti-terrorism effort in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.
----
U.S. Military Plans New Bases in Eastern Europe
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 29, 2003; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50736-2003Apr28?language=printer
The top U.S. military officer in Europe outlined plans yesterday for establishing an array of skeletal bases and occasional-use training areas in Eastern Europe that would allow the United States to reduce its military presence in Western Europe and still be able to mount operations quickly in the region.
Marine Gen. James L. Jones said some large installations such as Ramstein Air Base in Germany probably would remain, since they are still useful and moving them would provide little additional benefit. But he said preliminary plans call for setting up new "forward operating bases" or "forward operating locations" in the east that would complement the big permanent installations.
The new sites would involve relatively modest construction -- Jones described them as "bare bones" -- but enough to support U.S. military units rotating through from time to time for training exercises or for operations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Pentagon officials disclosed several months ago that they were looking at ways to shrink the U.S. military footprint in Europe and shift some operations east. Jones, speaking at a breakfast with defense journalists, provided no specifics on where the new bases will go, but his remarks revealed how some of his and the Pentagon's thinking has advanced.
The review of America's military presence in Europe comes against the backdrop of increased strains with key European allies, including Germany and France, which strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. But Jones, who serves as NATO's top commander as well as the head of U.S. forces in Europe, insisted that whatever he ultimately recommends will reflect solely military considerations.
"If anybody else wants to make a decision based on other reasons -- as long as they're militarily sound and make sense -- we can horse-trade or do whatever," the four-star Marine general said. "But I can't go into my work trying to figure out what the political fallout might be. It has to be honest, it has to be open, and if it affects someone, it has nothing to do with current political relations -- good or bad."
Jones said urban sprawl and heightened environmental concerns were imposing increased limits on U.S. military activities in Western Europe and driving up costs. He noted a Pentagon study last year that concluded that at least 20 percent of the 499 military installations in Europe are no longer "terribly usable."
With NATO itself expanding eastward after the admission of increasing numbers of former Soviet Bloc states, Jones said it is only logistical to look in that direction for new basing arrangements. "As the alliance moves to the east, we're trying to develop a concept that allows our forces to do peacetime engagement around a greater portion of our theater," he said.
As a model, Jones pointed to Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, a 1,000-acre facility built on former farmland four years ago to house several thousand soldiers.
"I don't think we're talking about building another Ramstein or another strategically large, big installation where you have the small-town USA come with it, like families and schools and everything else," Jones said. "But what we're trying to do is develop a family of bases that can be scalable -- that can go from being cold to warm to hot if you need them, to be very efficiently and economically built."
Jones also said that two former communist states, Bulgaria and Romania, which made bases available to U.S. forces during the war in Iraq, represent "extremely good candidates" for the kind of arrangements under consideration.
With the Pentagon eager to enlist international help in reconstructing Iraq, some officials in the administration and in Congress have expressed interest in using NATO troops. Jones said that NATO's military planners had received no formal authorization from the alliance's political committee to look at possibilities, but that NATO officials are discussing the matter.
"I would say that there's a general willingness to discuss options and to consider ways in which the members of the alliance, either collectively or individually, can help the situation in Iraq," Jones said. "It certainly is one of the hot topics."
-------- propaganda wars
Missteps by Press Color Iraqi Perceptions
Cox's Nelson on Some Unfortunate Incidents
By Craig Nelson
APRIL 29, 2003
Editor & Publisher
http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1875973
NEW YORK -- With tanks and armored personnel carriers, U.S. Marines had surrounded the Palestine Hotel, home to the foreign press corps in Baghdad, Iraq. Now, at a checkpoint located at the foot of the hotel's driveway, they were requesting identification from me and other reporters who had been living in the hotel for weeks.
At first, the two Marine guards wouldn't accept my word about who I was, what I was, and how long I'd been in the hotel. Fair enough: Baghdad remains a dangerous place, with suicide bombers in civilian clothes and remnants of the deposed dictator's security apparatus still active. Better safe than sorry.
I pulled my U.S. passport from my shirt pocket. "Nope, I need to see the Iraqi press credentials,'' one of the Marines said. I was dumfounded: The guards wouldn't accept a valid American passport, but they would accept as identification the press credentials issued by the propaganda arm of a government they had overthrown and a regime the Bush administration had likened to Hitler's.
I was eventually allowed to pass through the checkpoint, not by showing my Information Ministry press credentials, which I'd flung in the wastebasket to celebrate my personal liberation from Iraqi spies, but by pulling my hotel-room key from the pocket of my jeans.
Yet, as the episode at the checkpoint demonstrates, caution still shrouds all U.S. military activities in Iraq. As American forces try to bring order to the streets of Baghdad and the task of establishing a new Iraqi government enters a key stage, success is tinged with fears of suicide bombers and shrouded by difficulties in assessing who or what is a threat.
"We splashed that bastard," a Western eyewitness quoted one Marine as saying to another after they'd shot an Iraqi dead. The man was gunned down after he walked out of his door onto a balcony to see why three women were crying from the street below. It turned out their car had been shot up by Marines two minutes earlier.
Troops of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, had been targeted by sporadic rifle and rocket-propelled grenade fire at their command post at the gate to Saddam Hussein's palace in Baghdad's Adhamiya district. But the eyewitness, producer Tim Lambon of Britain's Channel Four, said the man atop the balcony did not have a gun.
Any similar episodes risk American hopes to win over the hearts and minds of Iraqis.
And U.S. soldiers weren't alone in conveying troubling messages. Journalist Peter Wilson watched as a Los Angeles Times reporter walked to the driver's window of a destroyed minibus on central Baghdad's Sinak Bridge. Inside the broken window was the carbonized corpse of the vehicle's driver, its charred arm resting on the window's ledge.
Bidding a photographer standing nearby to take his photo, the reporter, Geoffrey Mohan, stood about a foot from the corpse and, with his pen poised over his notebook, asked: "Well, sir, do you have any comment on what has happened to you here?"
Thirty feet away, behind a cordon of barbed wire, stood about 20 Iraqis watching the American conduct a mock interview with the corpse of a man who probably had a family -- all for a photo opportunity. They may have not understood what Mohan said, but they saw what he was doing, Wilson and two other Western eyewitnesses said.
Wilson, Europe correspondent for The Australian newspaper, was still shaken by the incident when I spoke to him a day later. "What stuck in my mind," he said, "was the question: Who is he going to show this souvenir photo to? His wife? His kids? His buddies?"
Mohan, who was embedded with an Army unit, later acknowledged that the incident was an "ill-conceived, clumsy, and ill-considered attempt at gallows humor." During a telephone interview, he insisted there had been no Iraqis within 50 feet of the bus.
He also described the account by Wilson and the two other eyewitnesses as part of an "agenda against embedded reporters," implying that the episode has been distorted by Baghdad-based foreign reporters who believed that journalists traveling with American military units during the war had empathized too uncritically with their hosts.
Episodes such as these -- along with last week's stories about at least six U.S. reporters smuggling objects or money out of Iraq -- tarnish the image of Americans in Baghdad. But these perceptions are not tainted beyond repair. If such incidents accumulate, however, they could deepen Iraqi suspicions about Washington's motives.
See E&P's complete coverage of Iraq and the Press. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1871077
E&P welcomes letters to the editor: letters@editorandpublisher.com.
-------- war crimes
U.S. voices concern about Belgian law
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
April 29, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030429-99696774.htm
The United States yesterday reiterated concerns about a Belgian law that allows foreign officials to be sued on accusations of war crimes after a report that a group of Iraqis are planning to use it to file a complaint against U.S. commanders who led the war in Iraq.
The State Department said it was pleased that Belgian legislators recently added a screening process to suits filed under the "universal competence" law, but signaled that Brussels should do more to filter out politically motivated cases.
"We've expressed those concerns to the government of Belgium," spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters when asked about a story in yesterday's editions of The Washington Times that said a suit is planned against the chief of the U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Tommy Franks, and other military officers for the war in Iraq.
"We're pleased that the Belgian government has taken action to change the law, but we believe the Belgian government needs to be diligent in taking steps to prevent abuse of the legal system for political ends," Mr. Boucher said.
"As to this specific case, we believe it does show the danger of a judicial system that's open to politically motivated charges," he added.
The Washington Times reported that 10 Iraqi civilians planned to accuse Gen. Franks and the others of committing war crimes in the current conflict.
It quoted Jan Fermon, a Brussels-based attorney representing the Iraqis, as saying the complaint would charge that "unknown American personnel are directly responsible for committing war crimes in Iraq."
Mr. Fermon told The Times that he expected to file the suit in about two weeks, accusing U.S. soldiers of firing on an ambulance, attacking a civilian bus, killing scores of civilians by bombing a Baghdad marketplace and failing to prevent the looting of hospitals.
"On some of these questions there is an issue of command responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, and that responsibility ends with General Franks and those who are under him in the U.S. lines of command," he said.
Mr. Boucher's complaints about Belgium
Last month after being named in a suit stemming from the 1991 Gulf war, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said that, unless restricted, the law could affect Belgium's status as an international hub, referring specifically to Brussels, which is home to the European Union as well as NATO.
After those complaints, as well as protests from Israel, whose prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has also been sued under the law, Belgian lawmakers adopted changes earlier this month that allow for government prosecutors to refer certain cases to courts in the defendant's country of origin.
About 30 current or former political leaders are facing legal action under the law, including Mr. Sharon, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, former President George Bush and Mr. Powell.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
-------- homeland security
Bush Names Former CIA Official as New Homeland Security Adviser
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Associated Press / Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,85489,00.html
WASHINGTON - President Bush named a former deputy CIA director, Air Force Gen. John Gordon, to be his new homeland security adviser, the White House announced Tuesday.
Gordon will help coordinate White House policies with the recently created Department of Homeland Security and other defense and intelligence agencies, said presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Gordon, currently a presidential national security adviser for combatting terrorism, will take the post initially held by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, who left the White House to head the new department.
The job does not require Senate confirmation.
"The White House still needs to have an office here in the White House -- much smaller than the department -- to coordinate the various entities that are involved in homeland security," Fleischer said.
Gordon, a four-star general, also worked for the first President Bush as a staff member of the National Security Council.
----
Patriot Raid
By Jason Halperin,
AlterNet
April 29, 2003
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770
Two weeks ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.
That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.
We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.
"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.
I hesitated, lost in my own panic.
"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.
I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.
After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department. I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.
In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.
"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.
When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."
We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."
We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date - March 20, 2003, over and over.
As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself? "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this."
I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.
After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman - unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.
Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."
Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.
Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the Patriot Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.
Jason Halperin lives in New York City and works at Doctors Without Borders/Medicins San Frontieres. If you are moved by this account, he asks that you consider donating to your local ACLU chapter.
-------- police
Report: Fewer Wiretaps Sought in 2002
April 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Wiretaps.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Law enforcement officials sought fewer court orders last year for eavesdropping on private conversations, a report says, but that doesn't include hundreds of wiretaps approved by a special court to track down suspected terrorists and spies.
Federal and state judges authorized all but one of the 1,359 wiretap applications submitted in 2002. The requests represented a 9 percent decrease from the 1,491 applications logged the previous year, according to the annual report by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Federal wiretaps rose by 2 percent, to 497, while the number of applications filed by state officials dropped 14 percent to 861.
Nearly all the nonfederal applications came from seven states: New York, with 404 applications; California, 143; New Jersey, 81; Pennsylvania, 79; Maryland, 54; Florida, 37; and Illinois, 25.
The numbers in the report don't reflect wiretap applications overseen by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, which has approved thousands of warrants since it was established in 1978 by Congress. The FISA court is known to have denied only two government applications, and both of those involved test cases over the court's legal authority. In one of the two cases, the Reagan administration Justice Department asked that its application be denied as part of an effort to curtail the court's authority.
The ``spy court'' approves wiretaps and other surveillance of suspected spies, terrorists or foreign agents in the United States. It approved 934 applications in 2001. The number of applications it approved last year will be submitted in a report to Congress in the next few weeks.
The lack of spy court data in the annual wiretap report makes the document less useful than it used to be, said Jameel Jaffer, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
``This report used to give us a comprehensive picture of the government's use of the wiretap provision in criminal cases,'' he said. ``It no longer does because the government is using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct surveillance in certain criminal investigations.''
According to the administrative office's report, the bulk of the wiretap requests -- 77 percent -- emerged from narcotics investigations. Gambling, racketeering and homicides were the other crimes cited most often in applications.
The telephone wiretap was the most common type of surveillance used, according to the report, with 77 percent of the locations being ``portable devices'' such as cellular phones and digital pagers.
Ed Cogswell, an FBI spokesman, said he couldn't explain the decrease in wiretap applications. One possible reason might be a shift from wiretap applications from state and federal courts to those submitted in the spy court because ``certainly, we have shifted a priority into the counterterrorism arena.''
Stephen Dycus, a Vermont Law School professor who specializes in national security, said more information is needed before any explanation could be made.
``It could be because Americans are behaving themselves and law enforcement investigations have dropped as a result,'' he said. ``Or, it could be that FBI's resources have been rediverted from ordinary law enforcement to Homeland Security duties. We really need more data to have some sense of why.''
On The Net:
2002 Wiretap Report: http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap.html
-------- prisons / prisoners
Court Says Legal Immigrants Can Be Held Without Bail
April 29, 2003
The New York Times
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/politics/29CND-SCOTUS.html
WASHINGTON, April 29 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a case with significant impact on the rights of noncitizens, that the federal government can detain legal immigrants without bail during their deportation proceedings.
The court upheld, 5 to 4, the strict rules of the 1996 immigration law, which mandates detention of immigrants who have committed certain crimes even as those immigrants challenge their deportation.
``Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens,'' the court said in a summary attached to the opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
The case decided today, Demore v. Kim, No. 01-1491, has been closely followed by immigrants' rights groups and lawyers who follow immigration issues. Today's decision made it clear that immigrants - even those in the United States legally - may have far more to lose than American citizens if they are convicted of crimes, and not necessarily heinous ones.
``We hold that Congress, justifiably concerned that deportable criminal aliens who are not detained continue to engage in crime and fail to appear for their removal hearings in large numbers, may require that persons such as respondent be detained for the brief period necessary for their removal proceedings,'' Justice Rehnquist wrote.
The ``respondent'' is Hyung Joon Kim, who came to the United States in 1984 at age 6. While still a child, he became a lawful permanent resident. In 1996, when he was a teenager, he was convicted of burglary and the next year was found guilty of petty theft.
He completed his sentence in California state prison and, the day after his release, was detained by immigration officials without bail to await deportation.
After more than three months in custody, Mr. Kim filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the 1996 law's no-bail provision violated his constitutional rights. A federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, agreed with him.
But today, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, and two other circuit courts that had come to similar conclusions. In so doing, the high court agreed with the government's contention, made in arguments before the justices in January, that the appeals judges had improperly substituted their judgment for those of lawmakers.
Given America's often ambivalent relationship with immigrants, today's ruling will likely not be the last on immigrants' rights. Nor will the Kim case be the last controversy, either in the courts or Congress.
As for the 1996 law that its critics say is too harsh, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, ``Congress adopted this provision against a backdrop of wholesale failure by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deal with increasing rates of criminal activity by aliens.''
Joining in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justices David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer dissented. ``The Court's judgment is unjustified by past cases or current facts,'' Justice Souter wrote in an opinion that rang with indignation in spots.
``Due process calls for an individual determination before someone is locked away,'' Justice Souter wrote at one point. He noted that Mr. Kim had completed his state prison sentence, and that he was not considered dangerous.
Moreover, Justice Souter wrote, lawful permanent residents like Mr. Kim are the most privileged class of noncitizens - that is, they are typically ``developing economic, familial, and social ties indistinguishable from those of a citizen.'' Many lawful permanent residents aspire to, and eventually obtain citizenship, he noted.
``This case is not about the national government's undisputed power to detain aliens in order to avoid flight or prevent danger to the community,'' Justice Souter concluded. ``The issue is whether that power may be exercised by detaining a still lawful permanent resident alien when there is no reason for it and no way to challenge it.''
In a closing lament, Justice Souter said the majority's finding ``is devoid of even ostensible justification in fact and at odds with the settled standard of liberty.''
The decisions in the case can be read on the Supreme Court's Web site: www.supremecourtus.gov.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
U.S. to propose international partnership to develop hydrogen energy
29 April 2003
By Joseph Coleman,
Associated Press
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-04-29/s_4150.asp
PARIS - The world's top economies should pool resources to develop hydrogen energy technology, limiting dependence on fossil fuels, the U.S. secretary of energy said Monday.
Spencer Abraham proposed an international partnership for hydrogen energy at the International Energy Agency, which began a meeting in Paris on Monday. "By working together ... we can dramatically speed the day when everyone can buy a competitively priced hydrogen-powered vehicle," Abraham told reporters.
Abraham said countries could cooperate to develop technology, set safety and other standards, find ways of producing and storing hydrogen, and otherwise prepare for a future "hydrogen economy." The United States plans to spend about $1.7 billion over the next five years on hydrogen development, and Abraham said the European Union has committed up to $2 billion for research into hydrogen and other renewable energy sources. He said the aim was to put competitively priced hydrogen cars on the market by 2020.
Hydrogen fuel cell automobiles run on electricity from a chemical reaction between oxygen and hydrogen and only emit clean water from the tailpipe rather than polluting exhaust.
The meeting also will focus on security of the world energy supply, environmental damage, and unequal access to energy sources.
Abraham plans to meet next week with the president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the Saudi Arabian oil minister during a trip to the Persian Gulf.
----
Energy Developments (ENE.AX) falls 11 percent
REUTERS AUSTRALIA:
April 29, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20607/newsDate/29-Apr-2003/story.htm
MELBOURNE - Shares in troubled Australian renewable energy company Energy Developments fell 11 percent yesterday after the company said it could not explain a 34 percent surge in its share price over the past week.
In response to a query by the Australian Stock Exchange, Energy Developments said it was not aware of any information to explain its shares jumping to A$2.70 on April 24 from A$2.02 on April 17.
Shares in the company - which are still well down on the record high of A$14.35 reached in February, 2001 - were trading at A$2.20 in late morning trade.
An analyst, who declined to be named, said the share price rally by Energy Developments was likely due to a new institution buying the stock, which then spurred buying by retail investors.
"It looks like a whole bunch of retail punters have jumped on the momentum bandwagon. There's not really any good news in the short term that I think is propelling it up," he said.
Energy Developments has been plagued by problems with its proposed waste-to-power process and earlier this year announced plans to find partners for its Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility (SWERF) in an attempt to move the project forward.
In March the company posted a first-half loss of A$46.4 million after it took a A$57.1 million writedown on the waste and energy recycling facility, which recovers materials such as metals, glass and rigid plastics to generate electricity.
Energy Developments has an existing waste-to-power and gas power generation operating capacity of more than 370 megawatts, with operations in seven countries.
-------- environment
Winter Lettuce May Come With Rocket Fuel
April 29, 2003
(ENS)
http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-29-09.asp#anchor5
OAKLAND, California, A new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) finds that lettuce grown in Southern California and Arizona in the fall and winter may contain levels of toxic rocket fuel in excess of what is considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In the report "Suspect Salads" EWG says that 18 percent of lettuce samples contained detectable levels of perchlorate, and an average serving of contaminated lettuce contained four times more perchlorate than the EPA says is safe in drinking water.
Perchlorate is the explosive component of rocket and missile fuel. Although there are currently no enforceable perchlorate safety standards, the EPA's currently recommended safe dose is equal to one part per billion (ppb) in drinking water.
EWG, a nonprofit environmental research firm, believes a national safety standard should be no higher than 0.1 ppb.
Based on its study, the organization estimates that that by eating lettuce, 1.6 million American women of childbearing age are exposed daily during the winter months to more perchlorate than the EPA's recommended safe dose.
The tests are the first ever of perchlorate in supermarket produce, according to EWG, but they confirm previous research on greenhouse grown lettuce seedlings and field-grown lettuce, kale and spinach.
It is estimated that perchlorate contaminates more than 500 drinking water sources in 20 states, serving well over 20 million people. This includes the Colorado River, a major source of drinking water for many in the Western U.S. and a key irrigation source - 70 percent of the nation's lettuce grown from October to March relies on water from the Colorado.
Of the 15 leading lettuce growing counties in the U.S., according to EWG, 10 have known or suspected sources of perchlorate pollution.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, introduced a bill in March to unearth the extent of perchlorate contamination. In a letter sent Monday to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Boxer cited EWG's study and urged the agency to investigate perchlorate contamination in food.
"The federal government is already woefully behind in addressing perchlorate contamination in drinking water," Boxer wrote. "This delay is unacceptable. We cannot exacerbate the problem by ignoring the possible contamination of our food."
----
California Lawmakers Move to Fight U.S. Pollution Rules
April 29, 2003
The New York Times
By DEAN E. MURPHY
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/national/29POLL.html
SAN FRANCISCO, April 28 - A group of state legislators moved today to undercut revised regulations by the Bush administration that give utilities and other industrial plants more flexibility in complying with air pollution standards.
The legislators introduced a state bill that would effectively revive the old federal regulations as a new state requirement. The legislation passed its first hurdle tonight in a State Senate committee, and it is being closely watched by other states as the first legislative challenge to the revised regulations, which many environmentalists have criticized as lax on polluters.
"Air quality is at the top of the list of concerns in California, and we are focused on doing the right thing," said State Senator Byron D. Sher, a Stanford Democrat who is a sponsor of the bill. "We are also sending a message about our unhappiness generally with what has been happening with the current administration on environmental laws."
At least 10 states, including California and New York, have sued the Environmental Protection Agency over the revised regulations, which were announced in December and took effect last month. The suit contends that the changes amounted to a significant weakening of the Clean Air Act by making it easier for some industrial polluters to avoid installing modern pollution controls.
"We think the new rules will increase pollution and are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act," said an assistant attorney general in New York, Jared Snyder.
The E.P.A. says the changes were intended to give the operators of power plants greater leeway in upgrading old plants and to eliminate some requirements that discouraged the installation of modern pollution controls. The rules revised the so-called new source review provision of the Clean Air Act. That provision required the installation of modern pollution controls whenever a plant had renovations not considered routine.
"We think the new regulations give a better result than the old regulations," said Bill Wehrum, the E.P.A.'s counsel to the assistant administrator for air and radiation.
But environmentalists and many state governments insist that the changes give big utilities and other industries an excuse to avoid pollution controls. Though many critics conceded that the new source review provision was imperfect, they suggested that the changed rules were even more flawed.
In a letter in December to the administrator of the federal agency, Christie Whitman, Gov. Gray Davis of California said the revisions would "bring us more air pollution" and "more health problems." Mr. Davis also suggested that the state might go it alone if Washington did not alter its stance.
"We trust that the federal E.P.A. will honor its commitment allowing California to continue enforcing environmental initiatives that are more protective of public health than federal rules and to allow other states to adopt California's more protective standards, should they choose to do so," Mr. Davis said.
A spokesman said Mr. Davis generally supported the effort that began today in Sacramento. Other supporters include Assemblyman Marco Antonio Firebaugh, the Sacramento Democrat who is the Assembly majority floor leader. Senator Sher said the hope was to have the measure pass in a few months so that it would become law at the end of the year.
Some opponents, however, have already lined up against it.
Representatives from the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, an advocacy group for business and labor, said the legislation was unnecessary. In a letter to Mr. Sher, the group argued that the more flexible federal regulations would improve the air quality in the state by encouraging companies to change their plants. It also suggested that creating a separate California standard would impede the economic recovery here.
"Confusion and uncertainty is likely to cause businesses to defer or cancel expenditures on new facilities and equipment subject to air permitting requirements," the group said. "This is the wrong message to send when California needs an economic recovery."
Carl Zichella, regional director in Sacramento for the Sierra Club, which backs the state legislation, said the proposed law would have little effect on businesses.
"The legislation is keeping in place the existing state system that has made progress over the years," Mr. Zichella said. "Business has had to comply with this already."
Mr. Wehrum of the Environmental Protection Agency would not speculate on what effects the legislation, should it become law, would have on the revised federal regulations. Under the Clean Air Act, he said, states can impose separate air quality requirements, if the agency deems them "at least as stringent" as the federal government's.
"We promulgated the changes because we wanted the program to work better," Mr. Wehrum said. "We think we accomplished that with the changes. But the proof will be in the pudding."
-------- health
Bush Urges Passage of Bill to Provide $15 Billion for AIDS
April 29, 2003
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/politics/29CND-BUSH.html
WASHINGTON, April 29 - President Bush urged Congress today to swiftly pass legislation that would triple United States spending to contain the global AIDS scourge, putting aside conservatives' complaints that the legislation should favor sexual abstinence over condom use as the preferred disease preventative.
"H.I.V./AIDS is a tragedy for millions of men, women and children, and a threat to stability of entire countries and of regions," Mr. Bush said in a televised speech from the White House. While some felt overwhelmed by the problem's magnitude, he said, "The United States of America chooses the path of action."
He threw his support behind a proposed bill - a version of which has cleared a House committee - to provide $15 billion over five years for worldwide AIDS prevention and treatment. A portion of the money would be used, as well, to combat tuberculosis and malaria.
Mr. Bush called the fight against AIDS "an integral part of our nation's foreign policy," and he suggested having some American Peace Corps volunteers in Africa work with AIDS victims.
Despite misgivings by some conservatives, the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, predicted ultimate passage of the legislation. The House International Relations Committee on April 2 passed its version by a bipartisan vote of 37 to 8.
"It looks like it's going to be action that leads to law," Mr. Fleischer said. President Bush predicted that this would happen by the end of May.
The House bill, sponsored by Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois, who chairs the International Relations Committee, pays particular attention to AIDS in 14 countries in the Caribbean and in Africa, where Mr. Bush says AIDS has imposed "a death sentence." It would largely carry out a vow the president made in January, during his State of the Union message, to greatly increase American global spending on fighting the disease.
That pledge has received warm welcome from many groups dealing with AIDS. Kate Carr, president of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, was quoted as saying she was "ecstatic" at Mr. Bush's support for the Hyde bill at a time he has been preoccupied with Iraq and a tax-cut proposal.
About 25 million people around the world have died of AIDS-related causes, and the number could reach 75 million by 2010, according to an estimate by the Central Intelligence Agency.
More than 75 percent of the estimated 42 million people who were living with AIDS or H.I.V. at the end of last year were in Africa or the Caribbean - in Botswana, in southern Africa, 40 percent of adults have HIV, Mr. Bush said - and living conditions, the health-care establishment and national economies have been severely affected. Women, children, and refugees are particularly vulnerable.
But progress on the Hyde bill had been stalled by debate over ways that United States funding might benefit foreign groups that promote or perform abortions, and on the methods of disease prevention the bill should support.
The House committee angered some conservatives when it voted narrowly not to give priority to sexual abstinence and monogamy as key preventive approaches. The bill mentions those approaches, but cites condom use as well, and suggests no hierarchy. Some conservatives say that this amounts to promoting promiscuous and irresponsible sex.
Mr. Bush praised a successful anti-AIDS program in Uganda which equally advocates sexual abstinence, fidelity and condom use, saying that it provided a model.
Abstinence, Mr. Fleischer said earlier, was an essential part of the Ugandan approach, but that plan also recognized that abstinence alone was not the answer.
Some conservative critics of the bill lament the fact that United States money will go to international groups that consider abortion a valid family-planning approach. That, they say, would violate a rule put in place by President Ronald Reagan to bar such use of American money.
That ban, known as the Mexico City rule for the place Mr. Reagan announced it, was suspended under President Bill Clinton but reimposed by Mr. Bush shortly after he took office.
The administration now says it has found a compromise: organizations that perform or promote abortions can receive AIDS money, but they must not use it for abortion-related activities, and must provide strict accounting to confirm as much.
Though conservatives had insisted in the past that this sort of funding could free up other funds for those groups to use to promote abortions, Mr. Fleischer insisted today that "we are not expanding the Mexico City policy."
Under the Hyde bill, $14 billion would go directly to other countries and $1 billion - five times what the Bush administration sought - to the Global Fund to Combat AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, a public-private group based in Switzerland.
Thomas Coburn, a Republican member of the Presidential Advisory Council on H.I.V./AIDS, told the congressional newsletter The Hill that the Global AIDS Fund is a "bureaucratic nightmare" with "no clear-cut accountability."
Some conservatives see Mr. Bush's support of the bill as an attempt to curry favor with the moderate swing voters who could hold crucial sway in the 2004 presidential elections.
Connie Mackey, a vice president of the antiabortion Family Research Council, said that the Hyde plan amounted to an airlift of condoms."
President Bush sought to emphasize the importance not just of prevention but of treatment. "People with this disease cannot be written off as expendable," he said. Palliative drugs had become more affordable, Mr. Bush said, but the need was enormous: In sub-Saharan Africa, "just 1 percent of the more than 4 million people needing immediate drug treatment are receiving medicine."
The Hyde bill is set to go to the full House for a vote as early as Thursday. In the Senate, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, has been seeking consensus on similar legislation.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Small commemorations mark Chernobyl disaster
Story by Andrei Makhovsky
REUTERS BELARUS:
April 29, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20609/newsDate/29-Apr-2003/story.htm
MINSK - Small gatherings in three ex-Soviet states marked the 17th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster on Saturday, the world's worst civil nuclear accident blamed for thousands of deaths and contamination across Europe.
About 2,000 people met in central Minsk, capital of Belarus, to mourn victims and denounce President Alexander Lukashenko, accused in the West of stifling opposition.
Events in Ukraine, site of the nuclear plant closed in 2000, and Russia, drew fewer people. Low attendance may have been linked to preparations for Orthodox Easter celebrations in all three countries.
In Belarus, where about one-fifth of land was contaminated downwind from the explosion and fire across the border, demonstrators carried the red-and-white national flag banned by Lukashenko after he took office in 1994.
They accused authorities of minimising the effects of the disaster and denounced Lukashenko's decision in the mid-1990s to allow impoverished residents to return to contaminated regions.
"Chernobyl and Lukashenko - our two tragedies," read on poster.
In Ukraine, hundreds of mourners pressed into a church in Slavutych, the town built to rehouse the station's staff, at precisely 1.24 a.m., when the explosion blew the roof off Chernobyl's fourth reactor on April 26, 1986. Small groups attended memorials in Kiev, 140 km (90 miles) to the south.
Demonstrators in Crimea denounced government moves to limit compensation to thousands who claim "liquidator" status - those who helped put out the blaze and erect in the weeks that followed a concrete "tomb" around the stricken reactor.
In Moscow, about 30 ecologists paraded outside the Atomic Energy Ministry with signs bearing the names of Russian villages contaminated in the disaster and denounced pollution linked to nuclear facilities in other regions.
Although only about 30 people died in efforts to put out the blaze, about 5,000 deaths are now blamed on the accident, the result of an unauthorised experiment that ran out of control.
RADIATION, DISEASE
About five million people suffered the effects of radiation and researchers are still charting long-term incidence of thyroid cancer and other diseases.
In the run-up to this year's anniversary, fresh accusations emerged that the tomb, or sarcophagus, encasing the reactor could collapse and unleash a new ecological disaster.
Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, interviewed by Izvestia newspaper, renewed earlier accusations, saying conditions inside were becoming increasingly uncertain.
"The sarcophagus was meant to be built for five years, it has stood for 17. No one is investigating in detail the reactions occurring inside," he told the daily.
"This is not a question of money. Chernobyl has become a site mixed up with political interests."
Ukraine closed the plant's last functioning reactor in 2000 under international pressure. But proposals to build a new tomb have made no progress and Ukraine is still seeking Western assistance to complete two unfinished reactors elsewhere.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko this week dismissed suggestions of safety concerns.
Secret KGB archives released earlier showed the Soviet secret police knew the plant was dangerous long before the disaster.
----
U.S. fires on Iraqi protesters
4/29/2003
By Vivienne Walt and Jim Drinkard,
USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-04-29-iraq-protester-shooting_x.htm
FALLUJAH, Iraq - A clash between anti-U.S. demonstrators and U.S. troops left 13 Iraqis dead in the latest sign of instability in the newly liberated country, witnesses said Tuesday. U.S. officials were pouring as many as 4,000 extra troops into Baghdad to increase security in the capital.
Accounts of what happened in the moonless dark of Monday night varied wildly. Residents said a few hundred people marched peacefully toward the local elementary school, chanting religious slogans and demanding that U.S. troops evacuate the school, which they have been using as a barracks.
"There were no guns, no arms in the demonstration," said Majid Khuder Abbas, 23, a student who participated in the march. The marchers heard no objections from U.S. soldiers posted nearby as they approached the school, he said.
The U.S. soldiers inside the school, part of the 82nd Airborne Division, said they were besieged by gunmen who opened fire on their temporary home and seemed to ignore tear gas canisters and warning shots. Already on alert for incidents tied to Saddam Hussein's birthday, long a national holiday, they fired back in self-defense, 2nd Lt. Devin Woods said. "Our snipers engaged targets that had weapons," he said.
"In the dark, we saw muzzle flashes and responded to those," said Capt. Frank Rosenblatt, an intelligence officer with the 82nd Airborne. No U.S. injuries were reported.
Ahmed Ghandim al-Ali, director of the hospital in this Euphrates River town 30 miles west of Baghdad, said the dead included three boys under age 11, and 75 people were injured.
The conflicting accounts reflect the deepening divisions between many Iraqis and the Americans seeking to restore order three weeks after they ousted Saddam from power. Those divisions remain as President Bush prepares for a speech on Thursday in which he will declare combat operations over.
Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim stronghold friendly toward Saddam's deposed Baath Party, was seething even before Monday's violence. Residents say U.S. forces had briefly detained three local Muslim clerics last week and held six other residents for a few hours. They said soldiers posted tanks outside the town's mosques during Friday prayers.
"The feelings were already very sensitive," said Mohammed Afan, a chemistry professor at Baghdad University who lives in Fallujah.
The clash was the latest in a series of incidents that have left many Iraqis resentful of the continuing U.S. presence in their country. Saturday, an explosion at an arms dump in a Baghdad neighborhood killed 12 civilians. Marines fired on demonstrators in the northern city of Mosul on April 15 and 16, killing 10.
The violence also cast a pall over Monday's progress at a Baghdad conference where Iraqi factions agreed to call a national meeting next month to set up a transitional government.
"They are stealing our oil and slaughtering our people," said Shuker Abdullah Hamid, a cousin of one of those killed in the Fallujah shooting. Mourners buried the dead Tuesday, and outside the school, people chanted for the Americans to go home.
Lying in Fallujah General Hospital with a gunshot wound in his inner thigh, Hassan Hudair, 16, said Tuesday that the U.S. shots came with little warning - not enough to disperse the crowd, he said. "They threw gas grenades, and then they started to shoot in the air, and right after that, they shot at us," he said. "I was at the heart of the demonstration."
The patient in the next room had no doubts Tuesday about what should happen next. "We should get the Americans out by any means we can. Even guns," said Abdul Salam Mohammed, 30, a business-administration student at Baghdad University. "We'll fight them. They are occupiers."
In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Glenn Webster said up to 4,000 additional military police and infantrymen will be brought in to help deter looting and vandalism that are fueling a growing sense of insecurity among the city's residents. The 12,000 soldiers there now can't keep up with law enforcement needs in a city of 5 million, he said.
Walt reported from Iraq, Drinkard from Washington. Contributing: James Cox and wire reports.
----
Annual G8 summit shaping up as megameeting
Story by Tom Heneghan
REUTERS FRANCE:
April 29, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20613/newsDate/29-Apr-2003/story.htm
PARIS - Despite annual calls to slim it down, this year's Group of Eight economic summit in France is shaping up as another megameeting with a huge cast, tight security and an army of anti-globalisation protesters.
President Jacques Chirac, who only last year speculated about scrapping the jamborees France invented in 1975, raised the profile of this year's session by inviting China's President Hu Jintao - a little-known newcomer to the world stage.
Another new face, Brazil's leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and about two dozen other Third World leaders are also due to travel to Evian on Lake Geneva's southern shore in June to meet the leaders of the world's biggest economies.
The guests will not join the closed-door "rich men's club" talks, but a discussion round on global issues and bilateral meetings will give world leaders some leads on questions such as "Who is Hu?" and "What does Lula want?"
If there were any lingering illusions that France would heed the annual calls for a modest summit, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin scattered them by describing the meeting to Hu as "this major international rendezvous."
Preparations for the June 1-3 meeting have already given hints of the same. Evian, a lakeside spa known for its casino and luxury hotels, will be sealed off during the summit and protesters kept at a safe distance several miles away.
About 12,000 police, half from France and half from across the lake in Switzerland, will patrol the town, ply the waters and survey the site from the sky.
Washington promptly made clear it welcomed what will be for most leaders present the first opportunity to meet Hu since he became Chinese Communist Party leader last November and the country's president in March.
"The United States welcomes the participation of China in this meeting," the State Department announced after Raffarin invited Hu to Evian during a meeting in Beijing on Friday.
FROM "FIRESIDE CHAT" TO VIDEOCONFERENCE?
Slimming down the summit has been a perennial theme ever since what started out as a "fireside chat" at a former royal hunting lodge in Rambouillet near Paris in 1975 ballooned into a major media event with a cast of thousands.
The membership list of this "world directorate" has crept up over the years from the tight circle of the United States, Japan, West Germany, France and Britain. Italy and Canada joined in 1976 and the club was baptised the Group of Seven.
With the end of communism, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev wrangled an invitation to lunch at the 1991 London summit. His successor Boris Yeltsin started out with a cameo role but eventually won Russia full membership in 1998.
What sounded like a death knell began to ring in 2001, however, when that year's summit turned the Italian port city of Genoa into a battleground, with one anti-G8 protester shot dead by police during street battles.
In a radical step, Canada banished the 2002 summit to the isolated Rocky Mountains resort of Kananaskis, putting miles of forests, troops and grizzly bears between the leaders and the protesters and journalists 90 km (55 miles) away in Calgary.
After that protest-free parley, Chirac wondered aloud about swapping the mammoth meetings for a videoconference, but clearly thought better of it when it came down to preparing his summit.
Among G8 leaders, Chirac has stood out as the one most ready to listen to the arguments of the anti-globalisation protesters who have become a fixture of international events since the chaotic World Trade Organisation summit in Seattle in 1999.
But thousands of protesters are still planning to mobilise against the Evian summit, demonstrating near Geneva and aiming to upset the movements of delegates, journalists and summit staff housed in Geneva, Lausanne or the French Alps.
----
Demonstrators Take Their Principles on the Road
Marchers Complete 3-Day Trek to D.C.
By Manny Fernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50720-2003Apr28?language=printer
Some marches turn out tens of thousands. Others turn heads with giant cardboard puppets. Still others lead to clashes with police. For three days, a small group of antiwar activists put the focus on their feet -- walking 40 miles from Baltimore to Washington.
By the time the protesters chanted their way into Lafayette Square across from the White House at 1:30 p.m. yesterday, many jumped in the air and pumped their fists, elated to have survived a kind of protest marathon that began about 9 a.m. Saturday in Baltimore. Along the way, they bandaged blistered feet, avoided poison ivy as cars whizzed past on Route 1 and withstood heckles, obscene gestures and even a mooning from motorists and passersby.
"People will give us the finger, and we just give them the peace sign back," said Sara Jennings, 27, a Canadian preschool teacher and one of about 50 men and women who made the trek. The march left Baltimore's Washington Monument on Saturday morning, and, for the most part, wound along Route 1. Activists slept in supporters' homes in Howard County on Saturday and at a University Park church on Sunday before getting up yesterday and walking the last stretch to the White House.
It was the farthest many had marched. In yesterday's bright sunshine, a support truck followed them, and the marchers stopped occasionally to get orange slices and water bottles and rest in the shade. "There's probably more blisters than marchers at this point," said Josiah Johnston, 22, a Baltimore computer programmer and a march medic.
The event was organized by the Baltimore Antiwar Coordinating Committee. Marchers want the billions funding the U.S. presence in Iraq used instead to help create jobs, revitalize schools and save budget-strapped social services used by those with low incomes. Activists said they used the long march route to take that message to blue-collar neighborhoods where antiwar sentiment is largely invisible and to put their bodies behind their ideologies.
"We're a little too comfortable in this country," said Lauren Ide, 65, a retired nurse who had to change shoes three times and ended up with four blisters, which medics looked after.
"I want to make visible the problem that we're having with the military budget being so high and there not being enough money for social programs."
They sometimes took up one lane of traffic and other times used the sidewalk, carrying antiwar banners and signs through parts of Baltimore, Howard County and Prince George's County in Maryland and the Northeast and downtown areas of the District.
They got a mixed reception. A passenger in one vehicle dropped his pants and mooned them. Shouts of "Get a job" and "Get a life" from other motorists were not infrequent.
But there also were waves, honking horns and extended peace signs. As marchers headed down Rhode Island Avenue NW yesterday after a lunch of curried rice and beans provided by Baltimore Food Not Bombs, they chanted, "Money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation." A construction worker in a white hard hat flashed the peace sign from a scaffold. A taxi driver with a packed cab slowed to grab a flier. On 16th Street, a trolley driver waved and rang his bell.
Those moments made the trek easier for many.
"It's been harder than I thought it was going to be physically," said Baltimore activist Joshua Brown, 29, "but spiritually, I've been ready to walk wherever we have to go to be heard."
----
D.C. Council Probing Police Conduct in Protests
By Arthur Santana
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51206-2003Apr28?language=printer
The D.C. Council's Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to launch an investigation into allegations of misconduct by police, including wrongful arrests and excessive force, in dealing with protesters during the past several months.
The resolution authorizing an investigation, put before the committee by Chairman Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3) and approved by council members Sharon Ambrose (D-Ward 6) and Kevin P. Chavous (D-Ward 7), comes after two lawsuits filed by globalization protesters alleging they were wrongly arrested last fall.
Approval of the resolution grants the committee subpoena power. Patterson said yesterday that she intends to have two days of hearings in June and that she expects to call police officials to ask about the department's policy and behavior during several events.
Patterson said she preliminarily intends to call Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey to testify.
Ramsey said he is prepared to face the committee. "I don't have a problem with that," Ramsey said. "I think our folks do a good job in handling these large events. Nothing's 100 percent, but I think we do a very good job in dealing with this, and I'm more than happy to come and answer any questions that the committee may have."
Patterson said that the police department sent a report of the mass arrests of protesters in Pershing Park to Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) on Jan. 25, but that she has not heard from him. "I had hoped Mayor Williams would take seriously the internal affairs conclusion that his department wrongfully arrested hundreds of people last September," Patterson said. "Ninety days after receiving that report, he has not held his subordinates responsible."
Spokesman Tony Bullock said that the mayor has looked into the matter. He said that Ramsey has taken disciplinary action against some police officers involved in the mass arrests and that the mayor is reviewing them. "But we don't discuss those publicly," Bullock said.
Ramsey said the only disciplinary actions taken were letters of reprimand to the officers involved at Pershing Park, where 400 people were arrested after failing to disperse. But an internal investigation found that officers never told protesters to leave.
Two groups of activists have filed suit -- one in November and the other last month -- on behalf of nearly 400 globalization protesters arrested by D.C. police at Pershing Park on Sept. 27. The plaintiffs, who allege that the arrests were unconstitutional, are awaiting word on whether a federal judge will certify their claims as a class action. The judge also will decide whether the plaintiffs will be represented by the local American Civil Liberties Union or the Partnership for Civil Justice, a D.C. law firm.
"The city council has a right to insist on answers," said Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the local ACLU. "And we agree with the council that's it more urgent to get to the bottom of this and to prevent this kind of action in the future than to protect the city's position in litigation."
Patterson said she also wants to know about allegations that D.C. police closed down protesters' offices before demonstrations took place in April 2000 during meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
She also intended to ask police officials about a WRC-TV (Channel 4) news tape showing police beating a demonstrator on the ground and allegations from community leaders that motorcycle officers drove into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators in front of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library on April 12. Ramsey said that he saw the tape of the beating and that it "was an isolated incident that is under investigation."
-------
------- 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.