Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions
USEC Sets Supply Deal with Exelon
SRS ships out last of uranium
Iran Says Its Has No Hidden Nuclear Facilities
Iran Open to More Nuclear Monitoring
Iran asks US to stop using 'language of force'
''Mobile lies''
Iran agrees Iraq hid arms
Perricos Named New U.N. Inspector on Iraq
Blix Defends Inspectors' Credibility
Japan, Citing Safety Concerns, Detains North Korea Ships
Pyongyang spells out need for nuclear arms
'Nuclear Deterrent' Threatened
North Korea Says It Seeks to Develop Nuclear Arms
US plays matchmaker to India, Israel
Senate OKs Billions for Nuclear Power
A testimonial "In Memory of Gary Colley"
KUCINICH ON HOUSE FLOOR: CREDIBILITY GAP IS GROWING
Jim Jeffords: 'Declaring Independence'
Source, quoting Bush: 'We have a problem with Sharon'
Big Bush offer to buy Pak nod to Israel
MILITARY
Karzai blames outsiders for attack
U.S. Troops Kill Four in Afghanistan
The Pentagon's paradigm shift in Asia
Northrop to Pay $111 Million to Settle Suit
Watchdog Groups Slam Boeing Lease Deal
Lockheed Martin Sues Boeing Over Contract
Possible Military Move East Makes Czechs Uneasy
NORWEGIAN 'NO' TO WAR STRENGTHENED
Iraq's children bear brunt of unexploded munitions
U.S. Soldiers Face Growing Resistance
IRAQ - Paper lists names of Saddam's victims
Lifting Iraqi Embargo after 2 million Deaths
Three Iraqis killed in ammunition facility blast
Assistance to reporter imperiled key contact
Exile leader says information on Iraq's weapons program was accurate
ISRAEL AGREES TO 'TOLERABLE' LEVEL OF ATTACKS
Abbas Says He Will Use Persuasion, Not Force
Israeli DM: Arafat likely to be expelled
Israeli Rocket Attack Wounds Hamas Leader
Abbas denounces attacks as Powell pleads for road map
Linda S. Heard: USS Liberty: How past relates to the future
Palestinian PM Says Israel Sabotages Peace Process
Putin snubs Israeli foreign minister over Iran
Rumsfeld Discusses NATO Membership With Albanians
Guantanamo Eyes Possible Execution Chamber
Chechen violence helps Putin's hand
Soros's Mission In Russia Ends, $1 Billion Later
Hoodwinked
Who's Accountable?
Iraq's Weapons, Our Intelligence (4 Letters)
Guard, Reserve short on recruits
The ever-growing US military footprint
Skepticism mounting about motive for war
Bush defends Saddam terror link claim
CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida
Weapon threat not the motive for war, ex-spy says
All hail to the pods
New Reports Implicate Soldiers in Death of Journalists
U.S. Confronts EU On War Crimes Court
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Court allows veterans to reopen chemical cases
Supreme Court evenly split in Agent Orange case
Virus Targeting Banks
Grenade Seized At Union Station
U.S.: High Chance of al - Qaida WMD Attack
ENERGY AND OTHER
Thailand to grow more palm for alternative fuel
Wasted Energy
Perilous natural gas shortage
Environmental consequences of war loom large
Former senator speaks on breast cancer
ACTIVISTS
U.N. Diplomat Meets Detained Burmese Activist
Text of speech to the 'Take Back America' Conference
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions
From: Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:59 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NucNews/message/11019
1. What caused the Chernobyl accident?
ChernobylOn April 26, 1986, the Number Four RBMK reactor at the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl, Ukraine, went out of control during a test at low-power, leading to an explosion and fire that demolished the reactor building and released large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. Safety measures were ignored, the uranium fuel in the reactor overheated and melted through the protective barriers. RBMK reactors do not have what is known as a containment structure, a concrete and steel dome over the reactor itself designed to keep radiation inside the plant in the event of such an accident. Consequently, radioactive elements including plutonium, iodine, strontium and caesium were scattered over a wide area. In addition, the graphite blocks used as a moderating material in the RBMK caught fire at high temperature as air entered the reactor core, which contributed to emission of radioactive materials into the environment.
2. How many people died as an immediate result of the accident?
The initial explosion resulted in the death of two workers. Twenty-eight of the firemen and emergency clean-up workers died in the first three months after the explosion from Acute Radiation Sickness and one of cardiac arrest.
3. How many people were evacuated?
EvacuationThe entire town of Pripyat (population 49,360), which lay only three kilometres from the plant was completely evacuated 36 hours after the accident. During the subsequent weeks and months an additional 67,000 people were evacuated from their homes in contaminated areas and relocated on government order. In total some 200,0000 people are believed to have been relocated as a result of the accident.
4. What are the major health effects for exposed populations?
Thyroid scan on childrenThere have been at least 1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the accident occurred., which is far higher than normal. The thyroid gland of young children is particularly susceptible to the uptake of radioactive iodine, which can trigger cancers, treatable both by surgery and medication. Health studies of the registered cleanup workers called in (so-called "liquidators") have failed to show any direct correlation between their radiation exposure and an increase in other forms of cancer or disease. The psychological affects of Chernobyl were and remain widespread and profound, and have resulted for instance in suicides, drinking problems and apathy.
5. What radioactive elements were emitted into the environment?
There were over 100 radioactive elements released into the atmosphere when Chernobyl's fourth reactor exploded. Most of these were short lived and decayed (reduced in radioactivity) very quickly. Iodine, strontium and caesium were the most dangerous of the elements released, and have half-lives of 8 days, 29 years, and 30 years respectively. The isotopes Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 are therefore still present in the area to this day. While iodine is linked to thyroid cancer, Strontium can lead to leukaemia. Caesium is the element that travelled the farthest and lasts the longest. This element affects the entire body and especially can harm the liver and spleen.
6. How large an area was affected by the radioactive fallout?
Some 150,000 square kilometres in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are contaminated and stretch northward of the plant site as far as 500 kilometres. An area spanning 30 kilometres around the plant is considered the "exclusion zone" and is essentially uninhabited. Radioactive fallout scattered over much of the northern hemisphere via wind and storm patterns, but the amounts dispersed were in many instances insignificant.
7. How was this area cleaned up after the accident?
LiquidatorEmergency workers (liquidators) were drafted into the area and helped to clean up the plant premises and the surrounding area. These workers were mostly plant employees, Ukrainian fire-fighters plus many soldiers and miners from Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and other parts of the former Soviet Union. The exact number of liquidators is unknown because there are no completely accurate records of the people involved in the clean-up. The Russian registries list approximately 400,000 liquidators as of 1991 and approximately 600,000 people were granted the status of "liquidator". These 600,000 individuals received special benefits because of their involvement, on- and off-site, in tackling the accident's aftermath.
The duties of the liquidators varied. They worked on decontamination and major construction projects, including the establishment of settlements and towns for plant workers and evacuees. They also built waste repositories, dams, water filtration systems and the "sarcophagus", which entombs the entire fourth reactor to contain the remaining radioactive material.
8. Was the rest of Europe/the world affected?
Scandinavian countries and other parts of the world were affected by the radioactive releases from Chernobyl. Caesium and other radioactive isotopes were blown by wind northward into Sweden and Finland and over other parts of the northern hemisphere to some extent. During the first three weeks after the accident, the level of radiation in the atmosphere in several places around the globe was above normal; but these levels quickly receded. No studies have been able to point to a direct link between Chernobyl and increased cancer risks or other health problems outside the immediately affected republics of Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation.
9. What happened to the environment and animals after the accident?
MouseMutations did occur in plants and animals after the plant explosion. Leaves changed shape and some animals were born with physical deformities. Despite the increased radiation levels, rare species are now returning in large numbers to the area. These animals include beavers, moose, wolves and wild boar, plus species of birds.
10. Is it safe to visit the area now?
One may certainly visit the Chernobyl area, including even the exclusion zone, which is a 30 kilometre radius surrounding the plant, all of whose reactors are now closed. Although some of the radioactive isotopes released into the atmosphere still linger (such as Strontium-90 and Caesium-137), they are at tolerable exposure levels for limited periods of time. Some residents of the exclusion zone have returned to their homes at their own free will, and they live in areas with higher than normal environmental radiation levels. However, these levels are not fatal. Exposure to low but unusual levels of radiation over a period of time is less dangerous than exposure to a huge amount at once, and studies have been unable to link any direct increase in cancer risks to chronic low-level exposure.
11. What was done to ensure the safety of other RBMK reactors, so that this scenario will not present itself again?
Lessons learned from the accident were a significant driving force behind a decade of IAEA assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Much of this work focused on identifying the weaknesses in and improving the design safety of VVR and RBMK reactors. Upgrading was performed on all RBMK units to eliminate the design deficiencies which contributed to the Chernobyl accident, to improve shutdown mechanisms and heighten general safety awareness among staff. Just as important as the design safety work has been the focus on operational safety and on systems of regulatory oversight.
12. How does Chernobyl's effect measure up to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Chernobyl DrawingThe accident at Chernobyl was approximately 400 times more potent than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, the atomic bomb testing conducted by several countries around the world during the 1960s and 1970s contributed 100 to 1,000 times more radioactive material to the environment than Chernobyl.
13. How do the inhabitants live now?
There are 187 small communities in the exclusion zone that remain virtually abandoned to this day. A few inhabitants chose to return to their homes in the exclusion zone, but children are not allowed to live in this area. The evacuated population lives mainly in newly constructed towns such as Slavutich in areas with very little or no contamination.
14. What will happen to the plant now that it is closed?
Chernobyl TodayOn December 15, 2000, the last reactor in operation at the Chernobyl site was shut down and the phase of decommissioning began. This involves the removal and disposal of fuel and wastes, decontamination of the plant and the area surrounding it, including any soil and water that may be radioactive. There are three retired reactors to be decommissioned on site, a project expected to take several decades. The project will be conducted under the supervision of the Ukrainian government. The IAEA will assist by providing planning, engineering and administrative advice. The fate of the fourth reactor where the tragic accident occurred in 1986 is as yet undetermined. 15. What is the state of the protective shelter built around the fourth reactor?
Under extremely hazardous conditions, thousands of "Liquidators" worked to contain the remains of the fourth reactor. The shelter surrounding the reactor was completed less than six months after the explosion during peak radioactivity levels. The massive concrete and steel "Sarcophagus", quickly constructed using "arms length" methods, has deteriorated over the years, creating a potentially hazardous situation. Several repairs were made to the current shelter, including the stabilisation of the ventilation stack and reinforcement of the roof. In addition, a plan for the construction of a more secure and permanent structure to be built around the existing Sarcophagus was drafted; work has already begun on the infrastructure of this new shelter. The plan, called the Shelter Implementation Plan, is a project of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund. Both efforts, whose combined expected expenditures over the next eight or nine years exceed $765 million, are administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
-------- business
USEC Sets Supply Deal with Exelon
June 10, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-utilities-exelon.html
NEW YORK ( Reuters) - USEC Inc. (USU.N), which supplies fuel for nuclear power plants, on Tuesday said it struck a deal worth almost $700 million to supply fuel to Exelon Corp. (EXC.N), the nation's largest nuclear plant operator.
USEC, based in Bethesda, Maryland, said the agreement to supply Exelon's 17 nuclear reactors runs from 2005 through 2010.
A USEC spokesman declined to disclose the quantity of fuel covered in the deal.
The company said it was supplying SWU to the plants, SWU stands for separative work unit, which relates to the process of enriching uranium so it can be used as fuel for nuclear power plants.
Shares of USEC closed Monday trade on the New York Stock Exchange at $6.60, while shares of Exelon closed at $57.91.
-------- depleted uranium
SRS ships out last of uranium
Associated Press,
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Augusta Chronicle
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/061003/met_LM1031-9.000.shtml
AIKEN - The Savannah River Site has completed the final shipments of depleted uranium metals from an old manufacturing area at the complex, clearing the way for demolition of six buildings.
The M area buildings were the facilities where "target" materials for the site's five reactors were manufactured.
The area was closed more than 10 years ago, with more than 2,600 metric tons of depleted uranium metal stored in warehouses.
Shipments began in March, and the 145th truckload left SRS last week for Envirocare of Utah.
There were no security incidents, injuries or contamination incidents during the shipments, project manager Gay Fussell said.
Demolition of the buildings is scheduled to be completed by March as part of the overall cleanup of the former nuclear weapons complex.
Officials also plan to ship 3,270 drums of depleted uranium oxide to EnviroCare this summer as part of a pilot program. The remaining 33,000 drums would be shipped during the next few years.
The uranium oxide is a waste byproduct that the government says no longer has use in defense programs.
--
Google search: Envirocare
1. Envirocare of Utah, Inc. -- Radioactive / Mixed Wa... Envirocare of Utah is a low-level radioactive waste disposal and mixed waste treatment facility partnering with DOE, DOD, NRC, EPA, and under FUSRAP, CERCLA .... Category: Regional > North America > United States > Utah > Localities > S > Salt Lake City > Business and Economy http://www.envirocareutah.com/
2. Enviro Care Composting, Recycling and Conservation Products ... ENVIRO CARE OF AMERICA PO Box 19724 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96151 800-889-7238 Fax: 530-544-9056 for more information, email us at: info@envirocare.net OPEN... Category: Shopping > Home and Garden > Fertilizers and Soil Additives > Compost http://www.envirocare.net/
...
9. HEAL Utah: Envirocare Envirocare of Utah Envirocare of Utah is seeking permission from the State of Utah to accept higher levels of radioactive waste at its landfill, 60 miles west... http://www.healutah.org/envirocare/
-------- iran
Iran Says Its Has No Hidden Nuclear Facilities
June 10, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iran-nuclear.html
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran denied Tuesday having any hidden nuclear facilities that should have been declared to U.N. inspectors, following a critical U.N. report of Tehran's nuclear program which Washington called ``deeply troubling.''
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report accused Iran of failing to declare the import of uranium in 1991 and of failing to show where and how it was processed.
``We do not have any site in Iran which is necessary to declare to the Agency based on its regulations,'' Atomic Energy Organization chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh told a news conference.
``In the era of satellites, how could such huge facilities be hidden?'' he asked. ``The IAEA was informed of our activities even months before it should have been.''
Washington has accused Iran of violating the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Tehran has signed, by using undeclared nuclear material to test a uranium enrichment system.
Uranium must be enriched for use, either slightly enriched for nuclear fuel or heavily enriched for a bomb.
Iran said this year an enrichment plant would be built in Kashan in central Iran with fuel from Isfahan, where a uranium conversion facility (UCF) is nearing completion.
``We have no other uranium enrichment plant except one in Kashan,'' Aghazadeh said. Oil and gas-rich Iran insists its nuclear program is purely for civil energy purposes.
But the Atomic Energy Organization chief admitted Iran had imported uranium in 1991, a shipment the IAEA said in its report should have been declared.
``Some 1,800 kg (3,960 pounds) of uranium was imported from China 12 years ago for a UCF,'' Aghazadeh said. However 1,000 kg of the uranium from the shipment remained intact, while another 800 kg had been subject to tests, he said.
``The tested material is under the supervision of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization,'' he added.
The IAEA, United States, Russia and the European Union have all called on Iran to sign an additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty allowing more thorough inspections of its nuclear facilities with little fore-warning.
But Iran insists U.S. sanctions should first be dropped and other countries should assist its nuclear programs.
``As a signatory of the NPT, we expect to get some benefits. Commitments are mutual and should be clarified,'' Aghazadeh said. ``Then we will be ready to sign the additional protocol.''
Iran says its first nuclear power plant, under construction with Russian help in the southern port city of Bushehr, is due to be completed next year.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is due to formally present the agency's report in Vienna next week.
--------
Iran Open to More Nuclear Monitoring
June 10, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran would agree to additional international monitoring of its nuclear development, but only if it is allowed to acquire more advanced technology, the head of the country's atomic program said Tuesday.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, which visited Iran's nuclear facilities earlier this year, wants Tehran to allow inspectors unfettered access to its facilities without prior notice.
Washington accuses Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons and is pressing the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iranian officials insist the nuclear program is entirely peaceful, aimed only at producing electricity.
Iranian nuclear chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said his country was willing to sign onto the additional inspections under the NPT, if it gets access to advanced technology that has so far been withheld.
``We are prepared to initiate a process for signing the additional protocols, but we expect the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its member states equipped with advanced nuclear technology, to fulfill their obligations to Iran,'' Aghazadeh said.
``We want the (IAEA) to end discrimination against us and allow all member states equal access to nuclear technology,'' Aghazadeh said Tuesday.
The nonproliferation treaty, along with imposing safeguards like inspections aimed at preventing weapons development, calls for all members to have equal access to technology to build a peaceful nuclear program.
The United States has pressured Russia -- which is helping build Iran's first reactor -- and other nations to halt exports of advanced atomic technology to Iran. Last week's summit of the United States and seven other industrialized nations ended with a call for a comprehensive U.N. inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities and a warning that the world would not tolerate an Iranian atomic bomb.
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei is due to release his report on Iran's nuclear program on Monday.
Iran admitted on Sunday it had failed to inform U.N. authorities that it imported a quantity of uranium compounds 12 years ago but said that failure did not violate the non-proliferation treaty.
Aghazadeh said Iran in 1991 imported 2,205 pounds of uranium hexafluoride from China. The compound is used in the process of enriching uranium to a level where it can be used as fuel for nuclear reactors or weapons.
The uranium hexafluoride ``remains intact'' and is under IAEA safeguard, Aghazadeh said.
``U.S. accusations are trumped-up charges,'' he said. ``The United States is magnifying a very insignificant thing.''
He insisted that Iran was cooperating with the IAEA beyond its obligation.
``In the past three months, six teams from IAEA have inspected Iran's nuclear facilities. This shows our transparency,'' he said. ``There is no nuclear facility in Iran that has not been declared to the IAEA,'' he said.
--------
Iran asks US to stop using 'language of force'
Tuesday June 10, 2003-- Rabi-us-Sani 09, 1424 A.H,
News International, Pakistan
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2003-daily/10-06-2003/world/w3.htm
TEHRAN: Iran's foreign ministry demanded to Washington to stop using the 'language of force', warning on Monday that US posturing would only undermine the cause of dialogue and strengthen the hand of hardliners in the Islamic republic.
"We have seen some confusion over Iran within the American leadership, and we hope they will see sense and not use the language of force, because this will have the opposite effect," spokesman Hami-Reza Asefi told reporters.
"Certain people (in Iran) think that dialogue is a waste of time, and if the pressure becomes too strong, it will reinforce the hand of those against dialogue," he added. Asefi's comments come amid mounting US pressure against Iran's clerical regime, accused by Washington of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, harbouring al-Qaeda fugitives, sponsoring anti-Israeli militants and meddling in post-war Iraq.
Tehran and Washington cut diplomatic ties after the 1979 Islamic revolution, but for several months the two sides have been engaged in discreet talks within a forum initially set up to address the crisis in Afghanistan. But those contacts were abruptly halted after the May 12 suicide bombings in Riyadh that killed 35 people and which US officials believe could have been planned by Iran-based operatives of the al-Qaeda terror network.
US pressure on Iran has since mounted, leading many to fear that Iran could be next on Washington's hit-list -- despite denials from top US officials. In a swipe at the United States, however, Asefi argued, "the Americans' accusations can be explained by their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan". The previous day, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi made a similar plea for the US administration -- which had lumped Iran into an 'axis of evil' along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea -- to cease what is being seen here as a concerted campaign of intimidation. "They cannot deal like this with Iran," Kharazi told deputies. "You have to help Iran, because pressure will lead nowhere and will only make radical thoughts flourish, and this is not in the favour of us, the region or anybody."
But the calls for detente have been matched by defiant comments in recent weeks from Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who on Sunday accused Washington of pursuing a "devilish plot" to undermine the Islamic republic. Turning to the nuclear issue, Asefi also insisted Iran was fully cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose inspectors are currently in the country probing Iran's civil atomic energy programme. "We have a transparent policy with regard to the agency, and we are waiting for the world to have a transparent policy with us. This visit is a sign that we wish to cooperate with the agency," he said.
"Iran has peaceful objectives for its nuclear programme," he added. In an apparent reference to Israel, Asefi said Western powers who voice suspicions over the programme "would do better to put pressure on their friends in the region so that they can at least become members of the NPT," the Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to an IAEA report filed last week to member states ahead of a Vienna meeting on June 16 with agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran was found to have violated the NPT but was taking steps to correct the problem.
-------- iraq / inspections
''Mobile lies''
Guest Editorial By Imad Khadduri, Former Iraqi nuclear scientist
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (Canada)
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1411
(YellowTimes.org) -- As the swelter of anger bubbles from the machination of misinformation that led to the faltering WMD casus belli for invading Iraq, the retreat and half-baked excuses of Bush, Blair, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Powell further expose the sharp edge of their deceit. Whether it was "intelligence" failure or "flailing" the intelligence, time will soon tell. In the meantime, the fig leaves keep falling.
During CNN's Late Edition with Colin Powell, reported by the Toronto Star on June 9, 2003, Powell claimed that "the two alleged mobile biological weapons labs, which are being studied by allied inspectors now in Iraq, are the same ones he described to the world last Feb. 5 at a U.N. presentation which was the result of four days and four nights of meetings with the CIA." "I stand behind that presentation," he said.
He further asserted, "I'll give you the killer argument why these vans were exactly what I said they were. I can assure you that if those biological vans were not ... what I said they were on the 5th of February, on the 6th of February Iraq would have hauled those vans out, put them in front of a press conference, given them to U.N. inspectors to try to drive a stake through the heart of my presentation."
Only if the Iraqis knew which vans he was talking about.
In an article published on the same day as Powell's interview, Peter Beaumont and Antony Barnett reported in the Observer that there is mounting indications that these vans were for "balloons, not germs."
The Iraqis concur.
According to the article, "Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to produce hydrogen chemically for artillery weather balloons. Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed, allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile. The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987, Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short."
Other experts who have examined the evidence agree and have cast doubt over the Bush administration's assertions. They argue that the lack of any trace of pathogens found in the fermentation tanks, the use of canvas sides on vehicles where technicians would be working with dangerous germ cultures, and the lack of an autoclave for steam sterilization all provide credence to the Iraqi argument that the labs were merely used for artillery balloons.
In fact, the American experts themselves concede that the van could, at best, serve only one stage of the process for biological weapons production. There would need to be three or four other stages in the process, or other complementary vans, to be able to produce Powell's less than heuristic claim.
Powell is not new to this misinformation game.
In my earlier article, "The demise of the nuclear bomb hoax," published on February 16, 2003, I referred to Geoff Simons' The Scourging of Iraq in which "Washington lied persistently and comprehensively to gain the required international support [for the Gulf war]. For example, the U.S. claimed to have satellite pictures showing a massive Iraqi military build-up on the Saudi/ Iraqi border. When sample photographs were later obtained from Soyuz Karta by an enterprising journalist, no such evidence was discernible."
Simons references an article by Maggie O'Kane, published in the Guardian on 16 December 1995, which revealed that the enterprising journalist was Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times in Florida.
Eventually, the U.S. commander -- none other than Colin Powell himself -- admitted that there had been no massing of Iraqi troops. But by then the so-called evidence had served its purpose.
So, was Powell really worried that the Iraqis might "try to drive a stake through the heart of [his] presentation"?
Well, it's never too late.
[Imad Khadduri has a MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto, Canada. He has been interviewed by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, FOX, the Toronto Star, Reuters, and various other news agencies in regards to his knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear program. This article was originally printed in YellowTimes.org.]
Imad Khadduri encourages your comments: imad.khadduri@rogers.com
----
Iran agrees Iraq hid arms
June 10, 2003
By Stewart Stogel
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030609-114511-9442r.htm
NEW YORK - An Iranian government official with ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Tehran sides with the Americans on one big issue - Saddam Hussein's weapons.
"Yes, we agree with the Americans. Our intelligence indicated that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction and was hiding them from the U.N.," the official said.
The official, from the top ranks of Iran's cleric-led government, asked to remain anonymous amid escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran.
He went on to say that the big question is, "What did the Iraqis do with these weapons?"
Although Tehran does not know where these weapons may be today, there is a strong suspicion that some may have filtered onto local black markets.
"We know other items, once under military control [such as broadcast transmission equipment], have found their way onto the black market," the official said.
"We have people coming to Tehran from Baghdad with catalogs of items [stolen from the Iraqi government] offering them for sale."
So far, the official said, no chemical, biological or related weapons have turned up.
His remarks come amid criticism of the Bush administration and the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Both governments cited Iraq's deadly weapons as a reason for going to war.
In Tehran yesterday, Iran said foreign pressure over its nuclear capabilities would backfire and harden Iran's position.
Since its rapid conquest of Iraq, Washington has tightened the screws on neighboring Iran, which it accuses of sheltering al Qaeda fugitives, backing terrorism and developing nuclear weapons.
"Excessive pressure on Iran would untie the hands of those who do not believe in dialogue," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. "Even those who favor constructive talks would not accept the language of force and threat."
The United States and European Union are divided over Iran. The EU favors a policy of encouraging embattled reformers around President Mohammed Khatami, while Washington argues this is a waste of time because he has no real power to effect change.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a report obtained by Reuters on Friday, accused Iran of not complying with safeguards to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and sent a team of inspectors to the country on Saturday.
Fresh from war in Iraq over banned weapons, the United States described the report as "deeply troubling."
Since the Iraq war, U.S. administration hawks have raised the specter of military action against Iran, but President Bush, who put Iran in an "axis of evil" with prewar Iraq and North Korea, has denied that he has plans to attack it.
Even so, many in Iran suspect that the Islamic Republic may be next on a U.S. hit list of regimes to be overthrown.
"We hope Iran's constructive cooperation with the agency and other countries makes the international community better aware of America's evil intentions," Mr. Asefi said.
"We are always alert about America's policies ... but we have no doubt the Americans won't be deluded into mistaking Iran for Iraq. Such a mistake would be irreparable," he said.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
--------
Perricos Named New U.N. Inspector on Iraq
June 10, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Inspectors.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan named a veteran arms expert Tuesday to replace Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector who led a fruitless search for illicit weapons in Iraq.
Dimitri Perricos, who ran the search on the ground in Iraq for Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and nuclear programs, has been Blix' deputy for three years at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.
Blix, a veteran Swedish diplomat, is retiring after more than three years at the helm of the agency, according to Fred Eckhard, a spokesman for Annan.
Perricos is a technical expert with lots of inspection experience, while Blix, a lawyer, focused on the diplomatic side with the U.N. Security Council.
The U.N. agency searched more than 200 sites over 3 1/2 months but did not find any weapons of mass destruction and pulled out of Iraq March 18, just ahead of the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
The U.S.-led coalition's failure in more than two months to find any weapons of mass destruction -- the reason cited for the war -- has caused international anger. President Bush insists Saddam had a weapons program.
The Greek-born Perricos was an inspector for 28 years with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and moved to UNMOVIC in 2000 shortly after it was created.
UNMOVIC remains a subsidiary body of the Security Council but its future is uncertain. The council has agreed to discuss its mandate at a future date, which has not been set.
--------
Blix Defends Inspectors' Credibility
June 10, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq-Blix.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix on Tuesday said his inspectors' failure to turn up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may have been nothing but a reflection of the truth, and he called American criticism of the prewar search off target.
``I would say that I think the criticism that was directed to us was misdirected,'' Blix told The Associated Press in an interview, He retires June 30 after three years of leading the U.N. search for banned weapons.
While defending the U.N. inspections program, Blix welcomed the U.S.-led ouster of Saddam Hussein.
``He was an ancient type ruler who got control of a country with an oil income and could use 21st century weapons. That was a very dangerous combination, and I think we all feel a great relief that he is put out of action,'' Blix said.
But Blix defended the independence and credibility of U.N. inspectors who left Iraq shortly before the United States and Britain attacked the country, in part at least, because of allegations Saddam had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
The United Nations refused to back the military ouster of Saddam and the administrations of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have come under heavy criticism because those weapons have not been found in the three months since the war began.
However, Blix declined to gloat, saying that the matter was too serious. And he wished the U.S. teams now searching for banned weapons in Iraq ``good luck.''
``I think we should all be looking to truth,'' he said. ``We want to find out what was the real truth'' -- whether Saddam was concealing illegal weapons or had destroyed them before he was attacked.
Nevertheless, he was critical of intelligence his teams received from the United States and other countries before the war began, saying the information was ``not very good ... and that shook me a bit.''
In the weeks before the war, some U.S. officials strongly criticized Blix's reports to the Security Council for failing to support the Bush administration's contention that Saddam had an active illegal weapons programs. Blix reported that his inspectors had not found such weapons, but still had many outstanding questions about the country's previous weapons programs.
Blix credited the U.S. military build up which started last summer for pressuring Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors to return in November after four years.
While many people in the U.S. government believed from the beginning that inspections wouldn't work, Blix said he thinks Bush was sincere in initially wanting to give inspections a chance and not go to war.
Even in late February, if Saddam had come forward as the British hoped and confessed ``everything'' about his weapons program that could have averted war, he said.
Saddam didn't, and U.S. patience gave out -- but Blix said his inspectors should have been given more time.
``At the end, Iraqis were pretty frantic in trying to find explanations, not very successfully,'' he said.
``I certainly think a number of months more would have been interesting to have, provided that we still had the military pressure,'' Blix said.
``The longer that one does not find any weapons in spite of people coming forward and being rewarded for giving information, etc., the more I think it is important that we begin to ask ourselves if there were no weapons, why was it that Iraq conducted itself as it did for so many years?,'' Blix said.
``They cheated, they retreated, they changed figures, they denied access, etc. Why was that if they didn't have anything really to conceal? I have speculations, one could be pride,'' he said.
``Saddam Hussein regarded himself as an emperor of Mesopotamia, some said, and he regarded inspectors as impostors,'' Blix said.
Nonetheless, he said, U.N. inspectors could not jump to conclusions -- and the Bush administration shouldn't have either.
``I think they should remember that in the future, too, that the international inspection that is not on a leash is the inspection that has the greatest credibility,'' Blix said. ``It might even be right.''
-------- japan
Japan, Citing Safety Concerns, Detains North Korea Ships
June 10, 2003
The New York Times
By JAMES BROOKE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/10/international/asia/10CND-KOREA.html
TOKYO, June 10 - Japan detained two North Korean cargo ships in Japanese ports today, making moves that North Korea denounced as sanctions and that Japan defended as safety inspections.
"We are ready to thoroughly inspect all North Korean vessels at ports across the country," Transport Minister Chikage Ogi said at a news conference here today, hours before her inspectors started scouring North Korean freighters for violations.
The detentions come after Bush administration officials said recently that they are encouraging allies to squeeze North Korean shipping by enforcing safety rules and by searching for illegal drugs, a major North Korean export. This unannounced and unlabeled policy is designed to pressure North Korea into negotiating an end to its nuclear bomb program.
Inspectors worked all day in Maizuru, a western Japan port that last year received about one quarter of the 1,344 port calls by 147 North Korean ships to Japan.
After the inspections, Maizuru transport ministry officials ordered the detention of the Namsan 3, a 298-ton freighter, until its North Korean crew of 16 could remedy three major safety violations: lack of charts of surrounding seas, a hole in its bulkhead, and a doorsill to the cabin that was too low to prevent seawater flooding in.
Farther north, at Otaru port in Hokkaido, northern Japan, local transport officials ordered the detention for safety violations of the 178-ton Daehungrason 2, which carries a cargo of crabs.
Over the last decade, several North Korean freighters have become stranded along Japan's coast. Invariably, the state company owners have walked away from the shipwrecks, refusing to pay fines or to remove the hulks.
Today's detentions came a day after the threat of a major safety inspection caused North Korean authorities to suspend North Korea's lone ferry link with Japan. Today North Korea's state-run news media machine reacted.
"If this is part of `sanctions' against the D.P.R.K., we cannot but regard it as a very serious development," the official Korean Central News Agency said, using the initials of the country's formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
In another dispatch, the state agency called the safety inspection "another sinister political attempt to lay siege to the D.P.R.K."
The agency also denounced the government of Australia, where 30 North Korean sailors face trial in a case in which about 110 pounds of heroin were seized.
"This is part of the Bush administration's foolish and shameful moves to ostracize the D.P.R.K. politically and morally on the international arena and isolate and stifle it by terming it a `rogue state,' " the agency said. "The United States is groundlessly pulling up the D.P.R.K. over such issues as "terrorism," "drug trafficking," "abduction" and "counterfeiting of money."
But for Japan, the largest economy in the region, North Korea's hostility only serves to bolster the political standing at home of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. A survey by N.H.K. public television aired on Monday evening showed that 59 percent of voters backed Mr. Koizumi's two-year-old government, up 5 percentage points from May.
While the United States and Japan are tightening a maritime noose on ne North Korea, China and South Korea seem increasingly neutral.
"Under the present circumstances, both sides should avoid taking measures which are likely to escalate the situation on the Korean Peninsula," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Kong Quan, told reporters in Beijing today.
In contrast to the isolation approach advocated by Washington, South Korea plans on Saturday to mark the renewal of rail and road links with the north. Freight trains should be traveling from Seoul to Pyongyang by the end of September, Cho Myoung-gyon, a senior official at South Korea's Unification Ministry, said in a radio interview today.
-------- korea
Pyongyang spells out need for nuclear arms
By Hamish McDonald in Beijing and Shane Green in Tokyo
June 10 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/09/1055010934841.html
North Korea says it wants nuclear weapons because it needs to reduce the economic burden of keeping large conventional forces.
The claim in an official press commentary yesterday takes the Pyongyang regime a step closer to what United States officials say is the reality admitted by the North Koreans in private - that they already have some nuclear bombs.
The increasingly open threat to go nuclear comes as Pyongyang voices alarm at the prospect of a tightening embargo by the US and its allies.
Japan yesterday blocked the sailing of a North Korean ferry alleged to be involved in smuggling missile parts and intelligence to spies.
The North Korean Man Gyong Bong-92 had been due to arrive in the north-western Japanese port of Niigata yesterday. But it did not sail from its home port of Wonsan, on North Korea's east coast, after intensive inspections by Japanese officials.
Pyongyang's claim that building nuclear arms was aimed at lightening its military burden seemed designed to counter US and Japanese charges that it was using nuclear blackmail to obtain economic aid,
"Our desire to have a nuclear deterrent is not to blackmail anybody, but to reduce conventional weaponry and thus convert human resources and funnel money into economic construction and the people's lives," the Korean Central News Agency said in a commentary.
North Korea maintains one of the world's largest standing armies, with 1.1 million soldiers. Its leader, Kim Jong-il, follows an army-based political strategy that lavishes what resources are available on the military.
But the commentary also contained a conflicting reason for wanting nuclear weapons, blaming threatening moves by the US.
"If the US does not give up its hostile policy and continues its nuclear threat against our republic we have no other means but to possess a nuclear deterrence," the Korean Central News Agency said.
In a four-day state visit to Japan by South Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun that ended yesterday, he and Japan's Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, urged North Korea to end its nuclear arms program - but they differed on the methods to be used.
Mr Koizumi urged "tougher measures" if the stand-off worsened, while Mr Roh advocated dialogue.
There was disagreement between the two countries about the wording of a joint statement, with South Korea opposing a Japanese proposal to take "further steps" if necessary.
South Korea's semi-official Yonhap news quoted a Pyongyang government spokesman as saying the US had placed pressure on countries to control North Korean shipping, but the North would not submit to a blockade.
"In the event we judge that our sovereignty has been encroached upon, we will respond with an immediate, physical retaliatory measure," he was quoted as saying.
In talks in Beijing with US and Chinese officials in late April, North Korean representatives allegedly told US officials that Pyongyang already possessed nuclear weapons.
----
'Nuclear Deterrent' Threatened
Associated Press
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Washington Post
World In Brief; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37328-2003Jun9?language=printer
SEOUL -- North Korea sharpened its tone in the standoff with the United States, publicly threatening for the first time to develop a "nuclear deterrent" unless Washington abandons its "hostile" stance toward the communist nation.
The statement was the isolated North's most direct admission of its intention to develop nuclear weapons. Until now, Pyongyang has referred to its need for "physical deterrence" against what it calls U.S. plans to attack, though U.S. officials say the North Koreans have told them privately that the country already has nuclear bombs.
The government also linked its nuclear ambitions to an effort to rebuild the shattered economy.
The "intention to build up a nuclear deterrent force is not aimed to threaten and blackmail others, but reduce conventional weapons under a long-term plan and channel manpower resources and funds into economic construction and the betterment of people's living," the official KCNA news agency said.
--------
North Korea Says It Seeks to Develop Nuclear Arms
June 10, 2003
The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/10/international/asia/10KORE.html
WASHINGTON, June 9 - North Korea declared today for the first time that it was seeking to develop nuclear weapons so that it could reduce the size of a million-man army it can no longer afford.
The announcement came on the same day that several administration officials said the United States and its Asian allies were planning to track and inspect suspect sea shipments out of North Korea.
Administration officials said that those steps would stop short of a full embargo, but would amount to what one official called "selective interdiction." The effort is aimed at curbing the weapons exports of North Korea and cutting off its sources of cash, officials said. North Korea has shipped missiles to the Middle East, including Iran, and to Pakistan.
The administration was deliberately measured in its public response to the North today.
"This does not mean we are on our way to war," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in Santiago, Chile, where he was attending a meeting of the Organization of American States, according to Reuters. "We are not."
"The president continues to believe that there is an opportunity for a diplomatic solution, a political solution, but it's a solution that must come in a multilateral forum," Mr. Powell said at a news conference.
While debate continues on holding a second round of talks with North Korea - the first was two months ago - the administration is stepping up the economic pressure on the government of Kim Jong Il.
Japan began the process, sending 1,900 "safety inspectors" and policemen to meet a North Korean ferry suspected for years as being the link that allowed North Koreans living in Japan to transfer money home. When it became clear that the ferry would be inspected regularly, the North suspended the service.
American officials say those inspections are just a beginning. They are encouraging allies to stop ships and inspect them for drugs, as Australia did a month ago. Whether the United States itself will attempt to interdict shipments is unclear.
The legality of stopping ships is open to question. A ship suspected of carrying illegal drugs, for example, may be searched.
The effort "will be focused on those activities which require no additional laws, no new international treaties, no going to the United Nations Security Council," a senior official said. "Look at the Japanese, who can't stop transfers of money on North Korean ships, but suddenly discovered they can do `safety inspections.' " Other techniques like that are under consideration.
The strategy, officials say, is to make no announcement of any new measures, to avoid any overt confrontation with the North. But the interdictions are intended to make clear, officials say, that the United States has had some success in organizing its Asian allies into a loose coalition to put more and more pressure on the North. The most important nation needed in that coalition is China, and so far there is no indication it is willing to seal off its border or cut off oil and other shipments.
There is no indication that the squeeze on the North is having much effect. A Congressional delegation that traveled there last week said officials boasted that they had nearly completed reprocessing 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods, which can make four or five weapons. The North was believed to have two nuclear weapons produced at least a decade ago, but with the ejection of international inspectors on New Year's Eve the opportunity to produce weapons has increased.
"What they are doing, though, is edging toward a declaration that they are now a nuclear weapons state," a senior official said. "And once they take that step, how do we respond?"
That is the subject of a continuing debate between Mr. Bush and his allies. Meetings with the leaders of South Korea and Japan have produced statements that the allies will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea. But the meaning of that is unclear.
The White House has said that it will rule out no options, even a military strike against the North's nuclear facilities. South Korean leaders have declared such a strike would be unthinkable, and have said they will neither plan for any military solution nor discuss one with allies.
In today's announcement, the North said it might have to develop a "nuclear deterrent." Its usual warning is that it will develop a "physical deterrent" against the United States.
Today also marked the first time North Korea linked its atomic weapons program to the goal of cutting its conventional military and saving money. Its huge army consumes most of the country's budget. But it also performs nonmilitary functions, including building housing.
"They introduced a new element into their logic today when they said they would also do this as a cost-saving measure," Mr. Powell said. "I'll have to reflect on that for a while," he added.
-------- treaties / diplomacy
US plays matchmaker to India, Israel
By Ninan Koshy
Jun 10, 2003
Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF10Df03.html
Close on the heels of Indian National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra's call for an India-United States-Israel strategic alliance, comes the confirmation that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will visit India within the next few weeks. Some observers in New Delhi consider Mishra's call, made at the annual dinner of the American Jewish Committee, as a curtain raiser for the Sharon visit. What they seem to ignore is that the India-US-Israel strategic alliance has moved beyond last call to center stage and that the plan for Sharon's visit is some 15 months old.
It was an ironic coincidence that Brajesh Mishra was closeted in his office in New Delhi on September 11, 2001 with his Israeli counterpart Major General Uzi Dayan and engaged in what was dubbed a "joint security strategy dialogue" when the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred. Their discussion had to be discontinued as they turned to the television news. Favored by the climate of the ensuing "war on terror", the security relationship between India and Israel developed into a strategic alliance in tandem with the India-US strategic partnership.
The alliance between India and Israel - one an open member of the international nuclear club and the other a secret member - is based predominantly on military and intelligence cooperation. Israel has become the second-largest supplier of arms for India, next only to Russia. Israel has provided India with sea-to-sea missile radar and other similar systems, border monitoring equipment, and night vision devices. It also has upgraded India's Soviet-era aircraft.
Allies and aircraft
The United States has given clearance to Israel's delivery of Phalcon reconnaissance aircraft to India, in marked contrast to Washington's vigorous opposition to supplying them to China in 1998. The US forced Israel to cancel a deal to sell the Phalcons to China out of concern for altering the balance of power between China and Taiwan. Initially, the US administration also had worries about how the Phalcons supplied to India could impact the delicate balance between India and Pakistan, but the concerns soon evaporated in the warmth of the India-US-Israel strategic relationship.
In the third week of February, an agreement was made to supply advanced Israeli avionic systems for the Indian Air Force's new MG-27 combat aircraft. There are reports of Indo-Israeli plans to collaborate on the development of a missile defense system based on the Israel Arrow technology. Indian defense officials acknowledged the acquisition of two Israeli Elta Green Pine long-range radar systems, a component of the Arrow Ballistic Missile Defense Systems, according to some reports. A 2001 Pentagon review said that the defensive nature of the Arrow system exempted it from sales restrictions imposed by the Missile Technology Control Regime, an international agreement designed to stop the spread of offensive military technology.
Israel and India established a joint commission at the ministerial level back in 1999. During that year's brief conflict with Pakistan, known as the Kargil war, Israel responded quickly to India's desperate requests for arms, despite pressures from various quarters not to supply ammunition to a party engaged in war. Unmanned aerial vehicles for high altitude surveillance, laser-guided systems and many other items were provided within days of the request. Jane's Defense Weekly, which gave details on the supplies, reported in March 2000 that Israeli security officers were regularly visiting the Kashmir border. Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor reported on August 14, 2001: "Israeli intelligence agencies have been intensifying their relations with India security apparatus and are now understood to be heavily involved in helping New Delhi combat Islamic militants in the disputed province of Kashmir."
The Jerusalem Post reported on February 3 that India was sending four battalions of nearly 3,000 Indian soldiers to Israel for specialized anti-insurgency training. Their special assignment on return would be to employ newly learned techniques to stop infiltration of India by Pakistani terrorists in the contested Kashmir region.
Professor Martin Sherman published an article in the Jerusalem Post on February 28 entitled "From Conflict to Convergence: India and Israel Forge a Solid Strategic Alliance". The alliance with India was important for Israel as it intended to develop sea-borne defense capability. In view of the miniscule territorial dimension of Israel, its defense planners are increasingly aware of the crucial significance of the marine and sub-marine theaters. The vulnerability of Israel's land-based military installations grows with the acquisition of modern weaponry by other countries in the region. Strategic thinking in Israel tends to give prominence to the Indian Ocean as a location for logistical infrastructure. For the establishment and operation of such a maritime venture, cooperation with the Indian navy would be vital. The Post article said, "In this regard it is especially significant that in 2000, Israeli submarines reportedly conducted test launches capable of carrying nuclear warheads in the waters of the Indian Ocean off the Sri Lankan coast." Sherman added, "An alliance between India and Israel openly endorsed by the US would create a potent stabilizing force in the region, which together with like-minded regimes such as Turkey, could contribute significantly toward facing down the force of radical extremism so hostile to American interests in Western and Central Asia." The article argued that considerations beyond regional stability made a vibrant India-Israeli axis a clear interest. "For example, in the growing balance of geostrategic power, the growing Chinese challenge to US primacy will almost invariably dictate the need for a regional counterweight to Chinese domination."
It was in the context of the "war on terror" that the strategic relationship of India with Israel and the US developed dramatically though defense and security cooperation. It was just natural that both Israel and the US found a partner in the Indian government because of its ideological commitment to militaristic policy. Conveniently for them, at work in New Delhi was the calculated dismantling of the entire rationale of nonalignment and the edifice of an independent foreign policy.
New axis in the 'war on terror'?
The visit of Shimon Peres to New Delhi in January 2002 became an occasion to cement strategic ties between Israel and India. Both countries seemed to be convinced they were fighting a common enemy, terrorism. At that time, Zvi Gabey, deputy director general for Asia in the Israeli government said, "We find ourselves in the same camp that fights terrorism and we have to develop our relationship according to that." An Indian foreign ministry spokeswoman said during Peres' visit, "India finds it increasingly beneficial to learn from Israel's experience in dealing with terrorism since Israel, too, has long suffered from cross-border terrorism." The spokeswoman slipped into the ministry's grave and oft-repeated error of equating the Palestinian struggle with cross-border terrorism.
The visit was the most visible sign of the new phase of the Israel-India relationship. Peres was immensely pleased with it. The Israeli cabinet communique of January 13, 2002 on Peres' briefing about his trip billed it as a major achievement "emphasizing the good relations and special ties between Israel and India". Sharon was pleased too. He told the cabinet that he attributed special importance to the deepening of relations with India. That was when he noted that he intended to visit India, giving the first clear signal of the plan. Apparently an invitation to India had been extended to him through Peres.
Mishra drummed up US support for the plan, finding a responsive audience for his skewed and cynical views on terrorism in the American Jewish Committee. Only a "core" consisting of democracies such as India, Israel and the US can deal with terrorism, he maintained. The alliance of the three would have the political and moral authority to make bold decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation, he claimed, adding that they would not waste time in defining terrorism or arguing about its causes. "Distinctions sought to be made between freedom fighters and terrorists propagate a bizarre logic," he spouted. "Another fallacy propagated is that terrorism can only be eradicated by addressing the root causes." He repeated the pet themes of India, the US and Israel being "prime targets of terrorism", having a "common enemy" and requiring "joint action".
His comments were underpinned by those of India's Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishan Advani, who, in an interview given to Fox News on July 9, 2002, said, "Terrorism in so far we have seen it on September 11 or December 13 has a common source and that common source has described the US, Israel and India as its three main enemies." December 13, 2001 was the date on which the Indian parliament was attacked by terrorists. Advani implied that the three countries therefore have a common cause and could forge a common front against terrorism.
The India-Israeli alliance strengthens US strategic designs for India and the region. India holds a very prominent place in the September 20, 2002 National Security Strategy of the US, "a policy document that bears the personal stamp of President [George W] Bush," according to Robert D Blackwill, outgoing US ambassador to India. The document states, "The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies. We share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia. We start with a view of India as a growing world power with which we have common strategic interests."
In an article in the prestigious Indian daily The Hindu, Blackwill wrote, "Taken together our defense cooperation and military sales activities intensify the working relationships between the respective armed forces, build mutual military capacities for future joint operations and strengthen Indian military capability, which is in America's interest." He concluded the article: "An Indian military that is capable of operating effectively alongside its American counterparts remains an important goal of our bilateral defense relationship. What we have achieved since January 2001 builds a strong foundation on which to consummate this strategic objective, which will promote peace and freedom in Asia and beyond."
Washington will ensure that the India-Israeli alliance will serve this strategic objective. As for the Indian government, it has already subjugated the country's national interests to US designs in return for its designation as a world power.
Dr Ninan Koshy is a political commentator based in Trivandrum, Kerala, India and author of The War on Terror: Reordering the World (DAGA Press, 2002), and a regular analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
Senate OKs Billions for Nuclear Power
June 10, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Senate-Energy.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate endorsed a plan Tuesday for the government to provide loan guarantees for construction of a half dozen nuclear power plants that supporters say are necessary for the industry's survival.
Critics called the government assistance a giveaway to a mature industry that should be left to succeed or fail on its own. But their attempt to strip the measure from a broad energy bill fell short, 50-48. Advertisement
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the architect of the package of subsidies for the nuclear industry, said the government assistance will jump-start nuclear power. There has not been a new nuclear plant licensed since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania.
``The time has come to quit playing around with energy and say, wherever we can, we are going to produce more energy,'' argued Domenici. Nuclear power has long been neglected, he said, and that has been ``a giant mistake.''
Opponents questioned why nuclear power should be singled out for such largess, which they said could cost taxpayers $14 billion to $16 billion should the future power reactors fail and be abandoned.
It's ``not a question about whether someone is pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear,'' argued Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the provision's sharpest critics, but whether ``to put at risk the taxpayers of this country'' if the reactor projects flop.
Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., co-sponsor with Wyden of the effort to scuttle the loan guarantees, said he supports a broad array of energy sources, including nuclear, but ``power plants should be developed on a level playing field without government subsidizing one industry over another.''
He said he also opposes a $2 billion subsidy to develop clean coal plants, also in the energy legislation that Domenici hopes to get through the Senate in the coming weeks. An energy bill already passed by the House contains far less help for the nuclear industry and does little to spur new reactor construction.
In separate action Tuesday, the Senate by a 99-1 vote included in the energy bill a measure requiring that the president take action to save 1 million barrels of oil a day by 2013. The measure did not specify how the reduction in consumption, compared to what it otherwise is projected to be in 2013, is to be achieved. The country currently uses about 19 million barrels of oil a day.
In the most ambitious attempt to spur nuclear power development in decades, Domenici put into the Senate bill measures that would:
--Have the government provide loan guarantees to cover half the cost of building enough new reactors to produce 8,400 megawatts of power. That would probably be as many as six or seven next-generation reactors.
--Build a $1.1 billion reactor in Idaho to produce hydrogen.
--Authorize $865 million to speed research into ways to alter reactor waste chemically to reduce its volume and long-term radioactivity.
--Increase other nuclear research spending by tens of millions of dollars over current levels.
Supporters of the measure argued that the energy bill provides loan guarantees to other energy sources, including a proposal in the bill that would underwrite loans covering as much as $18 billion of a $20 billion Alaska pipeline to bring natural gas down from the North Slope.
In case of the nuclear reactors, taxpayers wouldn't pay a dime if the plants should succeed but would be liable for billions of dollars should they fail.
Wyden cited an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office that estimated the new plants probably will cost $2.1 billion to $3 billion apiece with ``the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -- well above 50 percent.''
Nuclear industry representatives called the CBO analysis flawed and said that companies wouldn't pursue reactor projects unless there was almost certain likelihood of success because they would be on the hook for half of the cost if there is a default.
The new plants would be built under regulations that removed many of the past licensing hurdles and would be far cheaper than that last reactors built.
``We're trying to jump-start the industry again,'' says Richard Myers of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group. ``We're not looking for a handout. We're not looking for any freebies.''
The bill is S.14.
-------- ohio
A testimonial "In Memory of Gary Colley"
From: Vina and Gai
Sent: 6/10/2003
http://groups.msn.com/NationalNuclearWorkersforJustice/inmemoryof.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=173
A testimonial "In Memory of Gary Colley" --
A deceased Piketon, Ohio Gaseous Diffusion Plant Victim
During his career, Gary Colley functioned as a line-manager while he was employed at the Piketon, Ohio Gaseous Diffusion plant for over 10 years. It is believed that he and his co-workers were chronically exposed to abnormally dangerous radioactive material and chemicals. At one point in time, Gary was laid-off from his job at the Piketon plant and was temporarily employed at Fernald for a few months. He later returned to work at the Piketon plant. While he was working at Fernald, the family remembers a particular radiation exposure incident that contaminated Gary's wooden leg. His employer agreed to replace the artificial leg with a new one. Gary was once injured in a traffic accident where a truck slammed into his motorcycle.
Gary's physician talked him into "signing" up for the medical monitoring program that was offered by the Piketon P.A.C.E. union division. A US Department of Energy (USDOE) medical monitoring contract had been awarded. In the beginning, Gary was monitored every three months. Finally, Gary was instructed not to return for more tests for at least six months. The program administrators convinced Gary the suspect growths that were detected on his lung was not cancerous and only needed to be monitored once in ahile. Like so many other victims, the suspect neoplasm(s) were deemed of no concern by the monitoring program administrators.
Gary's health continued to deteriorate until his physician noticed swelling on the left side of his neck. He began to receive extensive, diagnostic tests. And, of course, the diagnosis was cancer that had spread to his lymph nodes. The prognosis was terminal with only a few months to live. Gary suffered even though he received large amounts of the drug, morphine, in an effort to try to control the pain.
Gary was 55 years old when he passed away on May 22, 2003. He will be buried on Tuesday, May 28th due to the Memorial Day event. The small cell carcinoma had metastasized from an unknown origin which may still be evaluated. Gary waged a courageous battle until the pain was so intense, he said, "I am ready to go." His pain and suffering was observed by his family and friends day after day until he died.
Gary's death brings to mind that any member of Congress should be compelled to observe the dying process that each claimant like Gary and their family are forced to endure. President George W. Bush, the US Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao; the US Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson; and the USDOE Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham; and their staff should be held accountable for any and all violations of American civil rights law that was already established before the dysfunctional EEOICPA was enacted.
The USDOL agents originally denied Gary's claim while designating his cancer did not meet their "Interim Regulation(s)" requirements. How could that be? There is only one type of leukemia that the USDOL agents decided to exclude.
During the past three of four months, a USDOL spokesperson contacted Gary to inform him he might be elligible to receive the compensation benefit, again.
Shortly before his death, Gary received a phone call from a New York doctor. It was speculated that the caller was Dr. Steven B. Markowitz, M.D. Excerpt from Dr. Markowitz's testimony before the Committee on Government Affairs -- US Senate:
Quote: "In 1996, we initiated the Worker Health Protection Program (WHPP) at the three Department of Energy gaseous diffusion plants. It is a medical screening and education program established as collaboration between Queens College of the City University of New York and the Paper Allied-Industrial Chemical and Energy (PACE) International Union with the full cooperation of the employers at the plants. This program developed as a result of Congressional passage of Section 3162 of the National Reauthorization Defense Act of 1993. Section 3162 required that the Department of Energy to conduct a medical surveillance program for former DOE workers who a) were at significant risk for work-related illness as a result of prior occupational exposures at DOE facilities, and b) would benefit from early medical intervention to alter the course of those work-related illnesses. We received a contract from the DOE through a competitive, merit-based review process and conducted a careful needs assessment and planning process (Attachment B). We then instituted the Worker Health Protection Program at the three gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge as well as the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory."
Quote: "The goal of the Worker Health Protection Program is to detect selected work-related illnesses at an early stage when medical intervention can be helpful. At a broader level, the goal of our program is to help former DOE workers understand whether they have had exposures in the past that might threaten their health and to ascertain whether, in fact, an injury has resulted from these exposures. For the first time, former workers of the DOE gaseous diffusion plants have the opportunity to obtain an independent, objective assessment of their health in relation to their prior workplace exposures by a physician who is expert in occupational medicine. We screen for chronic lung diseases, such as asbestosis and emphysema, hearing loss, and kidney and liver disease. We have not heretofore emphasized cancer screening, because the screening tests available to date for the cancers of concern have been inadequate, and because the gaseous diffusion plants have not historically been considered sites of high radiation exposure. We implement the program based on a common medical protocol through local clinical facilities in Oak Ridge, Portsmouth and Paducah. This is not a research activity, but a clinical service program, intended to be of direct and immediate benefit to participants."
It appears Dr. Markowitz has very limited resources to help sick workers as he is obligated to meet certain criteria by contract with the USDOE.
The dysfunctional EEOICPA provisions are described by many victims and survivors as a "sick" political game plan that was never intended to compensate the majority of the sick atomic workers. According to Washington State House of Representatives "Doc" Hastings, only 79 atomic weapons' plant workers have been compensated to date. It is observed that the USDOL agents intent is to compensate certain select claimants just to make it appear the agency Secretary(s) are in compliance with this American law. Realistically, very poor performance by their staff is documented. Actually, US Labor Secretary Chao objected to being forced to administer the EEOICPA provisions. She wanted the "job" turned over to the US Department of Justice that already governed the 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). After being elected and after assuming his duties in January of 2001, President George W. Bush was to assume the role of seeing to it the EEOIC law was enforced in a timely and reliable manner.
Gary often prayed that when he got to heaven, he would be able to run, again. Perhaps Gary has golden wings, now, and can fly. Gary wants the members of Congress to know that all affected workers were exposed to various kinds of deadly toxins which caused them to develop the same types of latent disease. Too many workers' lung nodules are being ignored by the delegated government agents which has caused another victim's death.
This dead atomic worker was once a very healthy individual who loved the sport of boxing and keeping fit. No one in Gary's family has ever had cancer. He is survived by his wife, two children, many grandchildren, a twin brother, four sisters, and four brothers.
-------- us politics
KUCINICH ON HOUSE FLOOR: CREDIBILITY GAP IS GROWING
June 10, 2003
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, leader of Congressional opposition to the Iraq war, took to the House floor today to continue pressing for the truth about the Administration's drive to war
From: info@kucinich.us,
"The credibility gap is growing. First the Administration said the US had to sweep aside the UN inspections and the UN Security Council because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat. Now, Paul Wolfowitz says: 'The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.'
"Now their story is changing: Iraq had a weapons 'program,' they say. No longer weapons of mass destruction, but a program. If this Administration can fabricate reasons for war after the fact, where will America be headed for war next?
"Congress must demand accountability for the wanton exercise of war power, for the loss of life, the destruction of property, the waste of tax dollars and the damage to America's reputation. Thirty-three members of the House have now signed the Resolution of Inquiry to demand the White House tell the truth."
Kucinich's Resolution of Inquiry, demanding the Administration turn over intelligence to back its pre-war claims about Iraq, was introduced Thursday and has growing support. It is a privileged resolution and must be voted on in Committee within 14 legislative days of being introduced.
Having led Congressional opposition to the Iraq war and Bush foreign policy since last summer, Dennis Kucinich is now campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination on a platform of peace, justice, equal rights and sustainability.
For a quick view of his platform: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_10key.htm
For a fuller look at the Kucinich campaign: http://www.kucinich.us
----
Jim Jeffords: 'Declaring Independence'
Tuesday, June 10
By Jim Jeffords
The following speech by Sen. Jim Jeffords was delivered at the National Press Club on June 5, 2003 to commemorate the second anniversary of his decision to leave the Republican Party and become the Senate's only Independent.
Two years ago, I was big news. I got to know many of you for the first time. I was followed in airports and recognized on the street. Network news people, who until then couldn't identify me as a senator in a police line-up, were now calling my home number. Subsequent events put me back in my place: 9/11, two wars, the space shuttle disaster and a worsening economy took back the nation's attention -- as they should have done.
Yet the reasons for my switch, while apparent to me then, have become painfully clear to me now. The events of the past two years have only heightened my concern over the president's veer to the right, and the poisoning of our democratic process of government.
The promises of candidate Bush, who pledged to bring a new tone to Washington and packaged himself as a compassionate conservative, are unmet. On issue after issue the Bush administration is not what it claims to be. Since coming into office, the president has dragged the Republican Party into short-sighted positions that maximize short-term gain while neglecting the long-term needs of families and the nation.
Pundits asked after last November's election: will the president over-reach with his Republican majorities in the House and Senate? Well, President Bush hasn't just over-reached, he has set a new standard for extreme partisan politics that on many occasions has been supported by the Republican-controlled Congress.
In place of thoughtful policy we now have superficial and cynical sound-bites. Instead of confronting pressing national problems, our president lands airplanes while Rome burns.
While our troops search for WMD in Iraq, we have found our own WMD right here in Washington -- at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They are President Bush's weapons of mass distortion, or better, distraction. The Bush administration says one thing and does another to take the focus off the present realities.
Does he think we don't notice?
In Iraq, we have seen the inexcusable results of what happens when the Bush administration says one thing and does another. Last fall, the president said U.N. weapons inspectors would be allowed to do their job, but in reality, he didn't give them the time they needed. I am pleased to see calls for Congressional investigations to determine whether the president manipulated intelligence information to build support for the war. Why the hurry to invade a country and use military force in such an unprecedented manner? Where was the imminent threat to the United States? And where are the weapons of mass destruction?
As he prepared to invade Iraq and win the support of other nations, the president promised the world that the United States had a plan in place to rebuild that nation. But it quickly became apparent that there was no plan. While our military guarded the oil fields, we showed no compassion for the Iraqi people as we allowed their national treasures to be looted. All we see now is growing unrest with the U.S. presence in Iraq. Every day we see more lawlessness, more upheaval and more U.S. soldiers being killed. Is it any surprise that a recent Pell Research Center survey of 16,000 people from 20 nations shows a dramatic rise in distrust and skepticism toward the United States?
Does he think we don't notice?
His polls and famous advisors tell him to talk about compassion and job growth, and how he is helping Main Street. But that is all it is, talk.
In reality he adopts hard-right proposals that favor those who need help least and neglect those who need help the most. In reality we are now in the longest period of continued job loss since the Great Depression. Since the beginning of this Bush administration, 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost and the number of unemployed Americans has increased by over 45 percent. In the first three months of this year alone, America has lost another half-million jobs. President Bush has said his tax plan is a "jobs growth package." But the only thing guaranteed to grow is the federal budget deficit. He says one thing and does another.
Does he think we don't notice?
We will be paying for his tax cuts with borrowed funds, money borrowed from our children and grandchildren who will be forced to foot the bill. And, according to reports, the Bush administration intends to ask for more tax cuts next year. The effect of these tax cuts will be enduring -- and enormously damaging. These tax cuts will widen the gap between rich and poor. These tax cuts help those who need it least and do nothing for those who need it most. These tax cuts provide a $90,000 tax cut for millionaires, while millions of parents with incomes under $26,000 will see no benefit from the increased child credit. This is compassion? Again, he says one thing and does another.
Does he think we don't notice?
President Bush is rashly piling up debt our nation can't afford even as he knows the really big bills are about to come due. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts a $300 billion deficit this fiscal year -- an all-time record. Some economists believe the deficit could approach $500 billion dollars in the near future. That's edging close to a troublingly high percentage of the economy. But the real problem is not this year or next. Rather, it's the long-term cost, combined with the budgetary hit coming just around the corner, when the baby boomers start to retire and put new huge demands on Social Security and Medicare.
The administration highlighted this problem in its own budget documents, describing the real fiscal danger as the 18 trillion dollar shortfall -- yes, trillion with a "T" -- projected in those two programs. At the same time, it was recently disclosed the Bush administration shelved a report commissioned by its own Treasury Department that shows the United States currently faces future budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion.
The Bush tax cut will threaten the country's long-term well-being by starving the federal government of revenue for essential services, such as homeland security, transportation infrastructure, education and health care. Our States are bearing the brunt of our dismal economic conditions, and these cuts will brutalize them.
One of the most disturbing effects of the economic downturn is the lack of state and federal funding for our educational system -- where states are laying off teachers, cutting school days and eliminating early childhood programs -- most of which have only just started. The president's advisors tell him to endlessly repeat "No Child Left Behind."
But in the 17 months since that policy became law, we've seen something very different. Too many children are being left behind. President Bush says the new law will lead to stronger schools. I say it is all part of a quiet plan to starve our public schools so this country can move to vouchers and private school choice.
As the president pushes tax cut after tax cut, his administration still can not find the funding to fulfill the federal government's commitment to special education -- where we still fall $12 billion short on a commitment we made to the states more than 25 years ago, to help them finance this federal constitutional mandate. According to school boards across the nation, the number one thing the federal government can do to support education is fully fund special ed.
While pretending to have compassion for our schoolchildren, the approach of No Child Left Behind is heartless. It chronically under-funds our schools, it sets unattainable goals for our teachers and it steals from schoolchildren the quality education they deserve. Once again, the Bush administration says one thing and does another.
Does he think we don't notice?
A recent report in The New York Times noted that combined budget deficits for 50 states are estimated to be between $52 billion and $82 billion, and the schools are taking the worst hit. In Oregon, 84 school districts closed their schools ahead of schedule -- some by as much as a month -- because the money ran out. This comes at a time when schools are faced with mounting pressure to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind or face penalties.
Now we see that states are cutting back on testing standards to avoid sanctions. In the president's home state of Texas, the State Board of Education voted to reduce the number of questions that students must answer correctly to pass the standard test, to 20 out of 36, from 24, for third-grade reading. And Texas is not alone. Michigan's standards had been among the nation's highest, which caused problems last year when 1,513 schools there were labeled under the law as needing improvement, more than in any other state.
So Michigan officials lowered the percentage of students who must pass statewide tests to certify a school as making adequate progress. That reduced the number of schools "in need of improvement" to 216. In other words, we are dumbing down our standards so the Bush administration can say we have strengthened our schools.
Saying one thing, doing another.
In my home state of Vermont, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a resolution last week expressing its concerns over the policies and mandates of No Child Left Behind. They noted that the law could cost Vermont up to three times more to implement than the federal government provides -- and maybe more -- "thereby placing a major burden on the state's strained financial resources...."
If this wasn't all bad enough, we learned last week that the U.S. Department of Education plans to spend a half-million dollars -- yes, a half-million dollars! -- on a public relations campaign aimed at quieting the critics of No Child Left Behind. During three decades in Congress, I have never heard of such an ad campaign. Yet as schools are cutting early education programs for lack of money, the president has no problem with assembling an eight-person "communications" team to try and make a bad plan look good.
Saying one thing, doing another.
In an age now driven by scientific and technological advances, American students are falling behind. This is inexcusable. But despite warnings that have spanned three decades, we have done nothing to respond. "Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics & Science Teaching for the 21st Century," released in 2000, highlighted that problem. Recent reports of the performance of our country's students from both the Third International Mathematics and Science Study and the National Assessment of Educational Progress echo a dismal message of lackluster performance.
In December of 2000 I met with President-elect Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas to discuss education. He assured me that education would be his top priority. But his actions speak louder than his words and that promise clearly fell to the wayside long ago.
The president says one thing, but does another.
Perhaps this is most apparent when it comes to the environment. With a straight face he talks about protecting resources for our children -- even as he abandons the federal protection of land and air and water as fast as he can.
Does he think we don't notice?
The Bush administration continues to protect special interests and ignore public support for strong environmental protections and conservation measures. Candidate Bush said in September of 2000: "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time." Those were heartening words for many of us. Unfortunately, just two months into his term, President Bush backed away from that statement, and abandoned his commitment to seek reductions in carbon dioxide which is the leading cause of global warming and climate change. And there has been no working together on anything.
Saying one thing, and doing another.
From the beginning, this administration has relaxed environmental laws through deregulation and lack of enforcement, and put forward legislative proposals long on public relations and short on substance. What Americans really need now is relief from air pollution, and swift and serious action to avert global warming. We have a right to breathe air that is not contaminated by pollution. At a minimum, we have a right to full and vigorous implementation of laws already on the books, such as the Clean Air Act. The devastation caused by dirty air is staggering. As many as 60,000 premature deaths each year are linked to air pollution, according to an American Cancer Society study and researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health.
I was proud to work with the first President Bush on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, when I was a Republican. I was proud to be chosen by the first President Bush as one of the lead Senate negotiators on that bill. He called our work, "a new chapter in our environmental history, and a new era for clean air." That was an example of what we could do -- together -- when we made a shared commitment to our environmental future. Now this President Bush insists on moving us backward, undoing his father's legacy and weakening our nation's environmental laws.
This Bush administration has put forward a plan mislabeled "Clear Skies." This bill weakens or eliminates current clean air programs, accelerates global warming, and saves only one-third of the lives that could be saved by the Clean Power Act. Worse, the administration bill takes 20 years before its reduction targets are achieved.
Does he think we won't notice?
Well, we do notice. We do care. And it does matter.
Some people might not have agreed with my decision to leave the GOP two years ago, but at least I did it for the reasons I said I did. I was honest about what brought me to that decision.
What makes the actions of the Bush administration so troublesome is the lack of honesty.
It amounts, in the end, to a pattern of deception and distortion; ultimately that does not respect the wisdom of the American people.
Thank you.
Jim Jeffords represents the state of Vermont in the U.S. Senate as an Independent.
----
Source, quoting Bush: 'We have a problem with Sharon'
By Akiva Eldar,
Haaretz Correspondent
10/06/2003
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/302079.html
Behind-the-scenes exchanges between President George Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at last week's Aqaba summit may hint at a certain shift in the American stance, from the Israeli to the Palestinian side, according to a participant in the three-way meeting of the delegations.
The source quoted Bush as telling his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that "I see that we have a problem with Sharon," while saying of the Palestinians led by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, "We can work with them."
At one point, an irked Bush reportedly rebuked Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, telling him "Oh, but I think that you can [help the Palestinians]. And I think that you will."
At the advance request of Israel at the summit, Bush's aides had put security problems at the top of the agenda for discussion. "The first thing that Bush was required to talk about was security," the participant said, adding, "It was a request of the Israelis. So [Bush] asked Dahlan to give a briefing."
According to the source, Dahlan gave an excellent five-minute synopsis of the situation, and concluded by saying to Bush: "There are some things we can do and some things we cannot. We will do our best. But we will need help."
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz burst in at the end of Dahlan's presentation and said: "Well, they won't be getting any help from us; they have their own security service."
You could see that Bush was irritated, the participant said, and Bush turned on Mofaz angrily: "Their own security service? But you have destroyed their security service."
Mofaz shook his head and said: "I do not think that we can help them, Mr. President," - to which Bush said: "Oh, but I think that you can. And I think that you will."
Then Bush turned to Abbas - again according to a script insisted on by the Israelis - and said: "Mr. Prime Minister, perhaps you could give an overview of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza."
Abbas outlined the increasingly dire situation of the territories, saying that the humanitarian crisis was deepening, and that while recent actions of the finance minister had eased the problems, the insertion of new funding was necessary.
Sharon then interrupted and said: "The insertion of new funding must be dependent on your good behavior." Bush was again visibly irritated: "You should release their money as soon as possible. This will help the situation."
Sharon shook his head: "We have to deal with security first, and we will condition the release of their monies on this alone." Bush peered at Sharon: "But it is their money ..." Sharon said: "Nevertheless, Mr. President ..." and Bush interrupted him: "It is their money, give it to them."
After that meeting, Bush turned to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and said, "We have a problem with Sharon I can see, but I like that young man [Dahlan] and I think their prime minister is incapable of lying. I hope that they will be successful. We can work with them."
Bush was also pleased with the determination with which Abbas rebuffed pressure from his ministers, Nabil Sha'ath and Yasser Abed Rabbo, to toughen the language of the Abbas speech, which he had agreed upon with the American delegation before the summit. They said it would cause trouble in the Palestinian Authority. They argued heatedly with Abbas about his comments, at one point in front of the president. But Abbas insisted that his remarks follow the outlines set out by Bush.
Bush watched the interplay and was pleased that Abbas agreed to the American president's suggestions on the draft remarks: "If you will just do this, I pledge to you we will get where your colleagues want you to go. But we are going to take one step at a time."
----
Big Bush offer to buy Pak nod to Israel
Tuesday, 10 June, 2003
Sify News (India)
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13168085
Washington: The United States is expected to offer lucrative financial package, including 1.8 billion dollar waiver, to Pakistan in return for its recognition of Israel.
The offer is high on the agenda drawn up for the forthcoming crucial meeting between President Pervez Musharraf and US President Bush at Camp David.
However, preliminary reaction from Pakistan has been that it will not take any unilateral step in this direction.
Besides, a wide spectrum of issues like promotion of defence ties, raise in textile quota for Pakistan, provision of funds for development of social sector, nuclear armaments and Kashmir are at the centerstage of talks between the US and Pakistan.
Both the leaders are likely to exchange views on the roadmap announced by the US for the lasting Mideast peace and respect for the sovereignty and independence of Israeli and Palestinian states. ANI
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
Karzai blames outsiders for attack
From combined dispatches
June 10, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030609-114510-1166r.htm
KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan President Hamid Karzai blamed foreigners yesterday for a car bombing that killed four German peacekeepers in Kabul, his latest attempt to dispel the view abroad that the Taliban is making a comeback.
His interior minister pointed the finger of blame for instability in Afghanistan at Pakistan, saying training camps and staging posts for attacks continued to operate there.
Attacks on aid agencies, peacekeepers and U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan since the fall of the hard-line Taliban regime in 2001 show no sign of letting up. The attack Saturday on German peacekeepers was the worst against the security force.
"I am not worried about the resurgence of the Taliban," Mr. Karzai said at a news briefing at the presidential palace in Kabul. "The Taliban movement as a movement is finished, is gone."
"Are we concerned about terrorist activities of the kind that occur at the borders or inside Afghanistan, of the kind that happened the day before yesterday? Yes."
Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali was more specific.
"The one thing we learned so far is that the terrorists and anti-government elements cannot stay for long inside the country, so they take refuge in these areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border," he said at the same briefing.
"We hope that Pakistan security forces who are also committed to fight terrorism will intensify their activities to go after these terrorist centers, including training areas, staging areas and also areas where some of their leaders are residing."
The frequency of attacks on foreign and Afghan targets across the south and in the capital in recent months have led many commentators to speak of a Taliban resurgence.
Earlier yesterday, a provincial official in the restive southern province of Zabul said the Taliban was calling on the army and police to join the hard-line Islamic movement in its campaign against Mr. Karzai and U.S.-led forces in the country.
The removal of land mines has been suspended in many areas because of threats and violence. The 5,000-member International Security Assistance Force in Kabul has stopped using buses to transport troops around the city since the incident on Saturday.
Meanwhile, Pakistan yesterday complained to Afghanistan about the bodies of 22 Taliban suspects being dumped on its side of the border.
Afghanistan brought the bodies to the Pakistani town of Chaman after a battle Wednesday in which seven Afghan soldiers and 40 Taliban suspects died.
Afghan officials say they took the bodies to the border to give Afghan refugees living in camps in Chaman a chance to identify them. No one claimed the remains, and Afghanistan took them back.
Pakistan summoned Afghan Ambassador Naunguyalai Tarzi to the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad to protest the action. None of the dead was a Pakistani citizen, a spokesman said.
--------
U.S. Troops Kill Four in Afghanistan
June 10, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-US-Fighting.html
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Insurgents in eastern Afghanistan opened fire Tuesday on patrolling U.S. forces, setting off a firefight that left four attackers dead, a military spokesman said. No U.S. casualties were reported.
The U.S. troops came under attack before dawn near Shkin, a volatile town in Paktika province near the Pakistan border, the spokesman, Col. Rodney Davis, said from Bagram Air Base.
U.S. soldiers fired four artillery shells along with several illumination rounds during a three-hour exchange, Davis said.
After an initial gunfight, ``coalition forces then conducted a search of the contact site and a nearby compound,'' Davis said. ``They found three enemy killed in action and engaged a fourth who attempted to throw a hand-grenade at coalition forces, killing him.''
It was not known how large the group of insurgents was. They were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Davis said.
The U.S. patrol was searching out guerrilla fighters, he said.
In a separate incident on Monday, also near Shkin, unidentified attackers fired four rocket-propelled grenades at an Afghan military checkpoint on the Pakistan border. No casualties or damage were reported, Davis said.
Meanwhile, near Asadabad, another town to the northwest in eastern Kunar province, U.S. special operations forces recovered three Blowpipe optically guided, shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile systems. It was not clear who it had belonged to or where exactly it was found.
Insurgents have been stepping up attacks since the start of spring in the south and east of the country.
On Saturday, a suicide bomber killed four German peacekeepers and wounded 19 others when he drove an explosives-laden car alongside a bus carrying the peacekeepers. One Afghan was also killed and up to 10 wounded in the same attack.
About 11,500 coalition troops are in Afghanistan conducting operations to route out small groups of Taliban and al-Qaida guerrillas and their allies, who authorities say are using bases in Pakistan to launch cross-border attacks. The Taliban were overthrown in a U.S.-led war in 2001.
-------- asia
The Pentagon's paradigm shift in Asia
By Phar Kim Beng,
Jun 10, 2003
Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EF10Dg01.html
HONG KONG - Last week's announcement of a redeployment of US troops based in Korea was part of an overall realignment of strategic troop placement in Asia, the first sign of which was a May 29 article in the Los Angeles times that caused a frenzy among US allies in the region, who claimed they had not been consulted. All indications are, however, that the Pentagon is in no hurry to carry out its plans.
The Los Angeles Times reported that "the Pentagon wants to move US troops from South Korea and Japan to new bases in Southeast Asia and Australia". The report also affirmed that the Pentagon was seeking agreements to increase its military presence in Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines, and to base navy ships in Vietnamese waters.
Although Japan and Australia denied that the Pentagon has any such plans, citing the absence of any mutual agreement, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told reporters at the International Institute for Strategic Studies defense dialogue in Singapore a day after the LA Times report was released that while the account was wrong on the exact number of troop deployments, it was "broadly accurate" on Pentagon plans. If the LA Times report needed any vindication, that was it.
Since then stories of Pentagon's latest plans have expanded to include references to India. That country, according to one Pentagon official, lies "at the center of Asia", so it would be logical to locate some US troops there too. While the Defense Ministry of India has yet to repudiate the report, the flurry of news about Pentagon's plans are serving as the perfect grist for the intelligence and defense community throughout the region.
To be sure, the Pentagon's plans have been in motion for some time. The present plans attempt to redistribute the security risks that have accrued to US military bases, an objective consistent with the September 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Indeed, the rationale for more places to host US military troops also stemmed from the fear of a decisive attack launched against the military base in South Korea and Japan. Many US military installations remain just as vulnerable as they were before the attacks of September 11, 2001, despite a heightened awareness of terrorist threats. As Richard Marcinko, a former US Navy SEAL (Sea-Air-Land special forces member), explained: "It would take one determined suicide bomber, for example, to wreak havoc on a major naval base. A kamikaze truck could ram through the gates, plunge into the water, detonate a bomb right next to sleeping nuclear submarines, spreading enough radio- activity to pollute large sections of the ocean. It could be a one man job."
The recent suicidal attacks in Riyadh and Casablanca, while not directed at any military targets, brought home the real threat of a team of terrorists shooting their way through, before detonating themselves.
In the case of South Korea, troop redeployment has verged on something of a taboo for the past five decades prior to the Pentagon's latest plans. Thus, the fact that Pentagon was willing to act on it at all marked a critical phase in military rethinking.
Unlike other US defense secretaries before him, Donald Rumsfeld does not believe that troop transfer should only occur as a tit-for-tat with Pyongyang. Rumsfeld believes that since long-range US military supremacy has already improved vastly, shown not least by the military prowess of US war campaigns over the last decade, it is high time to move the troops from harm's way.
Nor does the US military want to expose itself to the direct tactical assault of North Korea in one strike, a prospect that has strengthened considerably since North Korea's confession of having nuclear weapons. This has also enhanced Pyongyang's negotiation posture with the US.
At any rate, the LA Times report continued to resonate, one might add, at amazing speed. Last Wednesday, it was announced by Seoul that the US 2nd Infantry Division would relinquish its frontline defensive role in two stages over the next few years.
The division, whose motto is "In Front of Them All," has stood eye to eye with North Korean troops on the border since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, which killed 3 million people. So far, what is open to question is the issue of when the troop redeployment would begin.
If the Pentagon's plans in South Korea may be proceeding swiftly, those in Southeast Asia have come under some disrepute. Malaysia, which is afraid of an Islamic backlash against hosting a US military presence, has opposed the initiative. As one of the pioneers of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in 1970, a concept meant to prevent great powers from interfering in regional affairs, Malaysia has a stake in keeping the region free from excessive US forward deployment.
Although the Philippines has been promoted to the status of a full ally by the administration of US President George W Bush in the "war on terror", the Philippine Congress's reception remains lukewarm.
Be that as it may, this situation can change according to the national security of the country. Southeast Asia has always met its defense needs through various bilateral, rather than multilateral, arrangements.
To balance the perennial fear of an emergent China, for example, the Philippines took a U-turn by signing the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the US during the short tenure of president Joseph Estrada.
Vietnam has in turn warmed to the Pentagon's plans; not in permitting the physical presence of US troops on Vietnam soil, but to allow US Navy vessels to ply its waters.
Nevertheless, even if these countries accept the Pentagon's plans in principle, they are still reluctant to upgrade their defense ties with the US formally. That is, not until three issues are effectively managed.
The first has to do with the terms under which US military access may be allowed. Prior to the withdrawal of US military from the Clark and Subic air bases, for instance, the Philippine government insisted that US aid programs be regarded as "rent" for the bases. The US government refused to budge.
It became a long-standing irritant, which heightened during 1990 when Manila argued there had been a US$222 million shortfall. The United States eventually conceded a sum less than half that, and opted for a complete withdrawal in 1991. Learning from this lesson, some leaders in Southeast Asia are invariably not committed to supporting Pentagon's plans in principle before this sensitive issue is resolved.
Second, when the US military left Clark and Subic, it also left a litany of environmental problems. In 1992, the US General Accounting Office (GAO) admitted as much when it reported contaminated sites in Clark and Subic but claimed "no responsibility for environmental damage". Leaders in Southeast Asia would be aware of this point too.
At any rate, if leaders in Southeast Asia should somehow feel that they can squeeze more money and control out of the Bush administration, that is given Washington's concern with terrorist attacks, the threat of North Korea, indeed even the growing power of China, they had better reconsider. Their leverage may not be much. While Pentagon does want more places for its troops, it will not enter into any arrangement that might require the United States to surrender too much control or taxpayers' dollars. After all, the US military has already developed considerable accuracy in its armament, on land, air and sea. It has access to the Changi naval base in Singapore too - a facility also built and maintained at the expense of the Singaporean government - which has the means to host the deployment of the US 7th Fleet.
Despite the paradigm shift in US military thinking, it would not be wrong to assume that the United States is willing to bide its time in order to extract the best arrangement.
-------- business
Northrop to Pay $111 Million to Settle Suit
Subsidiary TRW Allegedly Overcharged U.S. on 1990s Space Project Work
By Anitha Reddy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36891-2003Jun9?language=printer
Northrop Grumman Corp. agreed to pay $111.2 million to settle a civil lawsuit alleging that a subsidiary overcharged the government for work done on space projects during most of the 1990s.
The settlement resolves charges that TRW Inc., a Cleveland-based firm that Northrop acquired last year, shifted expenses from commercial jobs to government contracts and wrongly classified other expenses to evade federally imposed reimbursement caps on research and development costs.
Northrop, headquartered in Los Angeles, said it had factored the possible cost of a settlement into the purchase of TRW and still expects earnings per share of $3.80 to $4.20 this year. The aerospace contractor did not admit or deny any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
The suit has been in the courts for nearly a decade. Richard Bagley, director of financial control of TRW's space unit, first accused the company of accounting improprieties in a federal suit in Los Angeles in 1994.
Bagley, who was responsible for enforcing government cost accounting rules, reported directly to Daniel S. Goldin, the general manager of TRW's space unit. The suit alleges that Goldin, who later became head of NASA, approved at least some of the company's deceptive accounting. Goldin has denied any wrongdoing and was not named as a defendant in the case.
Bagley filed his case under the federal False Claims Act, which allows whistle-blowers to sue government contractors on behalf of themselves and the government if they suspect misuse of federal dollars.
TRW declined to settle the case for roughly $30 million in 1998, said Eric Havian, Bagley's lawyer and a partner in Phillips & Cohen in San Francisco. Then, the government decided that a major part of the final settlement, involving excess charges at two satellite projects, was too weak to pursue. But over the next two years, Bagley's lawyers uncovered enough evidence to make the government's attorneys change their minds.
The government has agreed to pay Bagley $27.2 million, or 24.5 percent of the settlement, because of the unusual length and complexity of the case and the close cooperation between Bagley's private lawyers and the government's lawyers, said Susan Hershman, an attorney who worked on the case for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles.
As an incentive to report fraud, the False Claims Act entitles whistle-blowers to between 15 and 25 percent of damages and penalties collected, but rewards so near the cap are unusual in large settlements, Havian said.
Northrop Grumman still faces three other lawsuits alleging violations of the False Claims Act. The plaintiffs, who in two cases include the federal government, accuse the company of knowingly selling defective military target drones and overbilling on government projects. The plaintiffs are demanding a total of $395 million in damages and penalties, which can be tripled under the law. The company denies these charges and intends to "vigorously" defend itself, according to its last annual report.
--------
Watchdog Groups Slam Boeing Lease Deal
June 10, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-arms-boeing-tanker.html
WASHINGTON ( Reuters) - Seven independent groups on Tuesday blasted a $16 billion Boeing Co. (BA.N) lease deal with the Air Force as ``a profligate waste of taxpayer dollars'' and said lawmakers should delay its approval until a criminal investigation into another Boeing contract is completed.
``In light of the fact that Boeing is currently under criminal and civil investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice for possible misconduct involving government contracts, such an apparent sweetheart deal seems particularly troublesome,'' they said in a joint letter to top lawmakers.
``Congress should -- at a minimum -- delay the required additional authorization for this program until questions are resolved relating to this contract and Boeing's conduct on a range of issues,'' said the letter, signed by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Public Citizen, National Taxpayers Union, the National Legal and Policy Center, and three other groups.
Chicago-based Boeing, anticipating the letter, on Monday bought full-page advertisements in major U.S. newspapers, admitting its employees acted improperly during a fierce competition with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N) for a $2 billion rocket deal.
But Boeing Chairman and Chief Executive Phil Condit said the company had taken appropriate action after it learned of the errors and would not tolerate unethical behavior.
The Project on Government Oversight, which also signed the letter, rejected Condit's statement and said it had documented 36 cases of misconduct or alleged misconduct by Boeing workers between 1990 and 2002, resulting in about $348 million in fines or penalties, restitution and settlement fees.
GROUPS CITE 'EXCESSIVE WASTE'
The groups cited several estimates that it would be cheaper for the Air Force to modernize its aging fleet of KC-135 refueling tankers instead of leasing new 767 jets from Boeing, a deal approved by the Pentagon on May 23.
They also questioned the military's decision to award the contract without a formal competition, saying it reinforced ``a widespread perception of ... excessive and unnecessary waste.''
In their letter to the lawmakers who oversee defense spending, the groups cited a General Accounting Office report that Boeing obtained proprietary documents from another competitor, Raytheon Co. (RTN.N), on a missile defense contract.
They said this was particularly alarming, given Boeing's role as the ``lead system integrator'' on missile defense, which gave it easy access to proprietary documents of competitors.
Given the circumstances, the groups said Congress should not approve the lease until after a complete investigation into the Air Force plan, and the conclusion of the Justice Department's probe of the rocket contract.
In addition, it said the government and Congress should review a decision to make Boeing the lead contractor for the Army's Future Combat Systems, a multibillion-dollar deal.
Boeing said it was cooperating with the Justice Department and the Air Force as they investigate whether Boeing used documents from Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N) when the two firms were competing to build a new rocket launcher for spy satellites, known as the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.
Boeing eventually won the lion's share of the $1.88 billion contract, although the Pentagon has said it is committed to keeping both companies working on the program.
Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the investigation focused on one incident and should not reflect on the overall company.
--------
Lockheed Martin Sues Boeing Over Contract
June 10, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Boeing-Contract.html
COLLEGE PARK, Md. (AP) -- Lockheed Martin Corp. filed suit Tuesday against competitor Boeing Co. and three of its former employees, claiming Boeing used Lockheed internal documents to win an Air Force rocket contract.
The 23-count complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Orlando, Fla., claims a former Lockheed employee gave Boeing more than 37,000 pages of documents that include financial details on Lockheed's planned bid for the $1.88 billion contract.
The contract, part of the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program, was divided between the two companies in 1999. But Boeing was eventually awarded 21 rocket launches, while Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed was given seven.
Lockheed, the nation's largest defense contractor, alleges Boeing and its employees broke federal and Florida racketeering and antitrust laws by soliciting, acquiring and using Lockheed data. The lawsuit does not seek specific damages.
``We are filing suit to ensure our legal rights are protected,'' said Meghan Mariman, a Lockheed spokeswoman.
Lockheed's lawsuit came a day after Chicago-based Boeing ran a full-page advertisement in several national newspapers acknowledging that some of its employees improperly used the proprietary documents to win the contract.
CEO Phil Condit said in the ad that ``the actions of a handful of people'' during the contract competition do not reflect the company's ethics.
Boeing spokesman Dan Beck referred Tuesday to Condit's statement, saying the wrongdoing was limited to the three workers named in the suit, all of whom have either been fired or no longer work for the company. Boeing will ``respond in appropriate legal venues,'' he said.
The Justice Department and Air Force are also investigating the case.
Lockheed and Boeing fought in the late 1990s for the right to build rockets to launch spy and communications satellites under the EELV program.
In its complaint, Lockheed alleges that Kenneth Branch, an engineer and former Lockheed EELV project manager, took company documents with him when he left Lockheed and joined Boeing in 1997. Boeing fired Branch in 1999 after an internal probe found he had used the documents.
Lockheed also named Branch's supervisor, William Erskine, and Larry Satchell, whose job was to ensure Boeing's bid came in under Lockheed's, in the complaint. Boeing fired Erskine in 1999, while Satchell was suspended and has since retired, Beck said.
The complaint alleges Boeing and the employees covered up their activity by telling Lockheed and the Air Force that the individuals and documents involved were limited in number and that Boeing did not use any of Lockheed's proprietary information in the launch vehicle competition.
Erskine and Branch filed a wrongful termination suit against Boeing in federal court, a case that was dismissed last year. Their attorney in that case, Natasha Roit, said the Lockheed lawsuit was expected.
``We think it is a shame that Erskine and Branch continue to be pawns in this game between two giant companies,'' she said.
Boeing has returned many of the Lockheed documents, according to the complaint.
Lockheed and Boeing collaborate on several major contracts, including the F-22 jet, the proposed national missile defense system and United Space Alliance, a joint venture that operates much of the space shuttle program.
On the Net:
Lockheed Martin Corp.: http://www.lockheedmartin.com
Boeing Co.: http://www.boeing.com
-------- europe
Possible Military Move E