Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Is Niger the smoking gun?
Beijing weighs up, then rejects, invasion of N Korea
NZ to send troops to Afghanistan
Protests as US Navy exercises start
Iran Sites Linked to Weapons
Iran shows missile muscle, despite nuclear furor
Iranian exiles describe newly found nuclear site
Nuclear Power in Japan
North Korea Reprocessed Nuclear Rods, Seoul Says
U.S. Says N. Korea Nuclear Activity Still Unclear
South Korea Issues Report on North Korean Explosions
Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel
Nuclear waste facility gets boost
Nuclear Fuel Services Approved for Use of Uranium
Energy Dept. Halts Nuclear Shipments Plan
White House disowns British claim that Saddam tried to buy uranium
House Panel Cuts Bush Nuclear Weapons Requests
Bush Recantation Of Iraq Claim Stirs Calls for Probes
Bush Defends War, Sidestepping Issue of Faulty Intelligence
Bush and Rumsfeld Defend Use of Prewar Intelligence on Iraq
Where is Iraq War Instigator, Richard Perle?
MILITARY
West African oil attracts growing U.S. interest
How important is African oil?
EADS chief urges open transatlantic defence market
EGYPT TO GET U.S. AIR SUPPORT
Cold War Scientists Escape Chemical Charges - Lawyer
UK Quietly Presses U.S. Over Guantanamo Bay Trials
U.S. Firms Eager To Sell in Iraq
Progress Against Outlaws Is Cited as U.S. Releases Aid to Colombia
For a Town Council in Iraq, Many Queries, Few Answers
Iraq Insurgency Could Widen as U.S. Troops Flail
Shia u-turn boosts US Iraqi council plan
Citing national security, Bush sends $20M directly to PA
Guantanamo move puts US on trial
U.S. Gave Inaccurate Iraq Picture, Ex - Intel Official
Big Brother Gets a Brain
US withheld uranium intelligence from UN
U.S. to move 'striker' force to Hawaii for N Korea
House Approves $369 Billion for Defense Spending
Analysts fear mission in Liberia would stretch military
2 Spending Bills for the Military Advance in Congress
Tracing the pattern of WMD lies back to the source
Analysis: ACLU on DOJ 'deceit'
Is the Media Finally Turning on Bush?
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Man challenging 'enemy combatant' status
Secret aid poured into Colombian drug war
Man Challenging 'Enemy Combatant' Status
Man Held as 'Combatant' Petitions for Release
ENERGY AND OTHER
West Virginia Wind Farm to Power DC Area
Court Blocks Effort to Protect Secret Cheney Files
Cheney Loses Ruling on Energy Panel Records
UN Food Commission Lifts Irradiation Limits
Feds to sell pot seeds for medical use
Red clover fails to relieve hot flashes
ACTIVISTS
Emboldened Hong Kong Protesters Call For Free Elections
CIA whistleblower to talk about 9/11
Protesters demonstrate against Bush visit
INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL JUSTICE GROUP COLLECTS INFANT CARE KITS
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- britain
Is Niger the smoking gun?
Blair under fire as White House rejects British intelligence claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium
By Ben Russell and Andrew Buncombe in Washington
09 July 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=422957
The White House has dealt a devastating blow to Tony Blair by rejecting as flawed British claims that Saddam Hussein attempted to buy uranium from Africa to restart his nuclear weapons programme.
The Bush administration was in full retreat yesterday with officials admitting that the allegation should not have been included in President George Bush's State of the Union address. The American admission represented the first serious split between London and Washington over the case against Saddam and exploded into a full-scale row in Westminster as Mr Blair told senior MPs that the Government was standing by its story.
Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour backbenchers demanded that Mr Blair release the intelligence behind the allegation to an independent inquiry.
In his address to Congress in January, Mr Bush said: "The British government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
But a statement approved by the White House on Monday said: "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech. There is other reporting to suggest that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa. However, the information is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made."
"In other words," a White House official told The New York Times, "we couldn't prove it and it might in fact be wrong."
The White House climbdown followed a sceptical report from the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee and claims from the retired US ambassador Joseph Wilson that the allegations of a link between Niger and Saddam were false. He had been sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate possible links nine months before Mr Bush's address.
Mr Wilson first made his claims anonymously in The Independent on Sunday 10 days ago. He repeated the claims in The New York Times at the weekend in a signed article. "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons programme was twisted,"he said.
Monday was the first time the US had admitted publicly that key "evidence" backing the claim that Iraq was trying to "reconstitute its nuclear weapons programme" was false. The threat of Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons became central to the British and American governments' case for war. Tony Blair told MPs in September that Saddam was "actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability".
Mr Blair said yesterday the intelligence services were standing by their allegation that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium, despite a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in March dismissing the claims as based on crude forgeries. Questioned on the Niger affair by the Commons Liaison Committee, Mr Blair said the claims were based on multiple sources and did not rely on the forged documents obtained by the IAEA.
He said: "There was an historic link between Niger and Iraq. In the 1980s Iraq purchased somewhere in the region of 200 tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called forged documents. They came from separate intelligence."
Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, renewed his call for an independent inquiry. He said: "Once again, the Prime Minister is making assertions about contested intelligence assessments. The Niger documents are known to have been falsified, yet Tony Blair continues to insist the intelligence was accurate. The Bush administration now appears to be backing away from these claims. Once again it raises the question: did we go to war on a false premise?"
Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, added: "The only way that Tony Blair can establish the veracity of such intelligence information ... is to allow it to be examined in the context of an independent judicial inquiry. Given the total distrust of anything the Prime Minister says, it is vital for the re-establishment of the credibility of the intelligence services that this process is now undertaken."
Questioned in the Commons yesterday, Jack Straw said: "The information which was included in the dossier and assessed as reliable relating to the purchase of uranium - not that they had purchased it but Iraq had sought to purchase it - was based on sources quite separate than those based on the forged documents."
Mystery still surrounds the original source of the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Foreign Office officials have admitted that it was passed on by a foreign intelligence service but insist that it fitted a pattern of evidence that Saddam was trying to revive his nuclear weapons programme.
Ministers have confirmed that they have not passed information on Niger to the IAEA, despite a commitment to co-operate with the nuclear weapons inspectorate.
The Government received a boost in its dispute with the BBC over a report claiming Downing Street "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction with a claim that they could be deployed within 45 minutes. An official at the Ministry of Defence admitted meeting the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan a week before the claim was broadcast but denied making any comment on No 10's involvement.
-------- china
Beijing weighs up, then rejects, invasion of N Korea
By Hamish McDonald,
Sydney Morning Herald Correspondent in Beijing and Tom Allard
July 9 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/08/1057430211332.html
China asked its military to study a quick intervention in North Korea but decided that its relationship with the United States was more important than propping up the Stalinist state, with which it shares a border.
A source in Beijing said the study for a pre-emptive Chinese invasion was ordered by a Chinese Communist Party working group formed in late February under the country's senior leader, Hu Jintao.
The result of the study was negative. The People's Liberation Army concluded that although the Chinese-North Korean border was only lightly defended, the Chinese lacked the logistical capability of racing to the demilitarised zone facing South Korea.
"That this kind of thing is being considered in China tells us about the gravity with which this is being regarded in Beijing," said a senior Western diplomat closely following the crisis.
The source said the Chinese working group took the view that China's economic interests in keeping regional stability and co-operative relations with the US far outweighed its strategic stake in North Korea.
Moreover, it is now confident that Korean nationalism would see the Americans off, should the peninsula be reunified under the Seoul Government.
China's role in bringing about a resolution to the nuclear brinkmanship in the Korean peninsula is vital, and its preparedness to accept a democratic, capitalist and unified Korea on its border is a substantial development that will please the West.
But China is yet to be persuaded about other initiatives from the West to curb North Korea's nuclear threat.
Most notably, it has yet to back a co-ordinated multinational effort to intercept North Korean vessels and aircraft transporting nuclear material, weapons of mass destruction, missiles and related technologies.
The so-called Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) holds its second meeting in Brisbane today, with senior defence and foreign affairs officials from 11 countries taking part.
An Australian foreign affairs official said yesterday that military capability and intelligence sharing would be the main topics for discussion.
"We need to be able to make sure that our military are capable of doing the things that will be needed . . . if the Government decided it wanted such interdiction to take place," the official said.
The Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, had been closely involved in developing the policy, and senior uniformed and civilian defence officials from Australia would be attending the meeting, the official said.
The PSI favours participating countries intercepting North Korean and other suspect vessels in their own waters as a first step. But a multinational force roaming international waters could evolve over time, perhaps with United Nations approval.
Denying overflight rights for suspicious North Korean aircraft is also a main item on the agenda, with "robust" action to force them down among the options outlined last week by John Bolton, US undersecretary of state for arms control.
The PSI is anxious for China to come on board, and Mr Bolton has had discussions with Chinese officials about the "selective interdiction" plan.
But North Korea experts in China warn that a proposed naval blockade to prevent North Korean exports of missiles and other weapons of mass destruction will face kamikaze-type attacks from a desperate regime.
The annual $A900 million earned from missile sales is the main source of hard currency for Pyongyang, far exceeding other sources such as remittances from ethnic Koreans in Japan.
Analysts in Beijing are taking seriously Pyongyang's warnings that it would consider interceptions of its ships and aircraft an act of war and strike back.
But Mr Bolton dismissed this threat. "The North Koreans are filled with bluster," he said before leaving Washington for Brisbane.
-------- depleted uranium
NZ to send troops to Afghanistan
Wednesday July 09, 2003
Pakistan Tribune
http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=31421
WELLINGTON, July 09 (Online): New Zealand will send 100 military personnel to Afghanistan to form a so-called Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamian - site of the giant Buddha statues destroyed by the Taleban in 2001.
In a year-long deployment, they may also use borrowed United States military equipment, including four-wheel-drive Humvee vehicles.
There would be a small number of infantry soldiers "for protection", said Mr Burton and all military personnel would carry weapons.
Mr Burton said the contingent would be drawn from all three services and comprise a mix of skills: infantry, communications, intelligence, liaison, linguistics, medics, engineering, transport and supply.
Most would be rotated at between four and six months.
The New Zealanders will leave next month to take over a PRT base established in Bamian by the United States in January this year.
Supply and logistics support will be provided by US-led Coalition forces in Afghanistan.
The cost of a 12-month deployment is estimated to be $26 million.
The Bamian PRT is 200km west of Bagram Air Force Base, where the New Zealanders will train when they first arrive.
The handover would be completed by the last week in September, Mr Burton said.
The New Zealanders would be under New Zealand command.
"Provincial Reconstruction Team" is a term given to military units engaging in post-conflict social and political reconstruction.
Mr Burton said the job of the PRT would not be to rebuild but to provide an environment in which others, such as non-government organisations, could do so.
"A PRT is not a combat unit. Rather, its task is to assist the transitional government under President Karzai to expand its influence outside Kabul."
The PRT would provide strengthened military observer capacity, monitoring and assessing civil, political and military reform efforts through community engagement.
They would also act as liaisons for non-government agencies and other civilian organisations.
"In a way you could regard this almost as an enhanced military support but not an active military deployment," he said.
"Our people have already proved themselves adept at working in such diverse situations as the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Bougainville, and [East Timor]."
Question-and-answer material provided by Mr Burton's office hints that the New Zealand personnel may be at risk from depleted uranium (DU) munitions.
The answer: "All personnel being deployed into areas where DU may have been used are briefed on any potential risks that my be posed by DU. The New Zealand Defence Force will continue to provide medical checks and support to any personnel who think they may have been exposed."
The material says the United States has established three PRT, in Bamian, Gardez and Konduz, and that the British are in the process of establishing a fourth in Mazar-e-Sharif.
Bamian is 200km northwest of the capital, Kabul.
----
Protests as US Navy exercises start
09jul03
Australia Herald Sun
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6725231%255E421,00.html
US Navy training exercises off the West Australian coast sparked protests from environmental campaigners today.
Bombing and air-to-ground support practice missions will be held today and tomorrow within the Lancelin defence training area (DTA), using non-explosive target marking munitions and inert practice bombs.
The exercises are being flown from the 96,000 tonne, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, which has been accompanied by three other ships on its journey into Fremantle.
Despite assurances that no depleted uranium munitions are being used during the exercises, about 30 anti-nuclear campaigners gathered in Fremantle to protest against the exercises.
WA Greens MP Dee Margetts, who has protested against the use of Lancelin by the US military, said no assurances had been given that depleted uranium would not be used in the future.
"Although the navy have assured locals that no depleted uranium munitions will be used during the training, it cannot give them a guarantee that depleted uranium will not be used in future," she said.
"John Howard should show his commitment to the people and sovereign state of Australia and stop co-operating as a client state of the United States of America."
Nicola Paris of the Fremantle anti-nuclear group (FANG) said the protest was against the US navy, not the sailors themselves.
"Most people would agree what the US military says cannot be trusted, so when they say no uranium is being used, should we believe them?"
The guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam and the frigate USS Ingraham were due to dock in Fremantle this morning, while the USS Carl Vinson and support ship USS Sacramento were expected on Sunday, after the exercises are completed. More than 7000 sailors will disembark in Fremantle during the week.
-------- iran
Iran Sites Linked to Weapons
Associated Press,
July 9, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30041-2003Jul8?language=printer
Members of the main Iranian resistance group said they had identified two new sites they alleged were affiliated with Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program.
They are an experimental uranium centrifuge site at the Kolahdouz industrial complex outside Tehran and a nuclear-fuel preparation center at Ardekan in central Iran, said Alireza Jafarzadeh, a U.S. representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, at a news conference in Washington.
There was no way to immediately verify their claims, which Jafarzadeh said would be reported to both U.S. authorities and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization.
Iran insists that its nuclear facilities are for a civilian power program, not weapons. Centrifuges are used to make a richer form of uranium that can be used in weapons.
----
Iran shows missile muscle, despite nuclear furor
09 July 2003
By Alistair Lyon,
Reuters
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-07-09/s_6357.asp
LONDON - If you want respect, show muscle - or so Iranian leaders may have reasoned when they confirmed their completion of tests of a medium-range ballistic missile capable of hitting Israel and other countries in the region.
Already accused by the United States of seeking nuclear arms and delivery systems, Iran announced on Monday that the "final test" of the Shahab-3 missile had taken place a few weeks ago.
The timing was doubly sensitive in view of this week's visit to Tehran by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, who will press Iran to open its nuclear power program and prove it is not secretly developing atomic bombs.
"It's slightly surprising because they have been trying to calm fears they are going down the nuclear route," Tim Garden, a defense expert at London's Royal Institute of International Affairs, said of Iran's disclosure of progress on the Shahab-3.
Israel, which falls within the missile's 1,300-km (810-mile) range, points to Iran's nuclear and missile ambitions as a deadly threat and wants the world to thwart them.
Indeed, some Iranians believe that last week's Israeli media reports about the Shahab-3 test were deliberately designed to force an Iranian response and keep the heat on Tehran.
Iran denies seeking nuclear arms or harboring aggressive intentions but sees the Shahab-3 as a vital deterrent against the Jewish state, the Middle East's only nuclear power. It also perceives a threat from the United States, which has forces in Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries within reach of the Shahab-3.
"It's more of a deterrent than anything else," said Ali Ansari, an Iranian academic at Britain's Durham University. He said the missile program had sprung from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, when Iraqi Scud missiles were crashing into Tehran and Iran lacked the means to retaliate.
"It's also to do with having strategic reach, not just to deter Israelis, but other potential enemies. There is a prestige factor. They feel it's what a regional power should have."
U.S. Hostility
The United States, which has called Iran part of an "axis of evil," gives short shrift to Iranian security logic.
"We've seen Iran's efforts to develop its missile capabilities, including flight testing, as a threat to the region and a threat to U.S. interests in the region," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.
But Iranian political analyst Amir Ali Nourbakhsh said Iran must be given security assurances if it was to bow to pressure to sign the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that would permit more intrusive inspections.
"Maybe the Shahab-3 could deter Israel even if it does not have a nuclear warhead, but the United States and the European Union should assure Iran that its security won't be undermined if it signs the additional protocol," Nourbakhsh said.
The Shahab-3, first tested in 1998, is based on the North Korean Nodong-1 missile but has been improved with Russian technology. Questions remain about its effectiveness.
"They have had real problems with the testing of this," said Robin Hughes, deputy news editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, adding that the latest launch followed several failed ones. He said it was not clear if the missile was already in operational service with the armed forces and or how accurate it was. "It would be a disaster if they got it wrong," he said.
Uzi Rubin, co-founder of Israel's Arrow antimissile system, said word on the Shahab-3's readiness was no surprise.
"The Iranians have long made clear their intention to develop the missile, with Israel as its intended target. One of the threats we had in mind in developing the Arrow was a long-range Iranian missile," he said. "The Shahab-3 can deliver whatever warhead the Iranians come up with. If they have nuclear capability, then they can have a long-range nuclear missile. The Shahab would be less successful with biological or chemical agents, however," Rubin added.
While Iran denies trying to make atomic bombs, stretched Scuds like the Shahab-3 could be used to deliver them.
"There is an unspoken affinity between a nuclear program and missiles of this sort," said Ian Bellany, professor of politics at Britain's Lancaster University.
ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will renew his call for Iran to sign the additional protocol to the NPT when he meets President Mohammad Khatami and atomic energy chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh on Wednesday.
(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem)
-------- iraq / inspections
Iranian exiles describe newly found nuclear site
Brian Knowlton IHT
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/102194.html
WASHINGTON A new Iranian nuclear complex, apparently with close links to the military, has been found northwest of Tehran, according to an Iranian opposition group that has provided reliable information in the past on such facilities.
The information, if confirmed, would further bolster the Bush administration's contention that Iran is violating its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty not to produce nuclear weapons. The site, known as the Kohladouz complex, apparently is under much more clear-cut military control than sites revealed earlier by the opposition group and confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations monitoring organization. Those sites were under the control of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. If the military link is confirmed, it would strengthen the suggestion that the work done at the complex is linked to a weapons program.
The information was presented at a news conference by Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The council includes several Iranian organizations that seek the ouster of the government in Tehran.
"Iran, more vigorously than ever, is continuing its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," Jafarzadeh asserted.
The presentation came a day before Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, was to arrive in Tehran - with the backing of the United States, Britain and several other countries - in an attempt to secure an agreement to give his inspectors greater access to Iranian nuclear facilities.
It also came a day after the Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed a successful final test of a missile, the Shahab-3, with a range sufficient to reach Israel, as well as parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq where U.S. troops are stationed.
As with the earlier revelations, Jafarzadeh said that the latest information had come from the Mujahedeen Khalq, a rebel group also known as the People's Mujahedeen that is a member of his council. The United States classifies that group as a terrorist organization, although Jafarzadeh's organization maintains that the designation was a politically motivated U.S. gesture aimed at building ties to what had been seen as an emerging moderate wing of the Iranian leadership.
Iran has insisted that its nuclear programs are designed to produce energy for civilian use.
Jafarzadeh would provide no further details on the source of his report, but he offered a detailed picture of what his group says the Kolahdouz complex represents. He said it was hidden among warehouses and workshops for building tanks and armored personnel carriers, in part of a broader complex overseen by the Defense Industry Organization.
Attempts to contact IAEA spokesmen for comment on Jafarzadeh's report were not immediately successful.
WASHINGTON A new Iranian nuclear complex, apparently with close links to the military, has been found northwest of Tehran, according to an Iranian opposition group that has provided reliable information in the past on such facilities.
The information, if confirmed, would further bolster the Bush administration's contention that Iran is violating its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty not to produce nuclear weapons. The site, known as the Kohladouz complex, apparently is under much more clear-cut military control than sites revealed earlier by the opposition group and confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations monitoring organization. Those sites were under the control of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. If the military link is confirmed, it would strengthen the suggestion that the work done at the complex is linked to a weapons program.
The information was presented at a news conference by Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The council includes several Iranian organizations that seek the ouster of the government in Tehran.
"Iran, more vigorously than ever, is continuing its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," Jafarzadeh asserted.
The presentation came a day before Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, was to arrive in Tehran - with the backing of the United States, Britain and several other countries - in an attempt to secure an agreement to give his inspectors greater access to Iranian nuclear facilities.
It also came a day after the Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed a successful final test of a missile, the Shahab-3, with a range sufficient to reach Israel, as well as parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq where U.S. troops are stationed.
As with the earlier revelations, Jafarzadeh said that the latest information had come from the Mujahedeen Khalq, a rebel group also known as the People's Mujahedeen that is a member of his council. The United States classifies that group as a terrorist organization, although Jafarzadeh's organization maintains that the designation was a politically motivated U.S. gesture aimed at building ties to what had been seen as an emerging moderate wing of the Iranian leadership.
Iran has insisted that its nuclear programs are designed to produce energy for civilian use.
Jafarzadeh would provide no further details on the source of his report, but he offered a detailed picture of what his group says the Kolahdouz complex represents. He said it was hidden among warehouses and workshops for building tanks and armored personnel carriers, in part of a broader complex overseen by the Defense Industry Organization.
Attempts to contact IAEA spokesmen for comment on Jafarzadeh's report were not immediately successful.
-------- japan
Nuclear Power in Japan
July 2003
World Nuclear Association
http://www.world-nuclear.org/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/printable_information_papers/inf79print.htm
- Japan needs to import some 80% of its energy requirements.
- Its first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in mid 1966.
- Nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority since 1973.
- Today 53 reactors provide some 34% of the country's electricity.
Despite being the only country to have suffered the devastating effects of nuclear weapons in wartime, Japan has embraced the peaceful use of nuclear technology to provide a substantial portion of its electricity. Today, nuclear energy accounts for some 34% of the country's total electricity production.
As Japan has few natural resources of its own, it depends on imports for some 80% of its primary energy needs. Initially it was dependent on fossil fuel imports, particularly oil from the Middle East. This geographical and commodity vulnerability became critical due to the oil shock in 1973. At this time, Japan already had a growing nuclear industry, with five operating reactors. Re-evaluation of domestic energy policy resulted in diversification and in particular, a major nuclear construction program. A high priority was given to reducing the country's dependence on oil imports.
Development of nuclear program & policy
Japan started its nuclear research program in 1954, with Y230 million being budgeted for nuclear energy. The Atomic Energy Basic Law, which strictly limits the use of nuclear technology to peaceful purposes, was introduced in 1955. The law aims to ensure that three principles - democratic methods, independent management, and transparency - are the basis of nuclear research activities, as well as promoting international co-operation. Inauguration of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1956 promoted nuclear power development and utilisation. Several other nuclear energy-related organisations were also established in 1956 under this law: the Science & Technology Agency; Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) and the Atomic Fuel Corporation (renamed PNC in 1967 - see below).
Japan imported its first commercial nuclear power reactor from the UK. Tokai-1 - a 160 MWe gas-cooled (Magnox) reactor built by GEC. It began operating in July 1966 and continued until March 1998.
After this unit was completed, only light water reactors (LWRs) utilising enriched uranium - either boiling water reactors (BWRs) or pressurised water reactors (PWRs) have been constructed. In 1970, the first three such reactors were completed and began commercial operation. There followed a period in which Japanese utilities purchased designs from US vendors and built them with the co-operation of Japanese companies, who would then receive a licence to build similar plants in Japan. Companies such as Hitachi Co Ltd, Toshiba Co Ltd and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry Co Ltd developed the capacity to design and construct LWRs by themselves. By the end of the 1970s the Japanese industry had largely established its own domestic nuclear power production capacity and today it exports to other east Asian countries and is involved in the development of new reactor designs likely to be used in Europe.
Due to reliability problems with the earliest reactors they required long maintenance outages, with the average capacity factor averaging 46% over 1975-77 (by 2001, the average capacity factor had reached 79%). In 1975, the LWR Improvement & Standardisation Program was launched by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and the nuclear power industry. This aimed, by 1985, to standardise LWR designs in three phases. In phases 1 and 2, the existing BWR and PWR designs were to be modified to improve their operation and maintenance. The third phase of the program involved increasing the reactor size to 1300-1400 MWe and making fundamental changes to the designs. These were to be the Advanced BWR (ABWR)and the Advanced PWR (APWR).
A major research and fuel cycle establishment through to the late 1990s was the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation, better known as PNC. Its activities ranged very widely, from uranium exploration in Australia to disposal of high-level wastes. After two accidents and PNC's unsatisfactory response to them the government in 1998 reconstituted PNC as the leaner Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC), whose brief is to focus on fast breeder reactor development, reprocessing high-burnup fuel, MOX fabrication and high-level waste disposal. A merger of JNC and JAERI is proposed for 2005, both are under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology (MEXT).
Japanese energy policy has been driven by considerations of energy security and the need to minimise dependence on current imports. The main elements regarding nuclear power are:
- continue to have nuclear power as a major element of electricity production.
- recycle uranium and plutonium from spent fuel, initially in LWRs, and have reprocessing domestically from 2005.
- steadily develop fast breeder reactors in order to improve uranium utilisation dramatically.
- promote nuclear energy to the public, emphasising safety and non-proliferation.
In March 2002 the Japanese government announced that it would rely heavily on nuclear energy to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set by the Kyoto Protocol. A 10-year energy plan, submitted in July 2001 to the Minister of Economy Trade & Industry (METI), was endorsed by cabinet. It calls for an increase in nuclear power generation by about 30 percent (13,000 MWe), with the expectation that utilities will have 9 to 12 new nuclear plants operating by 2010. At present Japan has 54 reactors totalling 44,300 MWe on line, with 3 (3700 MWe) under construction and 12 (15,858 MWe) planned.
In June 2002, Japan's upper house approved a new Energy Policy Law by 206 to 27. The law sets out the basic principles of energy security and stable supply, and the responsibilities of the national government and local public corporations, apparently giving greater authority to the government in establishing the energy infrastructure for economic growth. The law also seeks greater efficiency in consumption, a further move away from dependence on fossil fuels, and market liberalisation. It requires the government to report annually to the Diet on energy policy and its implementation.
In November 2002, the Japanese government announced that it would introduce a tax on coal for the first time, alongside those on oil, gas and LPG in METI's special energy account, to give a total net tax increase of some JPY 10 billion from October 2003. At the same time METI will reduce its power-source development tax, including that applying to nuclear generation, by 15.7% - amounting to JPY 50 billion per year. While the taxes in the special energy account were originally designed to improve Japan's energy supply mix, the change is part of the first phase of addressing Kyoto goals by reducing carbon emissions. The second phase, planned for 2005-07, will involve a more comprehensive environmental tax system, including a carbon tax.
These developments, despite some scandal in 2002 connected with records of equipment inspections at nuclear power plants, are expected to pave the way for an increased role for nuclear energy.
Reactor development
In the 1970s a prototype Advanced Thermal Reactor (ATR) was built at Fugen. This had heavy water moderator and light water cooling in pressure tubes and was designed for both uranium and plutonium fuel. It was the first thermal reactor in the world to use a full mixed-oxide (MOX) core. The 148 MWe unit was operated by JNC until finally shut down in March 2003. Construction of a 600 MWe demonstration ATR was planned at Ohma, but in 1995 it was decided not to proceed.
Since 1970, 28 BWRs (including two ABWRs) and 23 PWRs have been brought into operation.
The first ABWRs (of 1315 MWe) were Tokyo Electric Power Co's (Tepco's) Kashiwazaki-Kariwa units 6 and 7 which started up in 1996-97 and are now in commercial operation. These were built by a consortium of General Electric (USA), Toshiba and Hitachi. Two further ABWRs - Higashidori-1 and Shika-2 - are currently under construction. The 1500 MWe APWR design has also been developed by four utilities with Mitsubishi and Westinghouse, but partly due to siting problems, construction of the first plants at Tsuruga (units 3 & 4) has yet to start. It is simpler than present PWRs, combines active and passive cooling systems to greater effect, and has over 55 gigawatt days per tonne (GWd/t) burn-up. Design work continues and will be the basis for the next generation of Japanese PWRs. In addition, Mitsubishi is participating in development of Westinghouse's AP-1000 reactor.
In relation to fast breeder reactors (FBRs), the Joyo experimental FBR has been operatingsuccessfully since it reached first criticality in 1977, and has accumulated a lot of technical data. The Monju prototype FBR reactor started up in April 1994, but a sodium leakage in its secondary heat transfer system during performance tests in December 1995 meant that it has not operated since. Its oversight has passed to JNC, and the Minister for Science & Technology has said that its early restart is a key aim. JNC also undertakes FBR and related R&D at O-arai in Ibaraki prefecture, near Tokai-mura.
At the end of 1998 a small prototype gas cooled reactor, the 30 MWt High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR) started up. This was Japan's first graphite-moderated and helium-cooled reactor. It runs at 850°C and eventually up to 950°C, which will allow its application to chemical processes such as thermochemical production of hydrogen. Its fuel is ceramic-coated particles incorporated into hexagonal graphite prisms, giving it a high level of inherent safety. It is designed to establish a basis for the commercialisation of second-generation helium-cooled plants running at high temperatures for either industrial applications or to drive direct cycle gas turbines.
Power reactors operating in Japan
Reactor Type Net capacity Utility Operational
Fukushima I-1 BWR 439 MWe TEPCO March 1971
Fukushima I-2 BWR 760 MWe TEPCO July 1974
Fukushima I-3 BWR 760 MWe TEPCO March 1976
Fukushima I-4 BWR 760 MWe TEPCO October 1978
Fukushima I-5 BWR 760 MWe TEPCO April 1978
Fukushima I-6 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO October 1979
Fukushima II-1 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO April 1982
Fukushima II-2 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO February 1984
Fukushima II-3 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO June 1985
Fukushima II-4 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO August 1987
Genkai-1 PWR 529 MWe Kyushu October 1975
Genkai-2 PWR 529 MWe Kyushu March 1981
Genkai-3 PWR 1127 MWe Kyushu March 1994
Genkai-4 PWR 1127 MWe Kyushu July 1997
Hamaoka-1 BWR 515 MWe Chubu March 1976
Hamaoka-2 BWR 806 MWe Chubu November 1978
Hamaoka-3 BWR 1056 MWe Chubu August 1987
Hamaoka-4 BWR 1092 MWe Chubu September 1993
Ikata-1 PWR 538 MWe Shikoku September 1977
Ikata-2 PWR 538 MWe Shikoku March 1982
Ikata-3 PWR 846 MWe Shikoku December 1994
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-1 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO September 1985
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-2 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO September 1990
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-3 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO August 1993
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-4 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO August 1994
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-5 BWR 1067 MWe TEPCO April 1990
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-6 ABWR 1315 MWe TEPCO November 1996
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-7 ABWR 1315 MWe TEPCO July 1997
Mihama-1 PWR 320 MWe Kansai November 1970
Mihama-2 PWR 470 MWe Kansai July 1972
Mihama-3 PWR 780 MWe Kansai December 1976
Ohi-1 PWR 1120 MWe Kansai March 1979
Ohi-2 PWR 1120 MWe Kansai December 1979
Ohi-3 PWR 1127 MWe Kansai December 1991
Ohi-4 PWR 1127 MWe Kansai February 1993
Onagawa-1 BWR 498 MWe Tohoku June 1984
Onagawa-2 BWR 796 MWe Tohoku July 1995
Onagawa-3 BWR 798 MWe Tohoku January 2002
Sendai-1 PWR 846 MWe Kyushu July 1984
Sendai-2 PWR 846 MWe Kyushu November 1985
Shika-1 BWR 505 MWe Hokuriku July 1993
Shimane-1 BWR 439 MWe Chugoku March 1974
Shimane-2 BWR 789 MWe Chugoku February 1989
Takahama-1 PWR 780 MWe Kansai November 1974
Takahama-2 PWR 780 MWe Kansai November 1975
Takahama-3 PWR 830 MWe Kansai January 1985
Takahama-4 PWR 830 MWe Kansai June 1985
Tokai-2 BWR 1056 MWe JAPC November 1978
Tomari-1 PWR 550 MWe Hokkaido June 1989
Tomari-2 PWR 550 MWe Hokkaido April 1991
Tsuruga-1 BWR 341 MWe JAPC March 1970
Tsuruga-2 PWR 1115 MWe JAPC February 1987
Monju prototype FBR 246 MWe JNC August 1995
Total: 53 reactors 44,141 MWe
Japanese reactors under construction
Reactor Type Net capacity Utility Construction start Start-up&
Hamaoka -5 BWR 1325 MWe Chubu Electric July 2000 2005
Higashidori-1 ABWR 1067 MWe Tohoku November 2000 2005
Shika-2 ABWR 1315 MWe Hokuriku August 2001 2006
total 3707 MWe
& Latest announced commercial operation
Japanese Reactors planned or on order
REACTOR TYPE MWe Utility start & construction start & operation
Fukushima 7 & 8 ABWR 1325 Tepco 2002 2009-10
Ohma ABWR 1350 EPDC 2003 2008
Tomari 3 PWR 912 Hokkaido 2003 2008
Tsuruga 3 & 4 APWR 1500 JAPC 2004 2011-12
Shimane 3 ABWR 1375 Chugoku 2004 2010
Higashidori 1-2 ABWR 1320 Tepco 2004-5 2011-12
Higashidori 2 ABWR 1385 Tohoku 2007 2012+
Maki 1 BWR 825 Tohoku 2006 2012
Namieodaka BWR 825 Tohoku 2009 2014
Kaminoseki 1-2 ABWR 1320 JAPC 2007-10 2012-15
& according to latest announcements
Fuel cycle facilities
Japan has been progressively developing a complete domestic nuclear fuel cycle industry, based on imported uranium.
Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC) operates a small uranium refining and conversion plant, as well as a small centrifuge enrichment demonstration plant, at Ningyo Toge, Okayama prefecture.
While most enrichment services are still imported, Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL) operates a commercial enrichment plant at Rokkasho. Its eventual capacity is planned to be 1.5 million SWU/yr. JNFL's shareholders are the power utilities.
At Tokai-mura, in Ibaraki prefecture north of Tokyo, Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel Co Ltd operates a major fuel fabrication facility, which started up in 1972. Further fuel fabrication plants are operated by Nuclear Fuel Industries (NFI) in Tokai and Kumatori, and JNC has some experimental mixed oxide (MOX) fuel facilities at Tokai for both the Fugen ATR and the FBR program, with capacity about 10 t/yr for each.
Also at Tokai, JNC has operated a 90 t/yr pilot reprocessing plant which has treated over a thousand tonnes of spent fuel since 1977. JNC operates spent fuel storage facilities there and is proposing a further one. It has also operated a pilot high-level waste (HLW) vitrification plant at Tokai since 1995. Tokai is the main site of JNC's R&D on HLW treatment and disposal.
In 1984, the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC) applied to the Rokkasho-mura village and Aomori prefecture for permission to construct a major complex including uranium enrichment plant, low-level waste (LLW) storage centre, HLW storage centre, and a reprocessing plant. Currently JNFL operates both LLW and HLW storage facilities there, while its 800 t/yr reprocessingplant is under construction and is expected to be commissioned in 2005.
Reprocessing and MOX fuel
For energy security reasons, and notwithstanding the low price of uranium for many years, Japanese policy since 1956 has been to maximise the utilisation of imported uranium. Until now, the reprocessing of spent fuel has been largely undertaken in Europe by BNFL and Cogema, with vitrified high-level wastes being returned to Japan for disposal. This reprocessing will finish in 2005, when full-scale operation of JNFL's reprocessing plant at Rokkasho-mura is scheduled to start. Spent fuel has been accumulating there since 1999 in anticipation of its operation (shipments to Europe finished in 1998).
Plutonium recovered by reprocessing in the UK and France will be used mainly in LWRs as mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel - the "pluthermal" program initiated in 1994. Japanese utilities have announced plans to use MOX fuel in 16-18 reactors by the year 2010. However, recent local concerns about MOX fuel use have stalled implementation of that program. The controversy surrounding MOX relates to its plutonium content.
So far, Japan has received three shipments containing over 2 tonnes of its (reactor-grade) plutonium from Europe. The first shipment, in 1992, was simply plutonium oxide and earmarked for use in the Monju prototype FBR. However, Monju has yet to be loaded with this as it remains shut down due to the sodium leak in 1996. The second shipment, in the form of MOX fuel for light water reactors, was in 1999. Part of this shipment from BNFL and intended for use in Kansai Electric Power Co's Takahama plant was found to contain falsified quality control data. The shipment was subsequently returned to the UK in 2002. The third shipment consisted of MOX fuel from BNFL for use in TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-3 reactor.
Two prefectural governments - Fukushima and Niigata - have moved to defer the use of MOX fuel at reactors within those prefectures, forcing TEPCO and Kansai to suspend or reschedule their planned use within those prefectures.
Meanwhile, Japan's Pu stocks increase - at the end of 2001 there was 38 tonnes of separated reactor-grade plutonium stored and awaiting use in MOX fuel. Some 5.7 tonnes was in Japan and the rest in Europe, mostly France.
Fast Breeder Reactors
Originally the concept was to use MOX fuel in FBRs, making Japan virtually independent regarding nuclear fuel. But FBRs proved uneconomic in an era of abundant low-cost uranium, so development slowed and the MOX program shifted to thermal LWR reactors.
From 1961 to 1994 there was a strong commitment to FBRs, with PNC as the main agency. In 1967 FBR development was put forward as the main goal of the Japanese nuclear program, along with the ATR. In 1994 the FBR commercial timeline was pushed out to 2030. In 1999 JNC initiated a program to review promising concepts, define a development plan by 2005 and establish a system of FBR technology by 2015. The parameters are: passive safety, economic competitiveness with LWR, efficient utilisation of resources (burning transuranics and depleted U), reduced wastes, proliferation resistance and versatility (include hydrogen production). Utilities are also involved, with CREIPI and JAERI.
Phase 2 of the study is now focusing on four basic reactor designs: sodium-cooled with MOX and metal fuels, helium-cooled with nitride and MOX fuels, lead-bismuth eutectic-cooled with nitride and metal fuels, and supercritical water-cooled with MOX fuel. All involve closed fuel cycle, and three reprocessing routes are considered: advanced aqueous, oxide electrowinning and metal pyroprocessing (electrorefining). Both sets of options, and those for advanced fuel fabrication, will be narrowed down further in 2003. This work is linked with the Generation IV initiative, where Japan is playing a leading role with sodium-cooled FBRs.
High-level wastes
In 1995, Japan's first high-level waste (HLW) interim storage facility opened in Rokkasho-mura. The first shipment of vitrified HLW from Europe (from the reprocessing of Japanese fuel) also arrived in 1995.
In May 2000, the Japanese parliament (the Diet) passed the Law on Final Disposal of Specified Radioactive Waste (the "Final Disposal Law") which mandates deep geological disposal of high-level wastes. In line with this, the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NUMO) was set up in October 2000 by the private sector to progress plans for disposal, including site selection, demonstration of technology there, licensing, construction, operation and closure of the repository. Some 40,000 canisters of vitrified HLW are envisaged by 2020, needing disposal. Repository operation is expected from the 2030s.
JNC runs the Tona Geoscience Centre at Toki, in Gifu prefecture, which is focused on deep geological disposal.
Decommissioning
The original Tokai-1 power station, a British Magnox reactor which closed down in 1998, will be decommissioned over 17 years, the first ten as "safe storage" to allow radioactivity to decay. In Phase 1 (to 2006), preliminary work will occur, in Phase 2 (to 2011) the steam generators and turbines will be removed, and in Phase 3 (to 2018) the reactor will be dismantled, the buildings demolished and the site left ready for re-use. All radioactive wastes will be classified as low-level (LLW), albeit in three categories, and will be buried - the 1% of level I wastes 50-100 metres deep. The total cost will be 93 billion yen - 35 billion for dismantling and 58 billion for waste treatment.
After it closes in 2003, JNC plans to decommission the Fugen ATR over 25 years, at a total cost of about 70 billion yen, including waste treatment and disposal. JAERI is responsible for research on reactor decommissioning.
Regulation and safety
The Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) within the Ministry of Economy Trade & Industry (METI, the successor of MITI) is responsible for nuclear power regulation, licensing and safety. It conducts regular inspections of safety-related aspects of all power plants.
The Nuclear Safety Commission is a more senior government body set up in 1978 under the Atomic Energy Basic Law and is responsible for formulating policy, alongside the Atomic Energy Commission. Both are part of the Cabinet Office.
The Science & Technology Agency was responsible for safety of test and research reactors, nuclear fuel facilities and radioactive waste management, as well as R&D, but its functions were taken over by NISA in 2001.
Public support for nuclear power in Japan has been eroded in the last few years due to a series of accidents and scandals. The accidents were the sodium leak at the Monju FBR, a fire at the JNC waste bituminisation facility connected with its reprocessing plant at Tokai, and the 1999 criticality accident at a small fuel fabrication plant at Tokai. The criticality accident, which claimed two lives, happened as a result of workers following an unauthorised procedures manual. None of these accidents were in mainstream civil nuclear fuel cycle facilities.
Following the 1999 Tokai criticality accident, electric power companies, along with enterprises involved with the nuclear industry established the Nuclear Safety Network (NSnet). The network's main activities are to enhance the safety culture of the nuclear industry, conduct peer reviews, and disseminate information about nuclear safety.
Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission confirmed in April 2002 that using mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is safe, and that its use at up to 18 reactors by 2010 was supported. Senior members of the government have reaffirmed that the country's use of MOX "must happen", and that the government will initiate educational and information programs to win wider acceptance for it. A local referendum last year has delayed plans for its introduction.
In 2002 a scandal erupted over the documentation of equipment inspections at Tepco's reactors, and extended to other plants. While the issues were not safety-related, the industry's reputation was sullied. Inspection of the shrouds and pumps around the core is the responsibility of the company, which in this case had contracted it out. In May 2002 questions emerged about data falsification and the significance of cracks in reactor shrouds (used to direct water flow in BWRs) and whether faults were reported to senior management.
Non-proliferation
The Atomic Energy Basic law prohibits the military use of nuclear energy and successive governments have articulated principles reinforcing this. In 1976 Japan became a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with its safeguards arrangements administered by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, and in 1999 it was one of the first countries to ratify the Additional Protocol with IAEA, accepting intrusive inspections.
Japan also has bilateral safeguards arrangements with its major nuclear supplier states and has long been a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group which restricts export of nuclear equipment.
References:
Nuclear Engineer, vol.40, no.5, September/October 1999, p.186-191.
Country Nuclear Power Profiles, IAEA, 1998, p.285-313.
OECD/NEA 1995, Japan
Nuclear Review, no.394, June 2001, p.14-19.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle, TEPCO, March 2002.
Nuclear Power Stations in Japan, CRIEPI, January 2000.
Paper by H Kurihara, WNA Symposium, 2002.
Pickett S.E. 2002, Japan's nuclear energy policy, Energy Policy 30, 1337-55, Dec 2002.
NucNet news # 424/98, 112 & 149/02, 133/03.
Nuclear Engineering International, Oct 1998.
JAIF Atoms in Japan, various.
JNC brochure, 1998
Masuda, S. 2003, HLW Disposal Program in Japan, KAIF/KNS Conference, Seoul. Ichimiya, M. 2003, Design Study on Advanced Fast Reactor Cycle System in Japan, KAIF/KNS conference.
-------- korea
North Korea Reprocessed Nuclear Rods, Seoul Says
July 9, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north-nuclear.html
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea recently reprocessed a small number of its estimated 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and has also tested devices used to trigger atomic explosions, South Korea's intelligence agency said on Wednesday.
The National Intelligence Service (NIS) statement to parliament on recent North Korean nuclear activity follows similar reports in U.S. newspapers and comes as Seoul and its allies are trying to draw Pyongyang into talks. Advertisement
The NIS reported to the National Assembly Intelligence Committee that Seoul ``estimates North Korea has recently reprocessed a small number of the 8,000 fuel rods it was keeping at Yongbyon,'' a spokesman for the agency told Reuters.
Yongbyon, the base of North Korea's nuclear program, is a city 75 km (47 miles) north of the capital, Pyongyang.
The 8,000 spent fuel rods were part of a plutonium-based nuclear weapons program that was frozen under a 1994 nuclear agreement between North Korea and the United States. The pact unraveled earlier this year after U.S. revelations of a covert North Korean scheme to enrich uranium for bombmaking.
The NIS told parliament that Seoul had also confirmed North Korea had at least 70 times tested devices that could be used to trigger nuclear explosions at Yongduk-dong, some 40 km (25 miles) northwest of Yongbyon.
BLACK WAR CLOUDS
China, an old ally of North Korea which is hosting South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun this week, said the intelligence report had yet to be confirmed, but that Beijing was against any testing of nuclear weapons in the region.
``China is opposed to the testing of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. This stance has not changed,'' a Foreign Ministry official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.
Earlier, a North Korean cabinet-level delegation which flew into Seoul on Wednesday for economic talks issued a dire warning.
``It is a grim reality that the black clouds of nuclear war are gathering on the Korean Peninsula minute by minute,'' said the arrival statement released by the North Koreans.
On July 1, the New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence officials believed North Korea was developing technology that could make nuclear warheads small enough to be carried by its missiles.
Officials who had seen the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency reports told the newspaper that American satellites had identified an advanced nuclear testing site. The New York Times identified the site as Youngdoktong, but Seoul officials said the location was Yongduk-dong.
Equipment at the site has been set up to test explosives that could set off compact nuclear explosions when detonated, the New York Times said.
The information had been shared with Japan, South Korea and other allies in recent weeks, the newspaper said. NIS chief Ko Young-koo visited Washington last month.
Intelligence officials cited by the newspaper believed the testing facility suggests that North Korea wants to make sophisticated weapons that would be light enough to attach to its growing arsenal of medium- and long-range missiles.
Before Wednesday's NIS hearing, top South Korean officials including Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan had said the explosives tests reported by the New York Times were not news and were widely known among Seoul and its allies.
--------
U.S. Says N. Korea Nuclear Activity Still Unclear
July 9, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north-usa.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States still has questions about North Korea's nuclear fuel reprocessing activities despite a South Korean intelligence report saying Pyongyang has begun reprocessing spent fuel rods, a U.S. official said on Wednesday.
``Our assessment of where they are on reprocessing is not 100 percent clear. There's enough question to want to leave ourselves some wiggle room on that,'' he told Reuters.
South Korea's National Intelligence Service said on Wednesday that North Korea recently reprocessed a small number of its estimated 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and has also tested devices used to trigger atomic explosions.
The 8,000 spent fuel rods were part of a plutonium-based nuclear weapons program at the Yongbyon nuclear site that was frozen under a 1994 nuclear deal between North Korea and the United States.
The pact unravelled this year after U.S. revelations of a covert North Korean scheme to enrich uranium for bombmaking.
In recent months, U.S. officials have said they detected activities at the Yongbyon site, including near the holding pond where the spent fuel rods were stored. Some reprocessing may have taken place but it was unclear how much, they said.
On Wednesday, the U.S. official said there was still doubt about ``where they (North Koreans) are in theprocess.''
The South Korean National Intelligence Service report seemed firmer.
Many experts consider reprocessing, which produces fuel for nuclear weapons, a threatening activity that the United States and its allies cannot permit the North to engage in.
U.S. officials have long said they believe Pyongyang has produced one or two nuclear weapons but reprocessing could provide fuel to rapidly expand that arsenal.
The South Korean intelligence agency also said North Korea had at least 70 times tested devices that could be used to trigger nuclear explosions at Yongduk-dong, some 25 miles northwest of Yongbyon. The U.S. official did not speak to this point.
--------
South Korea Issues Report on North Korean Explosions
July 9, 2003
The New York Times
By DON KIRK
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/09/international/asia/09CND-KORE.html
SEOUL, July 9 - North Korea has conducted at least 70 "high-explosive tests" of devices used in nuclear warheads at a site about 25 miles northwest of its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon, South Korea said in an intelligence report released today.
The report also said that North Korean scientists had reprocessed some of the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods at the Yongbyon complex, 50 miles north of Pyongyang.
The report, released while South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun, was in China attempting to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis, was the first time that South Korea had reported in any detail on North Korea's attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
The report was also the first time that South Korea had quantified the number of tests that North Korea had conducted in its attempt to develop nuclear warheads.
The document did not reveal when the tests were conducted.
In testimony presented to South Korea's National Assembly, Ko Young Koo, director of South Korea's National Intelligence Service, did not cite the source of the estimates but said his agency had been "keeping track of the movement."
For months, Washington has been trying to convince Asian nations, especially South Korea and China, to join with the United States and present a unified diplomatic front to force North Korea the country to give up its weapons. American intelligence officials recently shared with South Korea and Japan intelligence reports that North Korea is developing technology to make nuclear warheads small enough to fit inside the medium-range missiles that North Korea has been producing for the past few years. The high-energy explosions described today by the South Korean intelligence officials appear to be part of the evidence of that program, which has apparently not yet gone as far as an actual nuclear test.
The fact that South Korean intelligence officials presented information on North Korean nuclear capabilities to the assembly today is an indication that some in the new South Korean government are becoming increasingly worried about the imminence of the North Korean nuclear threat.
Mr. Ko's report also raised the question of how close North Korea had come to actually setting off a nuclear explosion. The use of the term "high-explosive" indicated that North Korean scientists had been experimenting with the non-nuclear explosives essential to detonating a nuclear warhead but still had not crossed the line to nuclear testing.
Mr. Ko's remarks, reported by South Korea's semi-official Yonhap news agency, came eight days after an article in The New York Times cited C.I.A. reports of spy satellites that had pinpointed the test site in a sub-district of Gusong City named Youngdoktong. Soeul officials said today that the site was named Yongduk-dong.
The Times article said that North Korea had been working on the technology needed to design nuclear warheads small enough to fit inside the medium-range missiles that North Korea has been producing for the past few years.
For months North Korea has said it had begun to reprocess the rods, but until today South Korea had discounted those claims as part of North Korea's strategy to force bilateral talks.
The South Korean National Intelligence Service chose a singularly controversial moment at which to release a report that went considerably beyond any other descriptions released here of North Korean nuclear activities.
Several hours before the report was released to Yonhap, a North Korean delegation arrived here for talks on economic and commercial issues. The delegation, upon its arrival, warned that "the dark cloud of a nuclear war" hangs over the Korean peninsula. "A very tense situation, war or peace, is being created," the delegation said the statement.
In China today, South Korea President Roh Moo Hyun said, "North Korea must dismantle its nuclear project."
Mr. Roh, speaking at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said that no country "has a right to threaten the security of neighboring states and the stability of the region."
Although South Korea and China agreed during Mr. Roh's visit that the nuclear issue in North Korea "could be settled through talks," the South Korean president's remarks appeared surprisingly tough for a leader who has stressed the need for cooperation rather than confrontation in dealing with North Korea.
It was not immediately clear whether the National Intelligence Service report was deliberately timed to coincide with Mr. Roh's China visit, which ends on Thursday, and with the arrival of the North Korean delegation in Seoul.
Regardless, the report was expected to have widespread diplomatic and political repercussions.
Although North Korea has said it had a nuclear program, American and South Korean officials have been uncertain how much credence to give such claims.
North Korean rhetoric in recent weeks has escalated while the United States has refused to negotiate the nuclear issue on a bilateral basis. The Americans insist that South Korea, China, Japan and possibly Russia should all have seats at the table.
The South Korean report today is certain to intensify debate here over the extent to which South Korea should pursue reconciliation with the North.
North Korea has engaged in commerical and cultural projects that link the two Koreas while, at the same time, it has claimed to pursue its nuclear ambitions.
North Korea's nuclear activities resumed early this year after North Korea broke off the 1994 Geneva framework agreement and expelled International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who had been monitoring the Yongbyon facility. The 8,000 spent fuel rods, which are designed for nuclear warheads that use plutonium as their core explosive material, were stored under the terms of the agreement.
The Geneva agreement began to unravel last October when North Korean officials admitted to an American delegation that it was conducting a a separate program for developing warheads from uranium. Washington subsequently suspended monthly shipments of 500,000 tons of heavy fuel, which the United States had agreed to send pending the completion of twin nuclear power plants. The power plant project is now in limbo.
Although the North is assumed to have made one or two nuclear warheads, there is no sign that North Korean scientists have made a warhead using uranium as its core material.
-------- russia
Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel
July 2003
World Nuclear Association
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.htm
- Weapons-grade uranium and plutonium surplus to military requirements in the USA and Russia is being made available for use as civil fuel.
- Weapons-grade uranium is highly enriched, to over 90% U-235 (the fissile isotope). Weapons-grade plutonium has over 93% Pu-239 and can be used, like reactor-grade plutonium, in fuel for electricity production.
- Highly-enriched uranium from weapons stockpiles is displacing some 10,000 tonnes of U3O8 production from mines each year, and meets about 15% of world reactor requirements.
For more than three decades concern has centred on the possibility that uranium intended for commercial nuclear power might be diverted for use in weapons. Today, however, attention is focused on the role of military uranium as a major source of fuel for commercial nuclear power.
Since 1987 the United States and countries of the former USSR have signed a series of disarmament treaties to reduce the nuclear arsenals by about 80% by 2003.
Nuclear materials declared surplus to military requirements by the USA and Russia are now being converted into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. The main material is highly enriched uranium (HEU), containing at least 20% uranium-235 (U-235) and usually about 90% U-235. HEU can be blended down with uranium containing low levels of U-235 to produce low enriched uranium (LEU), typically less than 5% U-235, fuel for power reactors. It is blended with depleted uranium (mostly U-238), natural uranium (0.7% U-235), or partially-enriched uranium.
Highly-enriched uranium in US and Russian weapons and other military stockpiles amounts to about 2000 tonnes, equivalent to twelve times annual world mine production.
World stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium are reported to be some 260 tonnes, which if used in mixed oxide fuel in conventional reactors would be equivalent to a little over one year's world uranium production. Military plutonium can blended with uranium oxide to form mixed oxide (MOX) fuel.
After LEU or MOX is burned in power reactors, the spent fuel is not suitable for weapons manufacture.
MEGATONS TO MEGAWATTS
Commitments by the US and Russia to convert nuclear weapons into fuel for electricity production is known as the Megatons to Megawatts program.
Surplus weapons-grade HEU resulting from the various disarmament agreements led in 1993 to an agreement between the US and Russian governments. Under this Russia is to convert 500 tonnes of HEU from warheads and military stockpiles (equivalent to around 20,000 bombs) to LEU to be bought by the USA for use in civil nuclear reactors.
In 1994, a US$12 billion implementing contract was signed between the US Enrichment Corporation (now USEC Inc) and Russia's Techsnabexport (Tenex) as executive agents for the US and Russian governments. USEC is purchasing a minimum of 500 tonnes of weapons-grade HEU over 20 years, at a rate of up to 30 tonnes/year from 1999. The HEU is blended down to 4.4% U-235 in Russia, using 1.5% U-235 (enriched tails), to restrict levels of U-234 in the final product. USEC can then sell the LEU to its utility customers as fuel. By mid-November 2001, Russia had dispatched 137 tonnes of HEU to USEC, (4,031 tonnes of LEU) arising from 5481 nuclear warheads.
For its part, the US Government has declared just over 174 tonnes of HEU (of various enrichments) to be surplus from military stockpiles. Of this, USEC has taken delivery of 14.2 tonnes in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) containing around 75% U-235, and 50 tonnes as uranium oxide or metal containing around 40% U-235. Downblending of the UF6 was completed in 1998, to produce 387 tonnes of LEU. Some 13.5 tonnes of the HEU oxide or metal had been processed by September 2001 to produce 140.3 tonnes of LEU. The rest should be processed by 2005.
In the short term most US military HEU is likely to be blended down to 20% U-235, then stored. In this form it is not useable for weapons.
A more detailed paper on the US-Russia HEU Agreement is on the WNA web site.
MARKET IMPACT
Overall, the blending down of 500 tonnes of Russian weapons HEU will result in about 15,000 tonnes of LEU over 20 years. This is equivalent to about 153,000 tonnes of natural U, or just over twice annual world demand.
The dilution of 18 tonnes of military HEU in 1997 displaced some 6400 tonnes of uranium oxide production, equivalent to output from a large uranium mine.
From 1999 the dilution of 30 tonnes of military HEU is displacing about 10,600 tonnes of uranium oxide mine production per year which represents some 15% of world reactor requirements.
Under the 1994 Agreement, USEC recognised the need to release the diluted military uranium to nuclear utilities in such a way as not to impact negatively on the US uranium market.
HOW THE MARKET WORKS
Normally, a utility buys natural uranium from a mining company as "yellowcake" (U3O8) and has it converted to UF6. It then supplies this feed to USEC, paying them for the enrichment component. USEC runs its energy-intensive enrichment plant to separate an appropriate amount of enriched uranium (eg at 3.5 - 5.0% U-235, leaving a lot of depleted uranium). USEC then returns the enriched uranium to the utility for its reactor.
A different, and somewhat complicated, system is used for the Russian material. The utility supplies the feed component of natural uranium as before and pays USEC for the enrichment component. But instead of running their plant, USEC pays the Russians for some blended-down weapons uranium and passes this on to the customer utility as "enriched" uranium fuel. The customers receive the blended-down Russian material, paid for as if it were their own uranium which had been enriched.
USEC pays Russia for the enrichment services component (basically energy) of the low-enriched product it receives. Russia takes ownership of the corresponding amount of natural uranium "feed" provided to USEC by its utility customers for toll enrichment services. The material remains in the US, and Russia receives the proceeds of its sale. The customers receive the Russian material, and pay as though it were their own uranium which had been enriched.
Problems arose because the natural uranium feed, now owned by Russia, could not be sold at a price satisfactory to its new owner, so some 11,000 tonnes has accumulated at USEC since January 1997.
1999 MARKET AGREEMENT
After years of stalled negotiations on this matter, a US$ 2.8 billion deal was approved early in 1999 by the US and Russian governments. It involves 163,000 tonnes of U3O8 feed to be supplied over the remaining 15 years of the US-Russian HEU agreement.
Cameco, Cogema, and Nukem have signed the commercial agreement with Tenex of Russia, giving them "exclusive options to purchase" 118,000 tonnes of this, leaving the remainder "available to Tenex". One important stipulation is that stockpiles, each of some 26 000 tonnes U3O8, will be held by both Russian and US governments for ten years, to 2009. The US stockpile already exists, Russia's will be built up over the next few years from all HEU feed not purchased by Tenex or an associate, and Russia is free to sell only what exceeds this.
The new agreement does not change the overall supply and demand situation, but it removes some major uncertainties over how the material is released to the market. This should help stabilise the nuclear fuel market, albeit at a level which favours low-cost producers.
PLUTONIUM
Disarmament will also give rise to some 150-200 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium (Pu). Weapons-grade plutonium has over 93% of the fissile isotope, Pu-239, and can be used, like reactor-grade Pu, in fuel for electricity production. Discussions are under way on the options for its disposal. These include:
- Immobilisation with high-level waste - treating plutonium as waste,
- Fabrication with uranium oxide as a MOXfuel for burning in existing reactors,
- Fuelling fast-neutron reactors.
In June 2000, the USA and Russia agreed to dispose of 34 tonnes each of weapons-grade plutonium by 2014. The US undertook to pursue a dual track program, self-funded, while the G-7 nations are providing some US$ 1 billion to set up Russia's program, which is wholly MOX-oriented.
In the USA there is wide support for burning plutonium as a MOX fuel in conventional reactors. A consortium has been retained and funded to implement the program to convert 25.5 tonnes of plutonium to MOX, and it has applied for a construction permit to build a MOX fabrication plant. The federal budget for 2002 has set aside $115 million for the MOX program. However, the Department of Energy has deferred the US$ 1.2 billion funding for construction of the facilities needed for the plutonium immobilisation program (for 8.5 tPu).
Meanwhile the US has developed a "spent fuel standard". This specifies that plutonium should never be more accessible than if it were incorporated in spent fuel and thus protected from interference by strong gamma radiation. The plutonium immobilisation plant, when it is eventually built, will thus incorporate the Pu in a version of Synroc (artificial rock), and encase small discs of this in canisters of vitrified high-level radioactive waste.
Europe's well-developed MOX capacity suggests that weapons plutonium could be disposed of relatively quickly. Input weapons-grade plutonium might need to be mixed with reactor grade material, but using such MOX as 30% of the fuel in one third of the world's reactor capacity would remove about 15 tonnes of warhead plutonium per year. This would amount to burning 3000 warheads per year to produce 110 billion kWh of electricity.
Over 35 reactors in Europe are licensed to use MOX fuel, and 20 French reactors are licensed to use it as 30% of their fuel.
Russia intends to use its plutonium in MOX fuel, burning it in both late-model conventional reactors and particularly fast neutron reactors. However, some may be sold to Western Europe to cover costs, with the spent fuel (which cannot be reprocessed) being returned to Russia. The 34 tonnes of plutonium initially available for MOX is enough for 1350 fuel assemblies for light-water reactors.
Since the early 1990s Russia has had a program to develop a thorium-uranium fuel, which more recently has moved to have a particular emphasis on utilisation of weapons-grade plutonium in a thorium-plutonium fuel. The program is based at Moscow's Kurchatov Institute and involves the US company Thorium Power and US government funding to design fuel for Russian VVER-1000 reactors. Whereas normal fuel uses enriched uranium oxide, the new design has a demountable centre portion and blanket arrangement, with the plutonium in the centre and the thorium (with uranium) around it
Nuclear waste facility gets boost
YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Panel adds millions for project
By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Las Vegas Review-Journal
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jul-09-Wed-2003/news/21693036.html
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department's financially struggling effort to bury nuclear waste in Nevada got a boost Tuesday when a congressional panel outlined a 2004 spending plan that adds millions to the project's coffers.
The $765 million being set aside for the Yucca Mountain Project in the U.S. House is 29 percent more than President Bush requested. It restores $134 million cut last year and adds even more to begin work on segments that have been shelved for lack of funding.
"My top DOE priority is Yucca Mountain," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who wrote the legislation as chairman of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee. "The money is here to make the program work."
The repository budget must be passed by the House and then by the Senate before becoming final. Tuesday's action sets in motion a new confrontation with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the program's leading critic in Congress who has engineered budget cuts in past years.
"Yucca Mountain may be a priority for House Republicans, but Senator Reid will use his leadership to significantly cut back that number just as he has done in the past," spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said.
Energy Department officials have found an enthusiastic ally in Hobson, 66, a seven-term Republican from Springfield, Ohio, who this year became chairman of the House energy and water subcommittee.
Hobson convened his 13-member panel Tuesday to review and approve a 2004 spending bill totalling $21.7 billion for programs operated by the Energy Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and smaller agencies.
Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Democrats probably will support the bill.
Hobson said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "changed everything." Until a Yucca repository opens, nuclear waste will remain scattered and vulnerable at reactor sites around the country, he said.
"This is not just an energy issue. This is a homeland security issue," he said.
To illustrate his commitment, Hobson said he planned to enlarge and frame a photo of Yucca Mountain and hang it on the wall alongside pictures of dams and other projects his panel supports.
Hobson said the $765 million set aside would enable the Energy Department to meet a December 2004 goal to complete a repository license application and remain on a path to open a repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas by 2010.
Further, he said, it will allow the department next year to begin developing a Nevada railroad corridor to the repository, a waste transfer station within the state and other features for waste acceptance at Yucca Mountain.
DOE officials had postponed all those segments in the face of steep budget reductions in recent years, and in fact has been planning layoffs and other cost reductions in trying to stay on schedule.
Noting that the spending bill won't be finalized until later this year, Allen Benson, an Energy Department spokesman in Las Vegas, issued a cautious reaction.
"We'll wait to see what the final numbers are," Benson said.
Nevadans in Congress said they were astounded at the committee's generosity. They said the project's flaws make it unworthy of any support.
"Until the licensing process is complete, whistle-blower allegations are settled and the lawsuits are finalized, there is no Yucca Mountain," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "Why they would want to spend taxpayer money and put it in that hole in the ground is beyond me."
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., "will certainly join with Senator Reid in reducing that as much as humanly possible when it comes over to the Senate side," Ensign spokesman Jack Finn said.
Hobson said he intends to be an aggressive champion of the nuclear waste project and plans to weigh in from his leadership position on how the program should proceed.
For instance, the new spending bill directs DOE officials to abandon two proposed railroad corridors that would carry nuclear waste through parts of Southern Nevada en route to the repository, according to Hobson.
One of them would originate at a Union Pacific siding near Apex and pass north of Las Vegas and Indian Springs before entering the southwest corner of the Nevada Test Site. The second route would ship waste north from Jean.
A Hobson aide said DOE instead would be given 60 days to choose among one of three remaining routes that originate at Carlin and Caliente.
Hobson said the bill contains other instructions for the Energy Department, but he would not release a full copy until it could be reviewed by members of the House Appropriations Committee. The committee is scheduled to take up the measure next week.
-------- tennessee
Nuclear Fuel Services Approved for Use of Uranium
July 9, 2003
(ENS)
http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2003/2003-07-09-09.asp#anchor6
WASHINGTON, DC, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a license amendment to allow Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) to possess and use special nuclear material at its newly constructed uranyl nitrate building in Erwin, Tennessee. Special nuclear material refers to plutonium, uranium-233, or uranium enriched in the isotopes uranium-233 or uranium-235.
The amendment, issued Monday, is the first of three NFS has proposed as part of its Blended Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) project. The project is part of a U.S. Department of Energy program to reduce stockpiles of surplus high-enriched uranium through reuse or disposal as radioactive waste.
NFS currently manufactures high-enriched nuclear reactor fuel and is constructing a new complex at the Erwin site to manufacture low-enriched nuclear reactor fuel.
The license amendment approval allows NFS to begin receiving down-blended, low-enriched uranium from the Savannah River Site complex in South Carolina for eventual use in the BLEU project. The amendment also increases the amount of uranium-235 NFS is allowed to possess.
On Tuesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a confirmatory order noting that NFS has agreed to implement security enhancements required by the commission earlier this year for similar fuel cycle facilities. Implementation of the security measures was verified by an NRC inspection team in June.
A second amendment application, for the blended, low-enriched uranium preparation facility, was submitted in October 2002 and is currently under NRC review. The company has not yet formally applied for the third license amendment, which will be for the oxide conversion facility. Together, the three amendments make up the BLEU project.
The NRC issued the approval over the objections of Friends of the Nolichucky River Valley, the State of Franklin Group of the Sierra Club, the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, and the Tennessee Environmental Council.
On April 29, the NRC turned down an emergency request to halt NFS' construction of any buildings intended for use as part the BLEU project.
The environmental groups argued that NFS's construction is proceeding before the NRC staff has complied with the National Environmental Policy Act by completing its environmental review and determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the proposed BLEU project."
To allow construction to go forward, the groups claimed, "will influence the NRC's decisionmaking process regarding the proposed BLEU Project, by committing resouces to a pre-ordained course of action before the agency has decided whether to prepare an EIS that evaluates the impacts of that course of action or reasonable alternatives."
They said the NRC should prepare an EIS for the entire BLEU project because it will have "significant adverse impacts on the environment."
In response, NFS claims that the staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) already examined the impacts of the "entire BLEU project."
But the NRC said the company "apparently continues to take issue with the staff's characterization of the scope and completeness of the issued EA, and likewise of the extent of the environmental reviews which will be conducted for the second and third [license] amendments. This is a matter we do not resolve today."
While the company will require license amendments before it can begin the process operations associated with the BLEU Project and before it can exceed its current U-235 possession limit, it does not appear to require any NRC permit to begin construction activities, thus "rendering uncertain our current authority to halt those actions," the commission ruled.
The construction activities do not pre-ordain or restrict the NRC's decisionmaking, the commission ruled, saying that the staff retains "full discretion" to deny any or all of the three license amendments, or to impose licensing conditions, as needed.
Even if the commission's power to halt NFS's construction activities were clearer, petitioners have given no reason to take emergency action, the NRC ruled, because they did not indicate how they might suffer immediate environmental harm as a result of new building construction within the boundaries of the company's existing site.
-------- us nuc waste
Energy Dept. Halts Nuclear Shipments Plan
July 9, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Shipments.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A plan to ship nuclear waste from Nevada to New Mexico through Southern California was canceled Wednesday because of opposition from state officials, the Department of Energy said.
It marked the first time shipment plans have been halted because of a state's resistance, DOE spokesman Joe Davis said. There were no immediate plans to reschedule the truck shipments of medium-level waste on the circuitous 300-mile route through California. They were to have started as early as Thursday.
``The waste that we ship to New Mexico for storage, we have never had a state that I'm aware of not agree to let us use a route,'' Davis said. ``This sets a very dangerous precedent for the future of radioactive waste shipments.''
He noted that much of the waste that would have been shipped originated in California before it was moved to Nevada.
DOE had not indicated how much waste would have been trucked.
The DOE decision came after the Western Governors' Association notified the agency that California did not concur on the route. The agency's protocol is to get a state's agreement before shipping, Davis said.
``This is not a delay,'' he said. ``We're canceling the shipments until the Western Governors' Association and the state of California and state of Nevada can engage together and propose a meaningful compromise.''
The primary objection was the roundabout route, from Nevada through California and Arizona to a disposal facility in New Mexico. Part of the trip was along state Highway 127, a former wagon road that authorities said was not designed for heavy trucks, is poorly maintained in places and is popular with tourists heading to Death Valley.
The dispute over the low-level waste could point to a larger fight over highly radioactive material that is supposed to be transported from nuclear power plants to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump that could open as early as 2010.
California Highway Patrol spokesman Tom Marshall said the agency didn't necessarily object to moving low-grade material through the state, but didn't want the state to become the primary route for shipping higher-grade material.
``We didn't feel the road was adequate to handle the bulkier, the heavier, the more dangerous stuff,'' Marshall said.
-------- us politics
White House disowns British claim that Saddam tried to buy uranium
By David Rennie in Washington and George Jones
09/07/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$VGWS0S4C5Z1VZQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/07/09/wdoss09.xml/
The White House has delivered a fresh blow to Tony Blair's justification for war against Iraq by disowning Britain's claim that Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium from Africa to produce nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney said Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons
The trans-Atlantic rift centres on one of the most dramatic claims made by President George W Bush in his State of the Union Address in January.
In that speech - the most important of the presidential year - Mr Bush declared: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Late on Monday night, the White House acknowledged for the first time that the British claim might be wrong, saying: "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech."
The split with Washington over one of the key arguments for military action was a further setback for Mr Blair after a Commons committee said the "jury is still out" on the Government's claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The Prime Minister yesterday insisted he had been right to go to war and denied misleading the public or parliament. But he appeared to be preparing the ground for the possibility that only "evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes" might be found, rather than stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
The Anglo-American claims that Saddam Hussein was actively seeking a nuclear weapons programme were at the heart of the case for war.
Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, said there was evidence that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons. The Africa connection was a vital part of that case.
Mr Blair yesterday defended the uranium claim, telling a committee of senior MPs it was not a "fantasy" and that the British intelligence services stood by it.
The allegation that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear technology and materials was made in the dossier published by the British government last September.
However, in a report published on Monday, the Commons Foreign Affairs committee said serious doubt has since been cast on the claim.
It reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in March that some of the documents it had acquired - though not through the UK - were forgeries.
Mr Blair and No 10 have always claimed they had separate sources for the alleged resumption of uranium trade between Iraq and Niger.
Giving evidence to the Commons Liaison Committee yesterday, Mr Blair said the British evidence that Iraq sought to purchase further uranium from Niger did not come from the forged documents.
He said Britain's intelligence service was standing by its evidence, but he did not elaborate on what it was.
When Downing Street was asked directly about the White House retraction, a spokesman said: "We stand by the intelligence that was in that dossier."
----
House Panel Cuts Bush Nuclear Weapons Requests
REUTERS USA:
July 9, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21439/story.htm
WASHINGTON - A House of Representatives panel yesterday passed a bill that would curb spending on U.S. nuclear weapons programs, in what lawmakers termed "a shot across the bow" of the Bush administration.
Showing rare bipartisan unity, the House Appropriations subcommittee unanimously approved the $27.1 billion measure to fund energy and water programs in 2004, including a boost in funding for the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
Overall the bill would be an increase of around $942 million over the current fiscal year but would slash more than $326 million from President Bush's budget request for the federal agency which oversees nuclear weapons programs.
Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers expressed skepticism about whether the current U.S. nuclear stockpile was appropriate in a world without a superpower foe.
"We have a Cold War footprint," said Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson, the subcommittee's chairman. "We need to look better at what the future is."
The bill would also cut most of the $15.5 million Bush had requested to study new, smaller nuclear weapons that could be used to destroy deeply buried bunkers, aides said. Critics say they fear the move could spark a new nuclear arms race.
The National Nuclear Security Administration -- which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy -- would still receive $8.5 billion next year, an increase of $330 million over 2003.
But the bill would cut a largely-symbolic $60 million from an effort to help Russia dispose of its Cold War nuclear arsenal, to show Congress' displeasure with slowdowns that have seen the program accumulate some $1 billion in unspent funds.
Texas Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards said the move was "a shot across the bow" of the Department of Energy.
The bill would also substantially boost funding for the Yucca Mountain project providing $174 million more than Bush had requested and $308 million more than Congress approved this fiscal year. The plan aims to site the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas.
Much of the extra money would go toward developing a rail line to transport nuclear waste around Las Vegas, in an effort to damp down fierce political opposition inside Nevada. The bill, one of 13 Congress must pass each year to fund the federal government, now goes to the full Appropriations Committee. The Senate has yet to act on its companion measure.
----
Bush Recantation Of Iraq Claim Stirs Calls for Probes
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29766-2003Jul8?language=printer
Democrats called for investigations yesterday after the White House acknowledged Monday that President Bush should not have said in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.
The White House acknowledgment followed a British parliamentary report casting doubt on intelligence about the alleged uranium sale, which Bush had attributed to the British.
"Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," the White House statement said. In the speech, Bush was trying to make the case that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) called it a "very important admission," adding, "This ought to be reviewed very carefully. It ought to be the subject of careful scrutiny as well as some hearings."
The senior Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), said the administration's admission was not a revelation. "The whole world knew it was a fraud," Rockefeller said, adding that the current intelligence committee inquiry should determine how it got into the Bush speech. "Who decided this was something they could work with?" Rockefeller asked.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, yesterday questioned why, as late as the president's Jan. 28 speech, "policymakers were still using information which the intelligence community knew was almost certainly false."
Levin said he hoped the intelligence committee inquiry and one he is conducting with the Democratic staff of the armed services panel will explore why the CIA had kept what it knew buried "in the bowels of the agency," repeating a phrase used recently by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to explain why she did not know the information was incorrect.
Republicans saw things differently.
Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), chairman of the Republican Conference, praised the administration for being forthright. "I think they had the best information that they thought, and it was reliable at the time that the president said it," Santorum told reporters. "It has since turned out to be, at least according to the reports that have been just released, not true," he said. "The president stepped forward and said so," he continued. "I think that's all you can expect."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) also defended Bush's approach, telling reporters that it is "very easy to pick one little flaw here and one little flaw there." He defended the U.S.-led war against Iraq as "morally sound, and it is not just because somebody forged or made a mistake. . . . The Democrats can try all they want to undermine that, but the American people understand it and they support it."
At the White House yesterday, officials stressed that Bush's assertions in the State of the Union address did not depend entirely on discredited documents about Niger but also referred to intelligence contained in a still-classified September 2002 national intelligence estimate that listed two other countries, identified yesterday by a senior intelligence official as Congo and Somalia, where Iraq allegedly had sought uranium. That information, however, has been described as "sketchy" by intelligence officials, and the British parliamentary commission said it had not been proved.
Several candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination spoke out yesterday. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said Bush's "factual lapse" cannot be easily dismissed "as an intelligence failure." He said the president "has a pattern of using excessive language in his speeches and off-the-cuff remarks" which "represents a failure of presidential leadership."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said the administration "doesn't get honesty points for belatedly admitting what has been apparent to the world for some time -- that emphatic statements made on Iraq were inaccurate."
Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the intelligence panel, said, "George Bush's credibility is increasingly in doubt."
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) expanded the credibility problem to the administration: "The White House's admission that it cited false information to set this country on the path toward war erodes the credibility of the administration."
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean said, "The credibility of the U.S. is a precious commodity. We should all be deeply dismayed that our nation was taken to war and our reputation in the world forever tainted by what appears to be the deliberate effort of this administration to mislead the American people, Congress and the United Nations."
----
Bush Defends War, Sidestepping Issue of Faulty Intelligence
July 9, 2003
New York Times
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/09/international/worldspecial/19CND-INTE.html?hp
PRETORIA, South Africa, July 9 - President Bush brushed aside questions today about the accuracy of a piece of evidence he used to justify war with Iraq, saying he was "absolutely confident" he made the right decision to use military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Speaking at a news conference here with President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mr. Bush did not directly answer a question about whether he regretted including in his State of the Union address this year a statement that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium in Africa for use in a nuclear weapons program. The White House acknowledged on Monday that the intelligence behind the statement was incomplete and perhaps inaccurate, drawing criticism from Democrats on Capitol Hill who said it raised doubts about the administration's case for the war.
But Mr. Bush, in his first comments on the matter, made clear that the specific piece of evidence in question did not make any difference to his basic position that Mr. Hussein's government posed a threat to the United States and the stability of the Middle East.
"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace," Mr. Bush said. "And there's no doubt in my mind that the United States, along with allies and friends, did the right thing in removing him from power. And there's no doubt in my mind, when it's all said and done, the facts will show the world the truth."
The administration's failure so far to find any substantial caches of chemical or biological weapons and the weakening of its case that Mr. Hussein was trying to rebuild his nuclear program have fed the longstanding and deep skepticism among many opponents of the war that Iraq was as much of a threat as Mr. Bush made it out to be.
Some Democrats have seized on the doubts about the accuracy of the intelligence on the uranium as new justification for a full-scale investigation, seeking to put Mr. Bush on the defensive over his handling of the war at a time when his reelection campaign is stressing his role as commander in chief of a continuing war against terrorism.
Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said the Bush administration was being "forthright" in acknowledging that information that it received after the State of the Union address led it to pull back the assertion that Iraq had been trying to purchase uranium in Niger, in West Africa.
"This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech," Mr. Fleischer said. "There was reporting, although it wasn't very specific, about Iraq's seeking to obtain uranium from Africa."
But he also suggested that the White House continued to put some store in the intelligence that was the basis of Mr. Bush's statement.
"Just because something didn't make it to the level where it should have been included in a presidential speech, in hindsight, doesn't mean the information was necessarily inaccurate," Mr. Fleischer said.
The White House has faced questions about Mr. Bush's assertion about the uranium purchase for months, and they intensified this week after an article was published on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times on Sunday by Joseph C. Wilson 4th, a former ambassador who was sent last year to Niger to investigate reports of the attempted purchase. Mr. Wilson, who said he was dispatched after Vice President Dick Cheney's office took an interest in the matter, reported back that the intelligence was likely fraudulent.
But Mr. Fleischer said Mr. Wilson's report was vague and did not specifically address the main problem with the intelligence, that documents purporting to document Iraq's efforts were almost certainly forged.
"He spent eight days in Niger and concluded that Niger denied the allegation," Mr. Fleischer said. "Well, typically nations don't admit to going around nuclear nonproliferation."
He said there had been "other reporting" beyond the apparently forged documents about Mr. Hussein's efforts to acquire a lightly processed form of uranium known as yellow cake, but did not specify what it was.
"I think the American people continue to express their support for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein based on just cause, knowing that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted for that we're still confident we'll find," Mr. Fleischer said. "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
Mr. Bush said that the United States had underestimated how close Mr. Hussein was to building a nuclear weapon in 1991, before the first Persian Gulf war, and that there had long been evidence that Iraq was trying again. He dismissed the criticism of his justification for war as "attempts to try to rewrite history."
"Imagine a world in which this tyrant had a nuclear weapon," Mr. Bush said.
----
Bush and Rumsfeld Defend Use of Prewar Intelligence on Iraq
Despite Use of False Information, Bush Says He Has 'No Doubt' in His Decision
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31709-2003Jul9?language=printer
PRETORIA, South Africa, July 9 -- President Bush today brushed aside questions about the accuracy of his claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa, declaring there was "no doubt" that his decision to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power was correct.
The president avoided directly answering questions about whether he regretted the inclusion of the claim and whether he still believed the charge -- that Iraq had sought a form of uranium from Niger -- to be true despite the acknowledgement from White House aides this week that the allegation was wrong and should not have been in the speech.
Bush dismissed the matter as "attempts to rewrite history."
"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace," Bush said at a news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki on the second day of his five-day African tour. "And there's no doubt in my mind that the United States, along with allies and friends, did the right thing in removing him from power. And there's no doubt in my mind, when it's all said and done, the facts will show the world the truth."
The White House acknowledged Monday that the intelligence underlying the president's uranium-purchase assertion was incorrect and should not have been in his State of the Union speech. Leading Democrats have seized on the admission as justification for a congressional inquiry into the administration's handling of pre-war intelligence on Iraq.
Talking about Iraq's broader pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, Bush told those gathered in the lush gardens outside the government's Union Building here that President Bill Clinton in 1998 "raided Iraq based upon the very same intelligence." Bush was referring to four days of bombing by the United States and Britain in December 1998 of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons facilities as well as its missile-production plants.
Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, told reporters that the White House only learned after the president's speech that documents that were the basis for his uranium-purchase claim had been forged. "After the speech, information was learned about the forged documents," he said. "With the advantage of hindsight, it's known now what was not known by the White House prior to the speech. This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech."
It has emerged in recent weeks, however, that the CIA dispatched a respected former senior diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson, to Niger the year before the president's speech to investigate the uranium claims and that Wilson concluded the allegations were false. Administration officials have said the information had not been conveyed to the White House at the time of the speech.
The CIA and State Department, a month before the president's speech, had stopped referring to the Niger issue in public statements and documents because they were questioning the reliability of the intelligence, senior officials said.
On Capitol Hill today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sought to diminish the importance of the debate over the intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs. "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit" of weapons of mass destruction, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9-11."
Rumsfeld was repeatedly questioned about the administration's handling of the uranium-purchase claim, saying at one point that "I can't give you a good answer" as to why he was not told about intelligence analysts' doubts about the report.
"This is a significant piece of intelligence; it was relied on at the highest level, very publicly, very visibly, by the president and by you within two days of each other, right before the war; a very significant statement about seeking uranium in Africa," Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said. "At the same time, the intelligence community knew . . . in the depths of their agency that this was not true, it seems to me is absolutely startling."
But Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) vigorously denounced re-visiting the question of whether U.S. intelligence was wrong, calling the issue "nothing but an absurd media-driven diversionary tactic."
Bush's aides said today that the president was not angry to learn that the allegation about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium in Niger turned out to be false. They said he has accepted their account of how the line had come to be included in his State of the Union speech, and plans no recriminations.
"He understands intelligence and that as new information becomes available, we're going to continually update," Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said. "He wanted an explanation and we told him how the process works and he accepted it. He just asked, 'Why?' "
White House officials said the uranium claim was included in the president's address last Jan. 28 only after the wording had been approved by the CIA, Pentagon and State Department. In his remarks, Bush declared, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bartlett said the passage was included in drafts of the speech for at least 10 days before Bush delivered it. Bartlett said he knew of no objections to including the charge, or debate over the wording.
"We wouldn't lead with something that we thought could be refuted," Bartlett said. "There was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on. This was not a last-minute addition."
Bartlett said the sentence was included as part of a desire to build a five-point case against Hussein -- that he possessed or was seeking biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, had a history of human rights violations and had links to terrorism.
"This was not the centerpiece of our case," Bartlett said. "It fit in the overall context of the model that we had been following in outlining the case -- what he did, what he has, what he's trying to do, and the fact that he was not complying with the demands of the world."
Bartlett said he did not know which White House official wrote that section of the speech, which eventually went through more than 25 drafts. Rough drafts of Bush's State of the Union addresses start with an outline produced by White House speechwriters after conversations with Bush and his closest advisers. The speechwriters solicit input from department and agencies responsible for particular topics, and then officials from those parts of the administration are asked to vet the resulting language.
A senior administration official said that numerous officials at the CIA had the chance to object to the line about Hussein's quest for uranium. "If [CIA Director George J.] Tenet had called up and said, 'Take it out,' we would have taken it out," the official said. "When it was signed off on at highest level, it was not brought into question by those who would know or those who were tasked to know at the agency."
The official said the claim was tied to British officials because they had included it in a government intelligence dossier last September. "When given a choice, why not cite a public document?" the official said.
A British parliamentary commission, which investigated the British government's handling of Iraq intelligence, on Monday cast serious doubt about the uranium claim in the British intelligence dossier that was the basis for Bush's remarks. Publication of the British report prompted the White House to formally acknowledge that the assertion was wrong and end months of uncertainty over the matter during which senior officials had defended the president's remarks.
Allen reported from Washington. Staff writers Walter Pincus and Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report.
----
Where is Iraq War Instigator, Richard Perle?
Wednesday, July 09 2003
By William Hughes,
For Palestine Chronicle
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030709193632884
"The shifty Perle, the Mother of all Neocons, also predicted, like former Defense Department official, Ken Adelman, that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be a 'cakewalk!' .."
http://palestinechronicle.com/images/articles/4_images/perle_709.JPG
Perhaps we should take a break on looking for Saddam Hussein, Usama bin Laden, William "Slots" Bennett, or, even James J. "Whitey" Bulger. For me, the key question today is: Where is Richard Perle?
Before the launching of Iraq War No. 2, in March 20, 2003, Perle, America's Iago, regularly appeared on TV and cable TV programs, on radio, and in the print media, too. He repeated, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, why it was so absolutely critical for the U.S. to immediately invade Iraq.
America was "at risk," he said, with that ubiquitous smirk on his mug. There wasn't a moment to lose. "Saddam has WMD," he told us, and he also "hates America" and poses a dire "threat to our security?"
The shifty Perle, the Mother of all Neocons, also predicted, like former Defense Department official, Ken Adelman, that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be a "cakewalk!" It will be "easy," he boasted. We would also be "exporting democracy" to the Iraqi people, who will "welcome us" with open arms "as liberators," he claimed over and over again in similar words. Cakewalk! Easy! Exporting Democracy! Liberators! Sure!
Now, Perle is among the missing! The man with the sinister-looking scowl hasn't showed up on the Talking Head circuits since about the time the U.S. occupation of Iraq began going sour. Could he be hiding out in his beloved Israel, in a safe house provided by Benjamin Netanyahu, a/k/a "Bend-the-Truth Yahoo"? Or, are the War Hawks, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), telling him to keep a low profile by working temporarily as an extra on a Hollywood movie? Who knows?
It's a certainty that the idea of "regime change" for Baghdad was first hustled in Zionist Israel. A 1996 paper concocted by Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm," called for, inter alia, "the removal of Saddam Hussain and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad."
The "realm" Perle, Feith and Wurmser were seeking to secure, however, wasn't America's, but Israel's! The study was intended as a blueprint for the then-upcoming Likud-dominated government of Netanyahu. Feith now works for "our" Defense Department, in a high policy post, while Wurmser is planted in the State Department as a "special assistant." ("Examining the Role of Israel-and its American Friends-in Promoting War on Iraq," Allan C. Brownfeld, WRMEA, May, 2003).
For a while, Perle was a chief honcho of the Defense Policy Board, which advised Donald Rumsfeld and reported directly to another shadowy figure, Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Perle was recently forced to resign from the top post, but still remains on the Board.
Perle is a notorious Israeli Firster. He is a member of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (JINSA). He is also a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a hard line, right wing "think tank," that has slated Iran as Amerca's next war target. Perle advocates a so-called "Pax Americana," a new American Empire, which promotes America's world domination. Gee, I wonder if Israel will benefit from that scheme, too?
Perle serves, also, on the Board of Advisors of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD)-another right wing group, which is, of course, fanatically pro-Israel. He hangs out with Super-Hawks, such as: Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and Gary Bauer.
In fact, Perle is a master deceiver! American soldiers are now dying in Iraq, 30 since President George W. Bush declared "mission accomplished" on board the USS Lincoln, on May 1, 2003. As the body bags of our fallen heroes return to Dover, Delaware's Air Force base, loved ones have every right to blame Perle, and his ilk, for their losses.
The Iraq invasion was not a "cakewalk." Iraq doesn't have WMD, nor did it have any ties to terrorists, as Perle tooted. And, the Iraqi people bitterly resent the U.S./British invasion and occupation of their country.
The unnecessary and immoral destruction by Coalition Forces of Iraq's gas, water and electrical works, the bombing of their cities, pollution of their lands and rivers by toxic chemicals, leaking raw sewage and tons of depleted uranium, the death and injuries to countless thousands of innocent civilians,and the mostly total collapse of its social, health, cultural and monetary systems, too, has been a human catastrophe of the first magnitude. A country of 25.5 million souls has become a living hell for no darn good reason. Opponents of the war have nothing to regret.
Democracy, Perle's rotten lies to the contrary, is not, like Coke Cola, an exportable product. Americans troops now face death around every corner in Iraq, as the situation on the ground begins to resemble the guerrilla warfare conditions of the British-occupied north of Ireland during the late 70s. The Iraqi war will only be over when the Iraqi people say so. The cost to U.S. taxpayers could hit $1.6 trillion. And, this totally uncalled for conflict has created even more enemies for America around the globe.
A final question: Will the slippery Perle, America's Iago, ever be forced to answer to the people for his incalculable wrongdoing?
(c) William Hughes 2003. William Hughes is the author of "Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order" (Authors Choice Press) and "Baltimore Iconoclast" (Writer's Showcase). He can be reached at liamhughes@mindspring.com.
-------- MILITARY
-------- africa
West African oil attracts growing U.S. interest
09 July 2003
By James Jukwey,
Reuters
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-07-09/s_6355.asp
LONDON - U.S. companies are pouring billions of dollars into West Africa as prolific oil finds draw investment to a continent usually of little economic significance for Washington.
President Bush, a former oilman, concludes his week-long African tour Saturday in Nigeria, Africa's biggest oil producer, which delivers premium crude oil.
The Middle East has long been a major source of oil for the United States, but some in the U.S. administration believe Washington could lessen its dependence on the Arab world by harnessing West African oil reserves.
"We are looking at a 2005 estimate that 20 percent of our oil imports will be coming from Africa, and that's also going to grow rapidly and markedly in the years after 2005," said Walter Kansteiner, the top State Department official on Africa.
Other estimates suggest African oil supply to the United States could rise by 2015 to as much as 25 percent, from about 15 percent now.
Africa's oil belt stretches from Angola in the southwest to the island state of Sao Tome and Principe on the equator. Chad, one of Africa's most impoverished nations, is set to join too later this year when an Exxon Mobil-led consortium begins to pump crude there in a multibillion dollar project.
Apart from landlocked Chad, much of the investment by U.S. companies in African oil is in offshore areas. New reserves have been found in deep waters far from violent zones like Nigeria's Delta region, which recently has been plagued by banditry by groups demanding a share of the oil windfall.
Corruption
Industry analysts say a factor in favor of West Africa is its relative proximity to U.S. markets. West African oil shipments take less t