Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Imperial Indifference
India Proposes Steps Aimed at Normalizing Ties With Pakistan
India Pushes New Ties With Pakistan
Iran says it has no nuclear secrets
Iran gives U.N. nuclear dossier
Tehran declaration on nuclear programme
Iran Still Has Nuclear Deadline, U.S. Says
Iran Admits It Kept Secrets from UN Nuke Watchdog
Plant will handle nuclear waste until 2078
Bush: Pressure Is Building on N. Korea
N.Korea Signals Possible Movement on Nuclear Crisis
Bush Sees Slight Opening for North Korea Progress
Israeli general says Saudis seek to buy Pakistan nukes
The Mullahs and the Bomb
Latvia's secret service seizes radioactive substances
Rumsfeld 'Livid' Over Memo Leak
Rumsfeld Defends Memo Questioning Anti-Terrorism Results
MILITARY
Powell Says Sudanese Hope to Reach a Peace Accord This Year
Powell: Sudan Accord On Track Official Disputes December Goal
US missiles `not tied to ally status'
U.S. Faces Skepticism at Conference on Funds for Iraq
Venture to Offer ID Card for Use at Security Checks
Raytheon Posts Net Loss, Cuts Outlook
Attacks on Troops on Rise, Commander Says
$5 Billion Iraq rebuilding cash 'goes missing'
U.S. Force Pulling Back in the North
Video Raises Questions on Israeli Strike
Scrutiny of Video Suggests Israelis Didn't See Gazans They Shot
Saudis reveal favors to U.S. in terror war
Turkish Officials Question Sending Troops to Iraq
Amid NATO row, Blair says Europe must have own defence
NATO chief asks Turkey for troops for Afghanistan
Space Station Mission Opposed
New Spy Gear Aims to Thwart Attacks in Iraq
Rumsfeld Sees Need to Realign Military Fight Against Terror
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Bolivian Leader's Ouster Seen as Warning on U.S. Drug Policy
Illegal Immigrants Arrested at Wal-Mart Stores
FBI Asks Rove, McClellan About CIA Leak
Civilians Contradict Police in Shooting Case
ENERGY AND OTHER
Suzuki aims to launch fuel cell cars by 2010
UK approves Inner Dowsing offshore wind farm
Noranda Unearths Metals from E-Waste Mines
Showdown in the Ecuadoran Jungle
2 Studies Contradict EPA on New Rules Changes to Boost Pollution, They Say
ACTIVISTS
S. African victims sue global corporations in U.S.
Bush Is Heckled in Australian Parliament
83 Protesters to Face Court in Saudi Arabia
ANTI-NUCLEAR PROTESTER FINED
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- depleted uranium
Imperial Indifference
Debating US Foreign Policy at Trinity College
By WILLIAM BLUM
October 23, 2003
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum10232003.html
On October 9, 2003 a debate was held at venerable Trinity College in Dublin. Organized by the University Philosophical Society, the proposition to be debated was: "America's foreign policy does more harm than good."
Supporting the proposition were: William Blum, American author; David Barsamian, American radio journalist and author; and Tom Hanahoe, Irish author.
Arguing against the proposition were: John Bruton, former Irish prime minister; Bill Rammell, British MP and minister in the Foreign Office; and Gideon Rose, Managing Editor of "Foreign Affairs", the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, and former member of the Clinton National Security Council.
Near the conclusion of the debate, Bill Rammell was reduced to calling David Barsamian "anti-American". And Gideon Rose, the most fervent of the opposing speakers, was reduced to asking the audience to understand that the choice is "a world run by the United States or a world run by Osama bin Laden". I would place Rose in the category of "the best and the brightest", the type that brought us Vietnam and now brings us Iraq.
At the end of the evening the large audience, by calling out "Aye" or "Nay", overwhelmingly declared those supporting the proposition to be the victors.
My opening presentation was as follows:
In 1975, there was a committee of the US congress called the Pike Committee, named after its chairman Otis Pike. This committee investigated the covert side of US foreign policy and discovered a number of scandalous secrets, some of which were leaked to the public, while others remained secret. In an interview Congressman Pike stated that any member of Congress could see the entire report if he agreed not to reveal anything that was in it. "But not many want to read it," he said.
The interviewer asked him "Why?"
And Pike replied: "Oh, they think it is better not to know. There are too many things that embarrass Americans in that report. You see, this country went through a bad shock with Watergate. But even then, all they were asked to believe was that their president had been a bad person. In this new situation they are asked much more; they are asked to believe that their country has been evil. And nobody wants to believe that."
The word for that is of course "denial". The fact that we are here to discuss the question of whether American foreign policy does more harm than good is further proof of that denial, for the question has been answered many times over. I could fill up this entire room with books floor to ceiling and wall to wall documenting the great harm done to every corner of the world by American foreign policy.
Here is a short summary of what Washington has been engaged in from the end of World War II to the present:
Attempting to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments.
Unprovoked military invasion of some 20 sovereign nations.
Working to crush more than 30 populist movements which were fighting against dictatorial regimes.
Providing indispensable support to a small army of brutal dictatorships: Mobutu of Zaire, Pinochet of Chile, Duvalier of Haiti, Somoza of Nicaragua, the Greek junta, Marcos of the Philippines, Rhee of Korea, the Shah of Iran, 40 years of military dictators in Guatemala, Suharto of Indonesia, Hussein of Iraq, the Brazilian junta, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Taliban of Afghanistan, and others.
Dropping powerful bombs on the people of about 25 countries, including 40 consecutive days and nights in Iraq, 78 days and nights in Yugoslavia, and several months in Afghanistan, all three of these countries having met the first requirement as an American bombing target -- being completely defenseless. And not once ever has the United States come even close to repairing the great damage caused by its bombings. Afghanistan and Iraq are of course the latest examples.
Increasing use of depleted uranium, one of the most despicable weapons ever designed by mankind, which produces grossly deformed babies amongst its many endearing qualities, and which, in a civilized world not intimidated by the United States, would be categorically banned.
Repeated use of cluster bombs, another fiendish device designed by a mad scientist, which has robbed numerous young people of one or more limbs, and some of their eyesight, and continues to do so every day in many countries as the bombs remain on the ground.
Assassination attempts on the lives of some 40 foreign political leaders.
Crude interference in dozens of foreign democratic elections.
Gross manipulation of labor movements.
Shameless manufacture of "news", the disinformation effect of which is multiplied when CIA assets in other countries pick up the same stories.
Providing handbooks, materials and encouragement for the practice of torture.
Chemical or biological warfare or the testing of such weapons, and the use of powerful herbicides, all causing terrible effects to the people and environments of China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and elsewhere.
Encouragement of drug trafficking in various parts of the world when it served the CIA's purposes.
Supporting death squads, especially in Latin America.
Causing grievous harm to the health and well-being of the world's masses by turning the screws of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and other international financial institutions, as well as by imposing unmerciful sanctions and embargoes.
Much of the above has led to millions of refugees wandering homeless over the earth.
And what do those who champion the mystique of "America" offer in defense of this record? Well, denial is the first line of defense -- Well-known and respected foreign policy analysts in the United States write entire books on American foreign policy with scarcely a hint of what I've just mentioned. When all else fails, they fall back on the argument that "The United States means well." It may sometimes blunder, even occasionally do a bit more harm than good as things turn out ... but the intention is always benevolent.
Let us look at a recent example of what some people would say was evidence of US foreign policy being a force for good -- Afghanistan, where the awful Taliban were overthrown. How can one argue against that? Well, in the past the past two years, US bombings and ground combat have taken the lives of many thousands of innocent civilians in addition to killing many so-called combatants, who are simply anyone defending against the US invasion; countless homes and other buildings have been demolished; depleted uranium has begun to show its ugly face; the warlords have returned to extensive power; opium cultivation is booming anew; crime and violence have once again become a daily fact of life; the president is nothing less than an American puppet; and the country is occupied by foreign troops (i.e., American) who often treat the population badly, including the use of torture; Afghanistan has become a protectorate of the US and NATO.
And remember, the awful Taliban regime would never have come to power in the first place if the United States, in the 1980s and 90s, had not played an essential role in the overthrow of a secular and fairly progressive government, which allowed women much more freedom than they'll ever have under the current government.
The problem, then as now, is that the consequences for the people of Afghanistan have been a matter of imperial indifference. On Washington's agenda in this case are secure oil and gas pipelines, military bases, and, if and when security can be instituted, the forces of globalization will march in.
Meanwhile in Iraq, what the US bombing, invasion and occupation have brought to the people there is every bit as appalling.
William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power. and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir. He can be reached at: BBlum6@aol.com
-------- india / pakistan
India Proposes Steps Aimed at Normalizing Ties With Pakistan
October 23, 2003
By DAVID ROHDE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/international/asia/23INDI.html
NEW DELHI, Oct. 22 - India's foreign minister announced a dozen proposals on Wednesday to revive stalled efforts to normalize relations with Pakistan.
Nearly all of the proposals involved re-establishing transportation and sporting links between India and Pakistan, South Asia's nuclear-armed rivals. Direct negotiations over Kashmir, the disputed territory the two countries have fought two wars over, were not proposed.
Pakistani officials gave a measured response, saying in a statement that they would consider the proposals.
The unexpected announcement by Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha came as intensifying attacks by separatist guerrillas on Indian forces in Kashmir have killed more than 350 people in two months. India calls the attacks "crossborder terrorism." It accuses Pakistan of backing a 14-year separatist insurgency in the Himalayan territory that has killed 35,000 to 70,000 people.
In the past, India has said peace negotiations will take place only when the attacks stop. But in a new distinction, Indian officials said on Wednesday night that efforts to normalize relations with Pakistan by re-establishing transportation and other links would continue despite the attacks. Direct negotiations between the two countries, however, will not be held until the attacks in Kashmir cease. "You have to separate normalization and dialogue," said a senior Indian official. "Dialogue will not happen until terrorism ends."
In a separate step, Indian officials announced that the country's deputy prime minister, L. K. Advani, would negotiate for the first time with a coalition of nonviolent separatist groups in Kashmir. India has refused to negotiate with the group, the Hurriyet Conference, in the past.
The group, which advocates the establishment of an independent Kashmir through peaceful means, recently split into moderate and hard-line factions. Indian officials said the new talks were an effort to strengthen the group's moderate wing.
Indian officials said the steps on Wednesday came from Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who began a peace initiative with Pakistan in April. A bus service linking New Delhi and the Pakistani city of Lahore was re-established this summer. But talks to resume air and rail links stalled as violence intensified in Kashmir. In recent weeks, the two countries returned to a long-running cycle of trading charges and countercharges.
Pakistani officials said they would examine the Indian proposals, but were "disappointed" that they focused primarily on transportation links. In a long-running diplomatic standoff, Pakistan insists that Kashmir be the focus of any negotiations between the two countries. India insists that Kashmir not be the central issue.
"While making these proposals," the Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman, Masood Khan, said in a statement, "India has simultaneously reiterated its rejection of Pakistan's offer to resume substantive and sustained dialogue to resolve all issues, notably the Jammu and Kashmir dispute."
Pakistan denies supporting the insurgency in Kashmir, describing it as an indigenous reaction to India's violation of United Nations resolutions, political repression and human rights abuses. India severed transportation links with Pakistan after an attack on the Indian Parliament building in December 2001. India said Pakistan covertly supported the gunmen. Pakistan said it played no role in the attack.
--------
India Pushes New Ties With Pakistan
Delhi Rejects Bilateral Talks on Kashmir
By Rama Lakshmi
The Washington Post
Thursday, October 23, 2003; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2781-2003Oct22.html
NEW DELHI, Oct. 22 -- India proposed a series of measures Wednesday to improve relations with Pakistan, expanding travel and athletic ties, in an effort to push forward the peace initiative that was launched by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee earlier this year.
India also announced that it was ready to hold talks with separatists in the disputed province of Kashmir. A recent rise in violence there had slowed the peace initiative and the two nations had engaged in a public war of words in September at the U.N. General Assembly in New York.
"India is very serious with the peace process with Pakistan," Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha said at a news conference. "We will work overtime to make this succeed." However, Sinha rejected Pakistan's demand for dialogue on the Kashmir dispute, accusing Pakistan of continuing to aid separatist violence in the region.
Pakistani officials responded cautiously to India's overtures and continued to insist that there could be no meaningful progress in relations between the two countries until India agrees to direct talks on Kashmir.
"We are disappointed that while making these proposals, India has once again simultaneously reiterated its rejection of Pakistan's offer of a substantive and sustained dialogue to resolve all issues, notably the Jammu and Kashmir dispute," a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Masood Khan, said in a prepared statement.
Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim region, is claimed by both India and Pakistan. The nuclear-armed neighbors have fought two wars over Kashmir and came to the brink of another in 2002.
Among its peace initiatives, India proposed a new bus service linking the Indian-controlled city of Srinagar and the Pakistani-controlled city of Muzzafarabad, a longtime demand of divided families on both sides.
India offered to restore full sporting links with Pakistan, including in the immensely popular game of cricket. It also proposed talks to resume air and rail services and introduce ferry service between Bombay and Karachi, financial hubs on the Arabian Sea. Senior citizens would also be allowed to cross the Indian-Pakistani border on foot and India would offer free medical treatment to 20 Pakistani children in India.
"We are interested in increasing people-to-people contacts with Pakistan," Sinha said. Since April, several Indian and Pakistani delegations of lawmakers, students, businessmen and artists have exchanged visits, and restored bus service between New Delhi and Lahore has been overwhelmed with bookings. Sinha also proposed Wednesday that the bus service be increased.
A senior Pakistani official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, questioned the sincerity of India's overtures. As the proposals are understood in Pakistan, he said, such steps would be implemented sequentially, beginning with the restoration of air links and commercial overflight rights. But Pakistan has refused to restore overflight rights for Indian aircraft until India guarantees that they will not be suspended again in some future crisis -- a demand that India has been unwilling to meet.
"What they're saying, in effect, is that everything depends on a concession by Pakistan on air links," the official complained. "They're taking the moral high ground but at the same time what they're saying is they won't resume dialogue."
Correspondent John Lancaster in Karachi contributed to this report.
-------- iran
Iran says it has no nuclear secrets
Thu 23 October, 2003
By Louis Charbonneau
(Reuters)
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=392874§ion=news
VIENNA - Iran has acknowledged having been "discreet" about its nuclear programme in the past but says it has no more secrets after giving the United Nations what it called a full declaration of all its nuclear activities.
The head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, delivered the declaration eight days ahead of an IAEA deadline for Iran to prove it has no secret atomic weapons programme as Washington alleges.
"I was assured that the report I got today is a comprehensive and accurate declaration," ElBaradei said.
"It is a large set of documents. We obviously have to start our verification activities (but) it is going to take us time to go through all these documents and reconstruct the full history of the programme," he said.
Salehi declined to give any details about the declaration, a stack of papers in a binder about one and half inches thick.
"We have submitted a report that fully discloses our past activities, peaceful activities, in the nuclear field," Salehi told reporters.
However, he said the secretive nature of some of Iran's activities -- which has helped fuel U.S. concerns that Iran is covertly developing an atomic weapon -- was a natural response to sanctions unfairly imposed on the Islamic republic.
"The important thing to note is that Iran had to do some of its activities very discreetly because of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran for the past 25 years," Salehi said.
"Those activities...that were legal activities...were within its (Iran's) rights, but nevertheless it had to do them discreetly," he added.
Submission of the report meets a key demand of the Vienna-based IAEA, which set the October 31 deadline.
ElBaradei has not had a chance to look through the declaration and declined to say whether Iran had fulfilled the requirements of a tough IAEA resolution passed on September 12.
"I hope we will come to the conclusion that we have seen all past nuclear activities in Iran and that all materials and activities in Iran are under (IAEA) safeguards," he said.
"AXIS OF PROVIDENCE"
The IAEA is particularly keen to have details about the origin of uranium enrichment centrifuge parts, which Iran says it bought on the black market and blames for contaminating two Iranian sites where the IAEA found traces of bomb-grade uranium.
"We should know the origin of materials and equipment to verify the Iranian statement that this (enriched uranium) was the result of contamination," ElBaradei said.
In a play on U.S. President George W. Bush's description of Iran, North Korea and pre-war Iraq as an "axis of evil", Salehi said Iran and Europe have joined forces in an "axis of providence" based on dialogue and mutual respect.
Salehi also reiterated his country's commitment to a deal brokered by the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany in Tehran on Tuesday, under which Iran pledged to accept tougher IAEA inspections and suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin had briefed his Russian counterpart Igor Ivanov on the Tehran visit and both men expressed their satisfaction with Iran's declaration.
----
Iran gives U.N. nuclear dossier
October 23, 2003
(UPI)
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20031023-102801-6437r.htm
TEHRAN, Iran, Oct. 23 -- The International Atomic Energy Agency has begun assessing Iran's documentation of its nuclear activities.
The report was presented to the head of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, in Vienna, Voice of America reported Thursday.
An IAEA official told reporters earlier that it will take several days to assess the contents of the document.
The IAEA has set a deadline of Oct. 31 for Iran to prove it is not trying to build nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear energy program.
After weeks of resistance, Iran announced this week it would comply with demands to suspend its uranium enrichment program and allow unannounced inspections by international nuclear regulators.
U.S. President George Bush called Tehran's decision a "very positive development," and senior Russian officials also expressed satisfaction with the deal, saying it would make Moscow's nuclear cooperation with Iran much simpler.
----
Tehran declaration on nuclear programme
REUTERS IRAN:
October 23, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22631/story.htm
TEHRAN - The following is a full transcript of a declaration agreed upon by the Iranian government and visiting EU foreign ministers on Tuesday on Iran's nuclear programme.
"1. Upon the invitation of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany paid a visit to Tehran on October 21, 2003. The Iranian authorities and the ministers, following extensive consultations, agreed on measures aimed at the settlement of all outstanding IAEA issues with regards to the Iranian nuclear programme and at enhancing confidence for peaceful cooperation in the nuclear field.
2. The Iranian authorities reaffirmed that nuclear weapons have no place in Iran's defence doctrine and that its nuclear programme and activities have been exclusively in the peaceful domain. They reiterated Iran's commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation regime and informed the ministers that:
a) the Iranian government has decided to engage in full cooperation with the IAEA to address and resolve through full transparency all requirements and outstanding issues of the agency and clarify and correct any possible failures and deficiencies within the IAEA.
b) to promote confidence with a view to removing existing barriers for cooperation in the nuclear field:
i) having received the necessary clarifications, the Iranian government has decided to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol and commence ratification procedures. As a confirmation of its good intentions the Iranian government will continue to cooperate with the agency in accordance with the protocol in advance of its ratification
ii) while Iran has a right within the nuclear non-proliferation regime to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes it has decided voluntarily to suspend all uranium enrichment and processing activities as defined by the IAEA.
3. The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany welcomed the decisions of the Iranian government and informed the Iranian authorities that:
a) their governments recognise the right of Iran to enjoy peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
b) in their view the Additional Protocol is in no way intended to undermine the sovereignty, national dignity or national security of its state parties
c) in their view full implementation of Iran's decisions, confirmed by the IAEA's director general, should enable the immediate situation to be resolved by the IAEA board
d) the three governments believe that this will open the way to a dialogue on a basis for longer term cooperation which will provide all parties with satisfactory assurances relating to Iran's nuclear power generation programme. Once international concerns, including those of the three governments, are fully resolved Iran could expect easier access to modern technology and supplies in a range of areas
e) they will cooperate with Iran to promote security and stability in the region including the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East in accordance with the objectives of the United Nations."
--------
Iran Still Has Nuclear Deadline, U.S. Says
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2003; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2870-2003Oct22.html
The Bush administration intends to press Iran to comply with an Oct. 31 deadline for opening the books on its past nuclear activities, senior officials said yesterday, as U.S. skepticism grew toward this week's surprise agreement by Iran to stop enriching uranium.
Iran's ruling clerics hailed Tuesday's nuclear accord with France, Germany and Britain. But U.S. and U.N. officials awaited the handover of new documents from Iran spelling out how and why the oil-rich nation built a number of sophisticated nuclear factories and laboratories in a rugged area south and west of Tehran.
The documents, which Iran promised to deliver to U.N. officials late yesterday, were considered a critical test for Iran, which until now has resisted demands to fully open its nuclear program to international inspection. The Bush administration contends that Iran is secretly attempting to develop nuclear weapons.
"The pressure is still on Iran," said a senior U.S. nonproliferation official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Nothing changes the fact that Iran still must fully comply and explain itself by October 31st," the deadline set by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for turning over nuclear data.
With Tuesday's accord, Iran appeared to be seeking to avert a showdown over its nuclear program while avoiding the appearance of bending to U.S. pressure. Iran pledged to temporarily halt enriching uranium and several other activities potentially useful in developing nuclear weapons. It also agreed to submit to more intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities by IAEA officials.
Official White House reaction to the agreement has been positive, if guarded. President Bush, speaking to reporters yesterday aboard Air Force One en route to Australia, described the European initiative as "an effective approach."
But privately, administration officials have expressed skepticism, noting that the accord does not specify how long Iran's must suspend its uranium enrichment. On Tuesday, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rouhani, said that "it could last for one day or one year; it depends on us."
Some U.S. and European diplomats questioned whether Iran's intent was to isolate the United States diplomatically while buying more time to pursue weapons surreptitously. "It may well be a clever device, a way to divide Europe and America while giving the Iranians a public relations coup," said one Western diplomat familiar with the negotiations.
In Tehran, President Mohammad Khatami said the agreement demonstrated to the world "that we are sincere." Senior officials of his government promised to quickly deliver to the IAEA a full accounting of Iranian nuclear activity since the 1970s.
Diplomats and weapons experts said the depth of Iran's sincerity will become apparent over the coming days. They said Iran now faces more pressure to clear up serious questions, including the source of the traces of weapons-grade uranium found in two nuclear facilities this summer. Iranian officials deny having enriched uranium in Iran before June of this year.
"Iran now has to perform," said David Albright, a former IAEA inspector and president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "Iran's declarations about its past activities will be the first benchmark of its performance."
Rose Gottemoeller, a top nonproliferation official at the Energy Department during the Clinton administration, said Iran had taken a positive step by "making it clear they're not going to be another pariah state -- another North Korea."
"Are they also trying to buy time? Probably yes," Gottemoeller said. "But in a way this buys time for all of us. It gives us a chance to leverage those interests in Iran that say, 'We don't want to be another Pyongyang.' "
--------
Iran Admits It Kept Secrets from UN Nuke Watchdog
October 23, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iran-nuclear.html
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran acknowledged on Thursday having been ``discreet'' about its nuclear program in the past but said it had no more secrets after giving the United Nations what it called a full declaration of all its nuclear activities.
The head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, delivered the declaration eight days ahead of an IAEA deadline for Iran to prove it has no secret atomic weapons program as Washington alleges.
``I was assured that the report I got today is a comprehensive and accurate declaration,'' ElBaradei said.
``It is a large set of documents. We obviously have to start our verification activities (but) it is going to take us time to go through all these documents and reconstruct the full history of the program,'' he said.
Salehi declined to give any details about the declaration, a stack of papers in a binder about one and half inches thick.
``We have submitted a report that fully discloses our past activities, peaceful activities, in the nuclear field,'' he said.
However, he said the secretive nature of some of Iran's activities -- which has fueled U.S. concerns that Iran is covertly developing an atomic weapon -- was a natural response to sanctions unfairly imposed on the Islamic republic.
``The important thing to note is that Iran had to do some of its activities very discreetly because of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran for the past 25 years,'' Salehi said, adding that they were ``legal activities.''
``Nevertheless (Iran) had to do them discreetly,'' he said.
Submission of the report meets a key demand of the Vienna-based IAEA, which set the October 31 deadline.
``I hope we will come to the conclusion that we have seen all past nuclear activities in Iran and that all materials and activities in Iran are under (IAEA) safeguards,'' ElBaradei said.
BOMB-GRADE URANIUM
The IAEA is particularly keen to have details about the origin of uranium enrichment centrifuge parts, which Iran says it bought on the black market and blames for contaminating two Iranian sites where the IAEA found traces of bomb-grade uranium.
``We should know the origin of materials and equipment to verify the Iranian statement that this (enriched uranium) was the result of contaminets after giving the United Nations what it calng tenders on Thursday for 323 new homes in twoes plane to Japan's generous $1.5 billion in grpremier was quizzed closely about his wellbeing, after a health scare last weekend in which he needed electro-cardiac treatment to regulate heart palpitations.
-------- japan
Plant will handle nuclear waste until 2078
(Asia Pulse/Nikkei)
Oct 23, 2003
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EJ23Dh02.html
TOKYO - The work of vitrifying and cooling nuclear waste for disposal will not be completed until 2078 at a Japanese nuclear fuel reprocessing plant under construction in the village of Rokkasho, Aomori prefecture, according to a projection issued on Tuesday by the Federation of Electric Power Companies.
The projection was based on the assumption that the reprocessing plant will start extracting plutonium from spent nuclear fuel brought in from Japan's domestic nuclear power plants in 2006 and will continue to do so for 40 years.
The facility will have to spend the next 30 years vitrifying, cooling and stabilizing liquid radioactive waste to be generated in the process, the federation says.
This long-term project is expected to carry an astronomical price tag, and the electric power industry will use the projected figure to persuade the government to shoulder part of the cost.
The reprocessing plant has been positioned as the key facility under Japan's pluthermal energy project, in which light-water reactors will burn mixed-oxide fuel - containing uranium and plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel - to generate heat for electricity.
-------- korea
Bush: Pressure Is Building on N. Korea
After Indonesia Stopover, President Engages Reporters En Route to Australia
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2003; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2782-2003Oct22?language=printer
CANBERRA, Australia, Oct. 23 -- President Bush said Wednesday that regional pressure was building on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program and expressed hope that Iran would fulfill a pledge to stop enriching uranium and allow inspectors unrestricted access to its nuclear facilities.
His comments came in an unusual conversation with reporters aboard Air Force One. Bush said his decision to enlist China, Japan, Russia and South Korea for talks with North Korea had created "a different dynamic" and that "the neighborhood is now speaking." He called those countries "our partners in this effort" to restrain North Korea's reclusive leader, Kim Jong Il.
The subject of North Korea has hung over Bush's six-nation Asian tour. His offer of some undefined security guarantees to North Korea in exchange for its abandonment of its nuclear ambitions was abruptly dismissed by Kim.
"Kim Jong Il is used to being able to deal bilaterally with the United States, but the change of policy now is, is that he must deal with other nations, most notably China," Bush said. "Now he's got his big neighbor to the right on his border, he's got a neighbor to the south, he's got Japan, he's got another neighbor, Russia, all saying the same thing."
Bush also repeated his sharp criticism of the North Korean leader. "I just can't respect anybody that would really let his people starve and shrink in size as a result of malnutrition," Bush said.
Bush said that he believed the four other partners in the nuclear talks would back an agreement with Kim like the one the administration is drafting. "He's been saying, 'I want a security guarantee,' " Bush said. "What we have now said is that in return for dismantling the programs, we're all willing to sign some kind of document -- not a treaty, but a piece of paper -- that says we won't attack you."
The president said he was also optimistic about Iran's agreement this week with three European foreign ministers to suspend uranium enrichment and open the doors to unrestricted inspections. "The Iranians, it looks like they're accepting the demands of the free world, and now it's up to them to prove that they've accepted the demands. It's a very positive development," he said.
Bush said the administration was hopeful it could reach a deal with Iran on the handful of key al Qaeda leaders who the administration believes are there. Bush said abandoning nuclear weapons and giving up the al Qaeda leaders "will help relations with Iran." His national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said last month that it was unclear whether these leaders were being detained, but she said the administration would continue to insist that Iran must "transfer these people out."
Bush spoke to reporters as he flew to Australia, the last stop of his seven-day trip. On Thursday morning, he addressed a raucous session of the Australian Parliament. On Wednesday, he visited Indonesia, making a three-hour, heavily guarded stop on the resort island of Bali. There, he met President Megawati Sukarnoputri and sought to reassure moderate Muslim leaders that the war against terrorism was not a war against their religion.
"We know that Islam is fully compatible with liberty and tolerance and progress, because we see the proof in your country and in our own," he said with Megawati at his side after a walk on the beachfront. "Terrorists who claim Islam as their inspiration defile one of the world's great faiths. Murder has no place in any religious tradition, must find no home in Indonesia."
However, Muslim leaders in a round-table discussion Bush held with Indonesian clerics told him that the United States would be a better model of democracy if it used peaceful means to resolve conflicts.
Azyumardi Azra, president of the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University in Jakarta, said the meeting was supposed to last 30 minutes but went for 55. Bush did a lot of listening and took a pad out of his pocket and took his own notes, Azra said. "We criticized him on many fronts, on his foreign policies," Azra said. "At least he was willing to listen, and we hope he would reflect on this and, hopefully, it would bring some changes in his policies."
Bush also announced that the administration would give $157 million over six years to Indonesia to improve general education in both religious and secular state schools.
Bush told reporters later that he had been asked about the recent controversy around remarks made by Army Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin. An evangelical Christian who heads a Pentagon office focused on hunting Osama bin Laden and former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, Boykin described the United States as "a Christian nation" and credited "our God" with the capture of a Somali warlord. In remarks that offended Muslims, he said the war on terrorism was being fought against a "spiritual enemy" represented by Satan.
"Boykin came up," Bush said. "I said he didn't reflect my opinion. Look, it just doesn't reflect what the government thinks. And I think they were pleased to hear that."
In his 34-minute session with reporters, Bush appeared relaxed and confident, wearing a blue flight jacket with his name stitched on a breast pocket, chomping noisily on butterscotch candy and pretending to play a shell game with the array of tape recorders before him. He repeatedly refused the pleas of his senior aides to cut off the interview, then lingered to speak off the record to the reporters.
In the interview, Bush suggested that he was adopting a more cautious approach on some issues.
"I've been saying all along that not every policy issue needs to be dealt with by force," he said. "You've got to have some patience in foreign policy." Even before the run-up to the Iraq war, Bush's ties with Europe had been frayed by his tendency to act in what he considered the United States' interests, without always consulting affected countries. Bush told the reporters around a large wooden conference table that "by working hard to establish good relations on a lot of fronts, when a common problem arises, we can affect the solution in a positive way."
In his meeting with the religious leaders, Bush said, the issue of the Middle East conflict came up. "They said the United States is tilted toward Israel, and I said our policy is tilted toward peace . . . and then I went through the notion of a Palestinian state, and the need for us to fight off terror in order for a state to develop," he said.
Bush was reminded by a reporter of his earlier optimism about the Middle East in a summit attended by Mahmoud Abbas, who subsequently resigned as the Palestinian prime minister. Bush said he was "disappointed" that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat "shoved" Abbas "out of the way," which he called "an unfortunate decision, because it stopped good progress toward a Palestinian state."
Referring to the stalled U.S.-backed peace initiative, Bush said, "The road map is still there."
Bush said he was "the first president to have articulated" the policy favoring creation of a Palestinian state. However, in January 2001, President Bill Clinton had also called for a "viable Palestinian state."
In his speech to the Australian Parliament on Thursday morning, Bush delivered a new warning about the possible spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists. Bush, who has been accused of overstating Iraq's arsenal of unconventional weapons in making his case for war, spoke of extremists who "hide and strike within free societies."
"The terrorists hope to gain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons -- the means to match their hatred. So we're confronting outlaw regimes that aid terrorists, that pursue weapons of mass destruction, and that defy the demands of the world," Bush said.
After Britain, Australia was the biggest source of military personnel for the U.S.-led forces that attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Prime Minister John Howard endured harsh criticism for backing Bush. The U.S. president hailed Howard as "a man of steel," which Bush said was "Texan for 'fair dinkum,' " an Australian expression for a genuine person.
Police estimated that 5,000 demonstrators, including students and trade unionists, massed outside the Parliament House during Bush's speech. Two Green Party senators interrupted Bush's address with shouts, and were ordered to leave the chamber but refused. Bush drew applause when he ad-libbed, "I love free speech."
Reaching out to his many critics in the Parliament, Bush said the United States is "committed to multilateral institutions, because global threats require a global response."
"We're committed to collective security," he added. Bush then went on to outline a defense of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "Collective security requires more than solemn discussions and sternly worded pronouncements," he said. "It requires collective will."
Bush implored the lawmakers not to slacken their commitment to the U.S.-led war on terrorism. "Every milestone of liberty was considered impossible before it was achieved," he said.
Bush was scheduled to leave Australia later Thursday for a one-day visit to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. He is scheduled to return to the White House on Friday morning.
Correspondent Ellen Nakashima in Jakarta and staff writer Bradley Graham in Washington contributed to this report.
--------
N.Korea Signals Possible Movement on Nuclear Crisis
October 23, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north.html
SEOUL/TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea signaled on Thursday it may be inching back toward nuclear crisis talks, announcing a visit by a top Chinese leader and moving to sound out President Bush's offer of security assurances.
The secretive communist state kept up its combative rhetoric a day after dismissing as ``laughable'' Bush's new effort to address North Korean concerns and break the deadlock.
But a diplomatic source with close ties to Pyongyang said the North would contact U.S. officials soon to ascertain Washington's intentions before deciding whether to take part in a new round of six-party talks on its nuclear weapons program.
Bush, shifting policy in an apparent attempt to re-energize the talks, offered Pyongyang unspecified security assurances this week for the first time but ruled out meeting its demand for a non-aggression treaty.
``The representatives in New York will contact American government officials soon,'' said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``The North wants to know the true intention of Bush's remarks.''
In Washington, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said he did not know of any plans for talks with North Korea via the so-called ``New York channel,'' saying it remained open if needed but stressing the U.S. preference for multilateral talks.
During a Bangkok summit of Asia-Pacific leaders, Bush said he was willing to negotiate some kind of multilateral security guarantee short of a treaty with North Korea if it abandoned its nuclear arms program. Twenty regional leaders backed the offer.
HEAVYWEIGHT CHINA VISIT
In another sign of diplomatic movement in the year-long impasse, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that parliament chief Wu Bangguo -- number two in the Communist Party hierarchy -- would visit Pyongyang from October 29 to 31.
Earlier North Korea's official KCNA news agency had said Wu was expected soon for ``an official goodwill visit.''
He will be the most senior official from Beijing -- Pyongyang's only ally -- to go there since then-president Jiang Zemin visited in 2001.
Wu's trip follows months of active Chinese diplomacy to resolve the crisis.
South Korea and the United States joined China, Japan and Russia in Beijing in August in an inconclusive first round of talks with North Korea on its nuclear ambitions. A second round has yet to be arranged, but diplomats expect one to be held next month or at least before the end of the year.
Pyongyang's official Rodong Sinmun daily described U.S. lobbying for more multilateral talks as ``a very impudent artifice to sidestep the issue and evade its responsibility for its settlement.''
But analysts said the initial dismissals of the initiative represented posturing while Pyongyang studied the offer.
That the rhetoric came via state media and not the foreign ministry ``means that this is not the final word,'' said Koh Byung-chol, an analyst at Seoul's Kyungnam University.
Koh said China had played a pivotal role in the North's major policy reversals -- most recently when Pyongyang dropped its opposition to multi-party talks after Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo met North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in July.
NO LOVE FOR KIM
Bush vowed Washington and its partners ``will stay the course'' despite North Korea's reaction and push for a resumption of six-party talks.
``A treaty is not going to happen, but there are other ways to effect, on paper, what I have said publicly: We have no intention of invading,'' he told reporters aboard Air Force One.
South Korean Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun, who held talks in Pyongyang last week, told reporters in Seoul the advance announcement of Wu's trip suggests ``North Korea may make an important policy decision on the occasion of the visit.''
Jeong said the North Koreans had complained that Washington had refused to contact Pyongyang since August.
``Recently, the U.S. has been refusing New York contacts. We have no choice but to demand dialogue in our own way,'' Jeong quoted a North Korean official as saying in Pyongyang.
Before stepping down in August, Charles ``Jack'' Pritchard, acting as U.S. special envoy for North Korea, was in contact with North Korean officials at the United Nations in New York about once a week, the diplomatic source in Tokyo said.
Bush, who has lumped North Korea with Iran and pre-war Iraq in an 'axis of evil,'' was blunt about the reclusive Kim Jong-il. Kim has presided over a famine that experts estimate has killed at least one million of North Korea's 23 million people.
``You can't respect anyone who would let his people starve and shrink in size because of malnutrition,'' he said on Air Force One. ``It's a sad, sad situation for the North Korean people.''
--------
Bush Sees Slight Opening for North Korea Progress
October 23, 2003
By DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/international/asia/23NUKE.html
CANBERRA, Australia, Thursday, Oct. 23 - President Bush declared on his way to the last stop on his Asian tour that he has successfully generated "a different dynamic" in dealing with North Korea and on Thursday morning told the Australian Parliament that there "has never been so great a danger" of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.
Mr. Bush was clearly enjoying the warm embrace of one of his closest allies, Prime Minister John Howard, whom he had before he left called a "sheriff" in Asia, always ready to step in with the United States to keep the peace. The statement set off a political uproar here, where opposition to the war in Iraq ran very strong, and Mr. Bush's speech was twice interrupted by heckles from members of the Green Party, one of the opposition parties in the always-raucous Australian Parliament. The leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, shouted, "But we are not a sheriff," and he was ordered removed from the hall. Instead, he sat down and refused to budge.
Mr. Bush took the heckling with a smile, sipped a cup of water, and said, "I love free speech," prompting broad applause.
His comments about North Korea came during an unusually expansive encounter with reporters aboard Air Force One, minutes after he left Bali. In his comments, he expressed confidence that China's new leader, Hu Jintao, would press North Korea's leaders to accept a written guarantee of its security in return for dismantling its nuclear weapons program. He shrugged off North Korea's response on Wednesday that it was "laughable" to think the reclusive nation would accept the offer of a multilateral security pledge in exchange for the North's ending of its nuclear weapons program.
But the president, sounding more reflective than usual, said: "This requires a degree of patience, because Kim Jong Il is used to being able to deal bilaterally with the United States. But the change of policy now is that he must deal with other nations, most notably China."
Asked if he regretted having declared, a year ago, that he "loathes" Mr. Kim, the North Korean leader, Mr. Bush did not answer directly. But he said, "I just can't respect anybody that would really let his people starve and shrink in size as a result of malnutrition." He declined to say whether he thought Mr. Kim would ultimately accept the deal the United States is discussing, saying, "We'll see what happens."
Turning to the agreement by Iran with European foreign ministers to open its nuclear sites to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. Bush opened the possibility that the accord, if implemented, could lead to better relations with the United States.
"The I.A.E.A. must be allowed in, and we'll discuss it then," he said. "Our relations with Iran - that will help relations with Iran, obviously, if they do abandon a nuclear weapons program. It will also help if we end up doing - reaching an agreement on the Al Qaeda that they hold." American officials are trying to gain access to Qaeda operatives who appear to be in detention in Iran. Mr. Bush dismissed the notion that he was suspicious of the motives of the European nations that held the discussions with Iran.
"No, not in this case," Mr. Bush said. "I believe, in this case, they generally are concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons. They understand the consequences. I appreciate it very much."
He compared the pressure applied on Iran by its main trading partners in Europe to the pressure that China, Russia and Japan are putting on North Korea. "It's the same approach," he said, "the kind of approach we're taking in North Korea as well, a collective voice trying to convince a leader to change behavior."
Looking relaxed, Mr. Bush used the moment to argue that Iran and North Korea are evidence that he has not turned his back on diplomacy or multilateral approaches.
"I've been saying all along that not every policy issue needs to be dealt with by force," he said. "There are ways to achieve common objectives, and this is a common objective."
Mr. Bush is in Australia for only a day, and his visit is limited to this capital city, which has little of the character - and none of the tradition of street protests - of Sydney or Melbourne. While tens of thousands of protesters came into the streets during the Iraq war, on Thursday there were only small numbers around the Parliament building, and television coverage of Mr. Bush's visit was limited. Some people on the streets and coffee shops of Canberra said they were barely aware of Mr. Bush's presence.
-------- mideast
Israeli general says Saudis seek to buy Pakistan nukes
October 23, 2003
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031022-113729-8359r.htm
A top Israeli intelligence official has charged that Saudi Arabia is pressing forward with a secret program to acquire nuclear-weapons technology from Pakistan, even as senior U.S. officials said yesterday they had seen "no information to substantiate" reports that a deal was in the works.
The Washington Times, citing a senior Pakistani source, reported yesterday that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, the country's de facto ruler, concluded a long-rumored deal to obtain a nuclear deterrent in exchange for discounted Saudi oil during a visit to Islamabad over the weekend.
Such a deal would profoundly alter the balance of power in the Middle East, violate Saudi obligations under the nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, and break promises made to Washington by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf about controlling his country's nuclear arsenal.
Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have strenuously denied the reports, with a Saudi Embassy spokesman dismissing the story yesterday as "not even worth a denial."
Talat Waseem, press counselor to the Pakistani Embassy, said in a letter to The Times there was "not a shred of truth" to the "wildly speculative story."
He denied the issue had been raised by President Bush or senior U.S. diplomats in their recent meetings with Pakistani leaders.
"While U.S.-Pakistan discussions cover a whole range of issues, including nonproliferation issues, nonproliferation is not an issue of current concern in our relations," Mr. Waseem wrote.
"Pakistan's commitment to nonproliferation of [weapons of mass destruction], including nuclear weapons, technology, materials, etc., is beyond question."
But Israeli radio and the New York Post reported yesterday that Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi, the Israel Defense Force's senior intelligence officer, told a parliamentary committee Tuesday that the Saudis had in fact gone to Islamabad with the intention of buying Pakistani warheads, to be placed on Saudi land-based missiles.
Gen. Zeevi said the Saudi drive for atomic weapons was motivated by the advanced nuclear program under way in Iran, its strategic and religious rival in the region. Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni Muslim while Iran has a Shi'ite Muslim majority.
Israeli officials have warned of an "Arab arms race" fueled by Iran's nuclear programs, which could have serious strategic consequences for the Jewish state.
U.S. officials played down the revelations yesterday, saying stories of a Pakistani-Saudi nuclear alliance were more than a decade old.
"We've seen the allegation, but we have not seen any information to substantiate what would seem to us to be rather bald assertions" of a nuclear pact, said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli.
"We are confident that Pakistan clearly understands our concerns regarding proliferation of nuclear technology. And we would also note that Saudi Arabia is a party to the nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, under which it has agreed not to obtain nuclear weapons," he said.
A second U.S. government official with access to intelligence information discounted the Saudi-Pakistani nuclear link as well.
"There have been rumors along these lines for years," the official said, adding it is possible that the two governments have discussed nuclear cooperation.
"But we don't have information to suggest that there is an agreement to that effect," the official said.
But Mr. Ereli also said the administration has not yet confronted either country directly in light of the new revelations, saying U.S. officials regularly raise proliferation concerns in their frequent talks with Pakistani counterparts.
Analysts said Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have much to gain and much to lose from a nuclear cooperation pact.
Past stories of a deal have been fueled by extensive ties between the two Muslim countries, in particular as Pakistan has tested and built its nuclear arsenal. Many suspect the oil-rich Saudis of helping finance Pakistan's purchases of nuclear technology from China and other sources.
The Saudi defense minister was given a rare tour of Pakistan's highly restricted Kahuta uranium-enrichment and missile factory in 1999.
In addition to fears of a nuclear Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have watched with growing unease the increasingly close military ties between Israel and India.
Saudi defense officials in England this summer discussed the outlines of a strategic policy paper being considered at the most senior levels in Riyadh.
Among the options put forward in the paper: developing or purchasing a nuclear deterrent; allying with an existing nuclear power such as Pakistan; or pursuing the diplomatic route by pressing for a regional nuclear-free pact.
Bangladeshi military analyst M. Abdul Hafiz, writing in the Bangladesh Daily Star this week, said intense regional instability is the driving factor.
"There's obviously a lot of restlessness in the Middle East today prompting and pushing the nations like Saudi Arabia to produce a nuclear deterrence," he wrote.
But David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said he remained skeptical that an actual deal had been signed because of the immense repercussions for both countries.
"We know that senior Saudi officials are studying their options and sending signals, but to actually go through with this will bring down the wrath of the Americans on the Pakistanis and have huge negative implications for Saudi security as well," he said.
•Bill Gertz contributed to this report.
---------
The Mullahs and the Bomb
October 23, 2003
By GARY MILHOLLIN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/opinion/23MILH.html
WASHINGTON - With much fanfare, and the reluctant endorsement of the Bush administration, Iran has vowed to suspend its controversial effort to produce enriched uranium - which can be used as fuel in nuclear weapons - and to clear up a host of suspicions about its nuclear program. In exchange, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany promised new "cooperation" - meaning trade - in high technology with Tehran. While perhaps getting any concessions out of the mullahs should be seen as a step forward, this particular deal won't prevent Iran from making the bomb. It also risks having the same outcome as the deal North Korea made in 1994 and later violated, and threatens to drive a wedge between the United States and its European allies on Iran policy.
The suspicions about Iran's nuclear aims are well founded. Leaving aside the question whether such an oil-rich country even needs nuclear power plants, America has long questioned why Iran is building a factory to enrich uranium, material for which there is no reasonable need in Iran's civilian power program.
Iran also plans to produce plutonium, another fuel for nuclear weapons, by building a 40-megawatt heavy water reactor at Arak. This type of reactor, too small for electricity and larger than needed for research, is now providing the fuel for atomic weapons programs in India, Israel and Pakistan. And Iran is developing a fleet of long-range missiles, which don't make sense as a way to deliver conventional warheads. The only logical purpose of such missiles is to carry nuclear ones.
International suspicions about these programs led to the current crisis: the International Atomic Energy Agency has given Iran until Oct. 31 to explain how mysterious traces of bomb-grade uranium got into two Iranian nuclear sites. Iran says the traces arrived on contaminated imports; the other explanation is that Iran has been secretly enriching uranium in violation of its inspection agreement with the agency. The agency also wants to know how Iran developed such a high level of enrichment technology without secretly testing it with nuclear material, which is also forbidden. The agency's experts are convinced that the testing occurred.
Under the new deal, Iran is supposed to explain all this. If it doesn't, it risks being condemned as a pariah by the Security Council and the European Union may have to shelve its trade agreement with Iran, which would cost all concerned a lot of money. Thus Britain, France and Germany, as well as Iran, have an interest in seeing Iran comply.
But the problem is, even if Iran does so, there will be little assurance that the deal will really dampen Iran's nuclear hopes. Consider what happened with the pact hammered out by the Clinton administration with North Korea in 1994, which had much in common with the present situation.
North Korea faced worldwide condemnation and a possible war with the United States after violating its inspection agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. By agreeing to suspend its effort to produce plutonium, North Korea avoided censure and got economic benefits from the West, and yet it preserved its nuclear potential intact. North Korea's 8,000 fuel rods - containing five bombs' worth of plutonium - never left the country. Like a sword poised over the world's head, they remained only months away from being converted into bomb fuel - something that the North Koreans say was finally done this summer. The North Korean bomb program only shifted into neutral; now it is back in gear.
Under Tuesday's deal Iran, too, will shift into neutral, while keeping its nuclear potential intact. It won't - for the time being - operate its newly constructed centrifuges, which are needed to enrich uranium to weapon grade. But the deal won't stop Iran from building more centrifuges to augment the limited number it now has, thus adding to its future ability to enrich uranium. Nor does the agreement bar Iran from completing the factory that produces the uranium gas that goes into the centrifuges. Nor does it prevent the building of the heavy water reactor or, indeed, the resumption of enrichment in the future. Thus the agreement could insulate Iran from international censure without hampering its nuclear progress in any way.
These defects won't be cured by Iran's acceptance of more rigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The inspectors' new rights are still weaker than those that were enjoyed by their counterparts in Iraq - and we all know that the Iraqis repeatedly foiled those efforts with delays and obfuscation.
The only real solution is to convince Iran to dismantle all the plants that can make fuel for nuclear weapons. This would remove the threat that Iran could go back into the bomb business on a moment's notice, and the country could still benefit from the electricity generated by its Russian-supplied reactor at Bushehr, which should be sufficient if Iran truly wants only civilian nuclear power.
This goal is what the Europeans hope to achieve in the long run. It would probably satisfy the United States as well. But the current agreement won't take us there, and it may lead to the same sort of bickering between the United States and its vital allies that fractured international action on North Korea and Iraq.
The only chance for a solution to the Iran nuclear problem, short of war, is for a united West to apply relentless economic pressure. That means quickly closing any gap between Europe and the United States. It may be possible to convince Iran that the costs of building nuclear weapons exceed the benefit of having them. Unlike North Korea, Iran has large trade interests that really matter. However, unless the rest of the world is willing to put those interests at risk, it will probably soon have to live with a new nuclear power in the Middle East.
Gary Milhollin is director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.
-------- terrorism
Latvia's secret service seizes radioactive substances
RIGA (AFP)
Oct 23, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031023141236.vyo9a4qg.html
Latvia's secret service has seized radioactive substances, averting a possible threat to state security, a spokesman for the Constitution Protection Office said on Thursday.
Spokesman Dainis Mikelsons said several people had been detained in connection with the find.
"The control of radioactive substances is important in the light of the fight against international terrorism. Seizing them means averting threats to security of the state," he told AFP.
He said the radioactive material had been transferred to a radiation safety centre for identification but declined to disclose further details, saying he did not wish to undermine the ongoing investigation.
Mikelsons said the seizure was made possible by cooperation between the security police and a National Armed Forces special task force.
The press officer for Latvia's National Armed Forces, Uldis Davidovs, also declined to give details of the operation.
-------- us politics
Rumsfeld 'Livid' Over Memo Leak
Thursday, October 23, 2003
FOX News
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100935,00.html
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search) was "livid" when he discovered a memo written to top aides made it onto the front page of the nation's largest circulated newspaper, a senior defense official told Fox News. Rumsfeld appeared calm later on Wednesday when he and a top Pentagon official described the memo as an internal discussion paper, not an insight into the defense secretary's opinion about U.S. success in the global war on terror.
But speaking to reporters Wednesday evening, Rumsfeld was clearly annoyed by the leak.
"If I wanted it published, I would have written it as a press release, which I didn't," Rumsfeld said after a closed-door meeting with senators on Capitol Hill.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers (search) said the memo, which poses more questions than answers, was written to generate ideas on how to begin the secretary's long-term goal of transforming the Defense Department to meet new threats.
"The experts will tell you that if you talk to somebody about change or transformation of anything, they will tell you that the larger an organization and the older an organization, the more difficult it is to change it, and it's not going to happen unles you have a CEO bought into the need for change. So, what you're seeing in this memo, the way we do business, is that our boss is challenging us with a lot of questions on are we changing ourselves to deal with this 21st century threat environment we find ourselves in," Myers said.
The Oct. 16 memo, written to four top aides - Myers, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. Peter Pace and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith - was splashed across the front page of Wednesday's USA Today.
"It boggles my mind how a memo to four people ends up on the front page of a newspaper," a senior defense official said.
The memo raised eyebrows not because it appears to contradict the defense secretary's publicly optimistic statements about successes in the war on terror, but because it reveals some of Rumsfeld's concerns about whether the Defense Department has the capacity or will to fight the war.
"Is the U.S. winning or losing the global war on terrorism?" Rumsfeld asked his deputies in the first sentence of the memo.
"Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get?' It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," he later stated.
Rumsfeld also posed some of his own discussion topics, including, "It is not possible to change [the Department of Defense] fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror, an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere - one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem."
Rumsfeld wrote that in terms of cost and benefit, the "ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."
In the memo, the defense secretary asked his lieutenants to come up with thoughts for a future meeting.
Senior officials described the memo as part of Rumsfeld's standard operating procedure, in which he dictates his thoughts throughout the week, puts them for paper, tosses them around and then sends out "snowflakes," memos meant to lay out a host of discussion questions.
Acting Defense Department spokesman Larry DiRita told reporters Wednesday that the memo is an informal writing that merely reflects the secretary's management style, his concerns about the pace and manner of the Pentagon's reorganization and his worry that senior defense officials are not adapting strategy and tactics in the war on terror equal to the adaptations made by the enemy when pressure is exerted on it by the United States.
"It's a constant sense of urgency. It's what he does. He injects urgency, he asks questions and he gets people thinking about things and that's what this memo hopefully will do," said DiRita, describing the memo's tone and content.
Asked to express his opinion on the content and spirit of the memo, another senior defense official said it represents "how things get done around here.
"That's how work is tasked from the [Office of the Secretary of Defense]," the official said. "This is how these memos look. They represent how he thinks. Some ask rhetorical questions, some seek information, some prompt people here to change their focus."
Rumsfeld too described his thought processes and methods.
"I asked questions, I didn't answer questions. I am a question asker, I should be sitting where you're sitting," Rumsfeld joked to reporters.
Privately, defense officials said one of the four officials' staff made photocopies for internal distribution in an attempt to prompt some office-wide thinking.
Officials said they believe the memo may have slipped out from someone on that staff, and the assumption for now is that the leak was "not malicious."
Democrats, however, immediately pounced on the memo as a concession by administration officials that its policies are failing. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Thursday that Rumsfeld is finally having an epiphany and self-doubt is setting in.
"I think Secretary Rumsfeld's comments are an illustration of the concern that they have about the failures of their policy in Iraq so far," added Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "They acknowledge they have not succeeded to date."
Rumsfeld said that, in fact, the United States has many yardsticks and metrics that have measured U.S. successes, but he is more concerned now with the "macro" picture, particularly the education of young people abroad to become terrorists. In his memo, he asked his aides whether the United States was "capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas (search) [Islamic schools] and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
"How many young people are being taught to go out as suicide bombers and to kill people, that's the question," Rumsfeld told reporters. "How many are there, and how does that inflow of terrorists in the world get reduced so that the number of people getting captured or killed is greater than the ones being produced? There isn't anyone who knows a metric to that ... but elevating that issue I think forces people to think about it in the broadest possible context, which is why I did so."
----
Rumsfeld Defends Memo Questioning Anti-Terrorism Results
VOA News
23 Oct 2003
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=A2B5A982-720B-49FC-93E8A94E1B093395
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has defended a memo he sent to senior defense officials questioning whether the United States is winning its global war on terrorism.
The defense secretary said he had asked questions to keep top Pentagon officials thinking about the broader implications of the war on terrorism.
In a memo made public Wednesday, Mr. Rumsfeld said U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan face a long, hard road to victory. He said he feels the United States has yet to take "truly bold moves" and raised the possibility of creating a new team or agency specifically to fight terrorism worldwide. Over the past two years, Mr. Rumsfeld has repeatedly said the Defense Department is too big and too slow to effectively fight small groups of terrorists scattered throughout the world.
Responding to the memo, President Bush and some U.S. lawmakers praised the defense secretary, saying he is raising the kind of tough questions expected of someone in his position.
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden welcomed what he termed an "epiphany" of self-doubt from Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator Biden (D-Delaware) said it was different from the sort of self-assurance the secretary has communicated to Congress.
Democratic presidential candidate and retired Army General Wesley Clark said Mr. Rumsfeld was simply acknowledging that the Bush administration has no plan for Iraq and no long-term strategy for fighting terrorism.
-------- MILITARY
-------- africa
Powell Says Sudanese Hope to Reach a Peace Accord This Year
October 23, 2003
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/international/africa/23DIPL.html
SHARM EL SHEIK, Egypt, Oct. 22 - Secretary of State Colin L. Powell won a commitment on Wednesday from Sudanese negotiators to reach agreement by the end of December to end the civil war in Sudan, and he invited the parties to the White House to celebrate a settlement with President Bush.
After a morning of hearing updates on the Sudan talks at a lakeside resort near Nairobi, Kenya, Mr. Powell said that the government in Khartoum had reached an understanding on several issues with the rebels in the south, who have waged war on and off for half a century, but that a few critical issues remained.
"I think all of us are confident that they can be resolved in the weeks ahead," Mr. Powell said. "And now both parties have agreed to remain in the negotiation and conclude a comprehensive settlement no later than the end of December."
Later, however, a Sudanese government negotiator, Ghazi Salaheddine, cautioned that it might be difficult to move the talks that fast. Mr. Salaheddine, the peace adviser to Sudan's president, Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir, said it was "impossible for anyone to dictate a date" for finishing the talks, Agence France-Presse reported.
Mr. Powell's overt prodding, not to mention the setting of a deadline and the offer of a White House ceremony, reflected what African experts say has been an extraordinary amount of attention by the Bush administration to a contentious African issue.
Many diplomats say that without American involvement, the talks might have foundered, just as they have many times in the past.
Immediately after seeing the Sudan negotiators at a hotel on Lake Naivasha, Mr. Powell left for Sharm el Sheik, an Egyptian resort on the Red Sea, to meet with President Hosni Mubarak.
The meeting here was scheduled at the last minute, when the secretary's aides learned Mr. Mubarak was going to be near Sharm el Sheik, Mr. Powell's refueling stop on his way to Madrid for a conference on the economic future of Iraq.
The Sudan civil war has taken a toll of two million dead, many from disease and starvation, and perhaps four million displaced since 1983, when the largely Christian and animist rebels in the south rose up against the Muslim government in Khartoum.
Talks to end the war have focused on granting the southern region more autonomy and not imposing Islamic law on its residents. In return for joining the Khartoum government, the Sudan rebels, led by Col. John Garang, agreed to wait six years and then hold a referendum to decide the south's status.
Reporting on the talks, Mr. Powell said the major breakthrough occurred last month when both sides agreed to separate their military forces. Now, he said, there must be agreement on matters like banking and the monetary system, shares in Sudan's potential oil wealth and government power-sharing.
The most contentious issue, the secretary said, was the boundary between north and south. Three regions in the center of the country, populated by both Muslims and Christians, are in contention: Abeiyie, which has great potential oil wealth; the Nuba Mountains, and the Blue Nile region, which controls vital water supplies that flow into northern Africa, including Egypt.
--------
Powell: Sudan Accord On Track Official Disputes December Goal
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2003; Page A24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2706-2003Oct22.html
NAIVASHA, Kenya, Oct. 22 -- The warring parties in the long-running Sudanese conflict agreed to conclude negotiations no later than the end of December, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday after meeting with both sides at their negotiating site here.
"It is time now for the leaders assembled here to finish the final stage of this marathon," Powell said. "Based on what I heard here today, I believe that a final agreement is in the grasp of the two parties."
The conflict, which has lasted nearly half a century with brief periods of peace, has pitted the northern, Muslim part of the country against the mostly animist and Christian south. The current round of peace talks has lasted a decade, and involves not only questions of religion and autonomy but also how to carve up the nation's resources, especially oil reserves.
Powell told reporters traveling with him that he was "pretty confident" the December deadline could be met. He said he wanted the parties to commit to an end date, and they suggested December, which would take into account a slowdown in talks during the month-long Muslim holiday of Ramadan. "It was as much their date as it was a desire on my part to push them to a date," he said.
After Powell left Kenya, however, a senior Sudanese government official threw cold water on Powell's announcement, Agence-France Presse reported from Naivasha. "It is impossible for anyone to dictate a date on the two parties that are negotiating," said a presidential peace adviser, Ghazi Salaheddine.
Asked whether this time frame was realistic, Salaheddine said: "It is not putting a deadline on the end of the negotiations, it is an expression of the desire to redouble efforts to reach an agreement."
Asked about Salaheddine's statement, a senior State Department official traveling with Powell said the announcement of the deadline "was done carefully and with the full consent of the leaders."
At the meetings here, Powell conveyed an invitation from President Bush to the leaders of the two sides to visit the White House once a comprehensive settlement is signed. He also pledged the United States would help monitor and implement the agreement, and the day before his arrival he suggested many of the sanctions levied against Sudan could be removed.
In two hours of meetings, Powell met separately with Sudan's first vice president, Ali Uthman Muhammad Taha, and the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Army, John Garang. He then met together with both negotiators, along with peace process coordinators from Sudan's neighbors.
The parties last month settled security issues, considered the most difficult hurdle, and State Department officials originally had hoped that Powell's visit would inspire the two sides to reach a final deal. But complex questions involving power sharing, wealth sharing and the status of three disputed geographic regions with a mix of ethnic groups proved too vexing.
In an agreement halting hostilities last year, the two sides decided that once a final deal is signed, the southern part of Sudan will have a six-year period of self-rule before holding a referendum on whether to remain part of Sudan or become independent.
Powell said that in recent weeks the two parties have made "considerable progress" on wealth-sharing issues, settling disputes on the allocation of revenues and fiscal and monetary policy.
The biggest stumbling block, he said, involves the three disputed territories, especially one known as Abyei. All three areas -- the others are the Nuba Mountains and the South Blue Nile -- have substantial oil or water resources and are claimed by both the north and south.
In a reflection of the complex history of the territorial disputes, in 1972 Abyei actually had been granted a referendum on whether to join the north or south -- but it was never implemented. The discovery of oil reserves in the area since then has only complicated matters.
-------- arms
US missiles `not tied to ally status'
Amraams to ensure regional balance
Wassana Nanuam,
Friday 24 October 2003
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/24Oct2003_news06.html
The United States has delivered advanced medium range air-to-air missiles (Amraam) to Thailand _ to maintain the military balance in the region.
Washington's decision to give Thailand Major Non-Nato Ally (MNNA) status was not a factor in the delivery, an air force source said.
Washington handed over an undisclosed number of the ``fire-and-forget'' air combat missiles to the air force, even though it had earlier approved the sale on condition the state of the art weapons would be delivered only in the event of a pressing security need.
The source insisted the delivery was not ``a string'' attached to MNNA status. Other sources disagreed and said the prime minister was told of the US decision during his trip to Washington in June.
The Amraams came with Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles. They arrived two months ago, shortly after the air force received 16 second-hand F-16 fighter jets worth a total US$130 million, now based at Wing 1, Nakhon Ratchasima province.
The source said US President George W Bush told Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of his intention to upgrade Thailand to MNNA when the premier visited Washington in June. Mr Bush confirmed the new alliance in his speech at the army headquarters on Sunday.
The source said Washington felt the Amraams would strike a balance of military power in the region. The delivery was prompted by reports that Russia had equipped some countries in the region using its planes with similar missiles, the R77 ``Amraam-ski.''
The US also provided Amraams to Singapore which sought the weapons many years ago. The source maintained the Amraams, worth about US$5 million (200 million baht) in total, were needed for the US-led war on terrorism.
Meanwhile, the army has distributed an explanation of the benefits of such a close alliance with Washington.
Thailand would be on the priority list of countries entitled to receive so-called Excess Defence Articles from the US, and would benefit from the transfer of surplus military equipment. Thailand could also stockpile a reserve of US-made military equipment for national defence. The status also meant the right to buy depleted-uranium anti-tank rounds. Closer cooperation in military research and development with Washington would follow. MNNA status also entitled the country to a weapons procurement loan.
-------- business
U.S. Faces Skepticism at Conference on Funds for Iraq
October 23, 2003
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/international/middleeast/23CND-DONO.html?pagewanted=all&position=
MADRID, Oct. 23 - Bush administration officials expressed growing confidence today that they would raise large sums of aid to reconstruct Iraq at a donors conference here, but they also faced intensive questions about whether Iraq's security troubles would prevent at least some of the money from being spent.
On the first day of a long-anticipated meeting that has turned into a kind of international political fundraiser, American officials held discussions with representatives of some of the 70 countries and organizations in attendance. But they refused to predict what the final amount of money raised would come to.
"It is too early to tell what the donations are going to be," said L. Paul Bremer III, administrator of the American-led Iraqi occupation. But he added there was "a lot of momentum behind the reconstruction of Iraq" growing out of the money to be raised here, as well as what he said was the imminent passage of $20 billion in aid by Congress.
But others cautioned that attitudes in Europe and elsewhere remained skeptical of transmitting large amounts of aid, not only because of security concerns, but because of a perceived slowness by the American authorities to be open about how past money has been spent and to guarantee openness on future expenditures.
"You can't expect European taxpayers who felt pretty hostile to the military intervention to feel hugely enthusiastic about spending a large amount of money on Iraq," said Chris Patten, external affairs commissioner of the European Union. He added that security problems in Iraq "do not appear at the moment to be getting better."
Despite the refusal of American officials to play the numbers game here, that was precisely the game that many here were playing on the first day of the conference.
Against a figure of $55 billion for Iraq's needs as assessed by both the World Bank and the American occupation, Mr. Patten said he was hoping that the sum to be raised in Madrid would approach $5.6 billion for 2004. That is the amount the World Bank has said was all that could be spent, given difficulties of getting big projects started.
The first-year numbers were falling somewhat short of that, however. Japan has said it would contribute $1.5 billion. Mr. Patten said that the sum total of donations from the Europe Union and individual European countries for reconstruction in 2004 would be about $700 million.
The Arab nations of the oil-rich Persian Gulf have yet to be heard from, but American officials said they were hoping for aid packages from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Last summer, planners of the Madrid conference were saying that it would focus on money to be raised only for 2004. More recently, as those numbers lagged, American officials say it is more important to judge the conference by multi-year pledges, and they have begun totaling these pledges against the $55 billion target.
Moreover, administration officials note, the $55 billion will be reduced by the $20 billion from Washington and, after next year, by perhaps $5 billion a year in oil revenues. At present, oil revenues pay only for the day-to-day running of Iraqi ministries, but Mr. Bremer said it was reasonable to think more oil money would be available after next year.
The numbers were not the only issue drawing attention here, as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Treasury Secretary John Snow made the rounds of meetings with delegates and with business leaders planning to make investments, and perhaps reap a profit, from Iraq's future as a capitalist democracy.
There were clear undercurrents of skepticism and even hostility toward American intentions, voiced by delegates and by some of the non-government organizations involved in aiding Iraq, some of which say they fear that the aid raised here will benefit corporations in the donor companies more than the Iraqi people.
A leading British humanitarian organization, Christian Aid, presented a briefing paper asserting that $4 billion in oil revenues and seized Iraqi assets earmarked for Iraq's reconstruction had "disappeared into opaque bank accounts" administered by the Coalition Provision Authority.
The Christian Aid accusation was circulated widely here, and European diplomats said that it reflected a definite questioning among many government officials who had come to Madrid.
Mr. Bremer, the occupation administrator, said the Christian Aid charges were unfounded and that his organization would soon post on its website a full accounting of all the money it has spent on Iraq so far.
Another sign of skepticism on this issue appeared to be reflected by the fact that the occupation had yet to complete negotiations on setting up a multi-national trust fund into which donations from other countries could be made. Many donors have demanded that the fund, not the occupation, determine how the money is to be spent.
The United States has acceded to that demand but has not completed the final details on how the fund will work.
The trust fund disputes seemed to reflect the unresolved tensions over the Iraq war, five months after President Bush declared the war to be over.
Another issue in contention here related to how quickly the aid money can be spent. The World Bank estimate, based on past experience with development programs in war-torn countries, that only about $5.6 billion could be spent in Iraq in 2004 was disputed by a phalanx of American officials who briefed reporters this afternoon.
"We take some issue with that," said an American official involved in the occupation's expenditures. He said that at least two thirds of the $20 billion about to be appropriated by Congress will be spent in the first year.
Mr. Bremer disputed the idea that the security situation in Iraq will impede expenditures on construction projects, as many donor officials are warning. In the last five months alone, he said the occupation has embarked on 14,600 construction projects, from community centers to school playgrounds, or about 100 a day.
"I simply do not accept the hypothesis that for some security reasons we cannot do projects," he said.
Still another issue of concern at the donor conference was what to do about the overhang of loans to Iraq that have been frozen but may eventually have to be repaid, at least in part. Mr. Bremer said that if Iraq had to pay its $120 billion in loans, it would cost $7 or $8 billion a year in debt service, taking up more than half of its available oil income.
"It's quite obvious they cannot service their existing debt, let alone pay down the principal," Mr. Bremer said. But he and others said the time for rescheduling Iraq's debt, and its additional $100 billion in war reparations, would come in the future.
Underscoring the urgency of such a rescheduling, Mr. Bremer compared Iraq's situation now to that of the Weimar Republic in Germany after World War I, "a fragile democracy saddled by unpayable debts" that created a financial crisis that Adolf Hitler was able to exploit. "Remember that Hitler was elected," said Mr. Bremer.
--------
Venture to Offer ID Card for Use at Security Checks
October 23, 2003
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/technology/23secu.html
Americans hate to wait. But will they pay - and submit to security screenings and even high-technology fingerprinting - to avoid the long lines snaking behind checkpoints in airports, office buildings and sports arenas?
Steven Brill is betting that the answer is yes. Mr. Brill, a journalist and entrepreneur, will announce today a new company, Verified Identity Card Inc., which will offer customers an electronic card containing data showing that they are not on terrorism watch lists and do not have certain felony convictions on their records.
If businesses, airports and government agencies sign on to the plan and put Verified's card readers at security checkpoints, cardholders would be able to zip through, avoiding the most thorough searches.
Mr. Brill, who created CourtTV and The American Lawyer and Brill's Content magazines, joins a wave of companies hoping to fill a need and make a profit as government agencies and businesses scramble to shore up defenses against terrorism.
The card, he said, could serve as a more palatable alternative to a government-mandated national ID card, which is opposed by privacy advocates and the Bush administration.
Although the idea of a voluntary identity verification network is not new, Mr. Brill's is the highest-profile effort to bring about such a system. He has enlisted the Civitas Group as an investor. Civitas is a Washington company headed by Michael J. Hershman, a security consultant. Its co-chairmen are Samuel R. Berger, national security adviser in the Clinton administration, and Charles Black, a former senior adviser to President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush.
Other partners include Lehman Brothers; TransCore, the company that created the E-ZPass electronic toll system; and ChoicePoint, a Georgia company that will screen the customers.
Mr. Brill declined to discuss how much money he had raised or how much the start-up of the company would cost.
He said that customer data would not be sold or shared with other companies, and the system could not be used to track customer movements from checkpoint to checkpoint. He did say, however, that the company would probably alert law enforcement officials about an applicant whose name appears on a terrorist watch list.
He also said he planned to seek an independent ombudsman appointed by a privacy rights organization to monitor the company's privacy practices.
Those promises do not satisfy Marc Rotenberg, who heads the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "I don't think it will necessarily come as an assurance to most Americans that a Big Brother card is being minted in the private sector and not in the government," he said.
He said that the system was probably unworkable. In any case, he said, it would have to be developed and deployed in close cooperation with the government, and would thus end up sharing many characteristics with the unpopular national ID card. "If it walks like a national ID card and quacks like a national ID card, it's a national ID card."
Matt Blaze, a cryptography and security expert at AT&T Labs-Research, warned that a central database could become an attractive target for subversion. "The card has to be almost perfect or it becomes worse than useless, because it provides a single point of failure for multiple security systems," he said.
Lawrence A. Ponemon, a privacy consultant based in Tucson, said that managing privacy while providing accurate identification raises remarkably complex issues. A flawed system could, for example, unfairly bar people who should have been approved. Still, Mr. Ponemon said he was glad to see the private sector tackle the problem.
Mr. Brill said that he got the inspiration for the company while working on his book, "After: How America Confronted the September 12th Era." He said that as he worked on the book and the security issues it dealt with, "it just sort of hit me over the head that somebody ought to do this."
The cards will be linked to their owners through finger- and thumb-print scans at security turnstiles. The network could be at demonstration sites in the first half of next year, the company said. The enrollment cost would be $30 to $50 a person, with a fee of a few dollars each month to maintain the cardholder's information. Businesses, the company said, could buy the cards to improve efficiency at their own checkpoints and to give their employees the benefits of the broader network.
The biggest challenge, Mr. Brill said, was not the technology, which is already fully developed for other purposes, but building the network of companies that will recognize the card. They would have to install card readers at building entrances or add the technology to existing turnstiles.
While some experts like Mr. Ponemon say that Americans are unlikely to pay for the promise of added security and convenience, Mr. Hershman said he takes a longer view. People might change their minds if another tragedy occurs and tighter security measures create even longer lines, he said.
"The problem, likely, is going to get worse before it gets better."
--------
Raytheon Posts Net Loss, Cuts Outlook
October 23, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-arms-raytheon-earns.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Defense contractor Raytheon Co. on Thursday posted a net loss for the third quarter and cut its outlook for operating earnings in 2004.
Lexington, Massachusetts-based Raytheon, a developer of military electronics, precision strike and missile systems, posted a loss of $35 million or 8 cents diluted share, compared to income of $147 million or 36 cents per share in 2002.
Earnings before one-time items slipped to $21 million or 5 cents per share, compared to $228 million or 56 cents per share in the third quarter 2002.
Looking ahead, the company cut its outlook for income from continuing operations to $1.50 to $1.60 per share in 2004, vs. previous guidance of $1.60 to $1.70 per share.
-------- iraq
Attacks on Troops on Rise, Commander Says
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, October 23, 2003; Page A27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2708-2003Oct22?language=printer
BAGHDAD, Oct. 22 -- Attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq have increased sharply over the past two weeks, reaching a high of 35 a day, the commanding American general here said on Wednesday.
Over much of the summer, military officials had said there were between 10 and 15 attacks on U.S. soldiers most days. Since early October, however, the number of daily attacks has fluctuated between 20 and 35, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said at a news conference.
A summary provided by the U.S. military to private contractors working in Iraq listed 30 so-called security incidents on Tuesday, including two mortar strikes on American bases, nine attacks with roadside bombs and several drive-by shootings.
Sanchez attributed the increase to a stepped-up U.S. offensive in parts of western Iraq dominated by Sunni Muslims. After having what he called an "economy of force" in the province of Anbar for months, he recently deployed two brigades from the 82nd Airborne Division to the region, adding thousands more light infantry soldiers who have been conducting patrols and counterinsurgency operations in such cities as Fallujah and Ramadi.
With more soldiers on the streets, he said, there have been more clashes with forces intent on evicting U.S. troops from Iraq. "We're taking the fight to the enemy out there," he said.
Anbar province, which stretches more than 300 miles from Baghdad's western fringe to the Jordanian border, has emerged as a particular challenge for U.S. commanders. Although Sunnis in the area received favored treatment under former president Saddam Hussein, the resistance activity there appears to be different from that in Sunni towns to the north of Baghdad, such as Tikrit and Samarra. While much of the insurgency in the north is motivated by loyalty to Hussein, attacks in the west seem to be driven by Islamic activists and foreign fighters who object to the U.S. presence in Iraq.
During the war, U.S. Special Operations soldiers moving toward Baghdad from Jordan left no forces in towns along the way. Regular American troops were not stationed in Fallujah and Ramadi until weeks after Hussein's government fell.
During the spring and summer, there were fewer troops in Anbar than in Salahuddin province, which encompasses Hussein's home village and the nearby town of Tikrit. Although Hussein loyalists and Islamic militants staged attacks in Anbar within weeks of Hussein's ouster, Salahuddin received more resources because many of Hussein's top lieutenants -- and even the former leader himself -- were believed to be hiding there.
As the frequency of attacks on U.S. forces in Anbar began increasing in August and September, Sanchez and other high-level American commanders opted to send more forces to the area. "We knew this was an area that was a challenge for us," he said.
Although Sanchez maintained that Anbar was "clearly a stronghold for former regime loyalists," local leaders in Fallujah contend many of the attacks are prompted by anger among young Islamic activists at the sight of American military vehicles on the streets of the deeply traditional town.
"If they stopped driving through Fallujah, there would be fewer attacks," said Ibrahim Jassim, an aide to the city's mayor. "They are making themselves targets."
According to military reports, most of the incidents have not occurred during raids or search operations but as convoys were on routine patrols and resupply missions.
In Fallujah, about 30 miles west of Baghdad, several recent attacks have occurred on the main street that bisects the city. Many of the incidents have involved the insurgents' new weapon of choice -- roadside bombs -- followed by a secondary strike with small-arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
On Wednesday, a roadside bomb exploded in Fallujah near a three-vehicle military convoy, injuring four soldiers, according to witnesses interviewed by the Associated Press. Another bomb exploded in a Baghdad tunnel, wounding two soldiers. And in the northern city of Mosul, one soldier from the 101st Airborne Division was slightly injured when a bomb exploded in front of his convoy, the military said.
Elsewhere in Iraq, followers of a militant Shiite Muslim cleric, Muqtada Sadr, said they had no plans to respond to the arrest of 32 of their supporters in Karbala, one of Iraq's most sacred Shiite cities. U.S. troops and Iraqi police arrested the men Tuesday on suspicion of involvement in a gun battle with a rival faction on Oct. 14 that has sent a shudder through Iraq's majority Shiite population.
Among the arrested were two key leaders -- Akram Kaabi and Kadhim Abadi. Sadr's followers said the men were sent to Karbala over the weekend to ease tensions.
"We don't know the reason they were arrested," said Mustafa Yaacoubi, a spokesman for Sadr in Najaf, another sacred Shiite city that serves as Sadr's base. "We should know the reason first and then we'll formulate a response."
Since the war, the mainstream Shiite leadership has urged cautious engagement with the U.S. occupation. Despite occasional violence, southern Iraq, where Shiites make up the overwhelming majority, has remained relatively peaceful.
But since the summer, Sadr, the son of one of Iraq's most revered religious leaders, has consistently preached against the occupation and formed a militia whose followers have taken to carrying weapons in their strongholds. U.S. military officials have blamed Sadr for an attack on U.S. troops in a poor Baghdad neighborhood this month.
Yaacoubi insisted that U.S. forces, not Sadr's men, were acting as provocateurs. He cited the arrests Monday and said U.S. forces have warned Sadr's officials not to engage in the protests that have become a hallmark of his movement.
"It's apparent," he said. "They're trying in many different ways to provoke us."
Correspondent Anthony Shadid contributed to this report.
----
$5 Billion Iraq rebuilding cash 'goes missing'
BILL JACOBS WESTMINSTER EDITOR
Thu 23 Oct 2003
Scotsman
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1169292003
A NEW Iraq scandal erupted today as a report claimed billions of dollars earmarked for rebuilding the country have vanished after being handed to the United States -controlled governing body in Baghdad.
At least $5 billion(£3bn)has been passed to the ruling Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA),a leading UK aid agency has calculated.
But only a fifth of those development funds have been accounted for, figures unearthed by Christian Aid show.
And that missing four billion dollar "black hole" will double by the end of the year unless the CPA's accounts are made public.
The allegations emerged as British aid agencies claimed millions of pounds of government aid cash will have to be diverted from poor countries in South America, Eastern and Central Asia to rebuilding Iraq.
And they threaten to undermine a conference in Spain, where the United Nations and World Bank hopes to raise £20 billion to pay for the reconstruction of the country following the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
Prime Minister Tony Blair was today challenged by the charities to account for the missing $5bn, mainly from oil revenue, as donors conference involving 60 countries got under way in Madrid.
A spokesman for the CPA denied that the money had been lost or misused and promised that all the cash would be fully accounted for.
The Mr Blair and US President George Bush last week won a new UN resolution calling for international contributions of money and troops.The donations will go into a new fund overseen by the UN and the World Bank.
But failure to show where the existing cash has gone will fuel suspicion among Iraqis that large amounts are being creamed off by US firms given contracts to rebuild the country, Christian Aid said.
One senior European diplomat told the charity: "We have absolutely no idea how the money has been spent.
"I wish I knew, but we just don't know. We have absolutely no idea."
Roger Riddell, Christian Aid's international director, called the situation "little short of scandalous". He said: "The British Government must use its position of second in command of the CPA to demand full disclosure of this money and its proper allocation in the future.
"This is Iraqi money. The people of Iraq must know where it is going and it should be used for the benefit of all the country's people - particularly the poorest."
The UN transferred $1 billion from its old Oil for Food Programme to the new Development Fund For Iraq earlier this year.
The same UN resolution was supposed to set up an International Advisory and Monitoring Board to oversee the accounts.
It has not materialised and the only funds accounted for so far are 1 Bill. dollars spent by the Programme Review Board.
However, the CPA has received $2.5bn in assets seized from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and abroad,Christian Aid reveals.
And it calculates oil revenue has contributed at least another $1.5bn since the war.
Officials in Madrid admit that the latest allegations will make it even more difficult to raise the £20bn needed to rebuild Iraq and fuel potential donor countries' suspicions that the main beneficiaries of the reconstruction programme are big US firms.
They expect little more that £3 billion to be raised.
And further concerns have been voiced over the news that the UK is reducing overseas aid to South American, Eastern European and central Asian countries because of the cost of rebuilding Iraq.
A group of UK overseas aid charities said at least £100Mill. would have to be diverted to help pay for Britain's commitment to provide £267 million over the next two years to deal with the aftermath of the Gulf War.
International Development Secretary Hillary Benn admitted the shift in resources today but said that Iraq now qualified as a low income country.
Websites:
Iraq Today http://www.iraq-today.com/
Iraq Daily (World News Network) http://www.iraqdaily.com/
Red Cross / Red Crescent http://www.ifrc.org/
UN - Office of the Iraq Programme http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/
Christian Aid report - The missing billions http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/310iraqoil/index.htm
The World Bank http://www.worldbank.org/
----
U.S. Force Pulling Back in the North
Iraqis Assuming Security Duties, Commander Says
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2003; Page A27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2709-2003Oct22.html
MOSUL, Iraq, Oct. 22 -- The senior U.S. military commander in northern Iraq said Wednesday that he was beginning to reduce his soldiers' presence in this northern city and turn their security duties over to Iraqi police officers and troops as local government takes root and life slowly returns to normal.
Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, also said he thought it would be possible for the Pentagon to reduce the number of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, without adversely affecting security when fresh forces replace his 20,800 troops in late February or early March.
Petraeus said he was reducing the division's footprint in northern Iraq's largest city by pulling troops out of small camps scattered throughout Mosul and consolidating them at larger bases on the outskirts. This contrasts sharply with recent moves by U.S. commanders to increase troop strength in parts of Baghdad and surrounding areas in response to attacks by groups opposed to the U.S. occupation.
But Petraeus's action is in keeping with plans now being discussed by top U.S. commanders to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq from about 130,000 troops to less than 100,000 by the middle of next year, and to withdraw troops from Mosul, the southern city of Basra and parts of Baghdad. If those troop cuts succeed without undermining Iraqi stability, commanders will aim to further reduce U.S. forces to about 50,000 by mid-2005, several senior Army commanders said last week.
While U.S. troops in parts of northern Iraq still face foreign gunmen or forces loyal to ousted president Saddam Hussein every day, military officials say the region is generally considered more secure and much further along in the reconstruction process than most of the rest of the country.
With 11,000 Iraqi police officers, border guards, civil defense troops and facility protection guards now within his chain of command, Petraeus said, the time has come to reduce the U.S. military presence before it begins to overly inconvenience the local population with traffic jams, checkpoints and "one too many low flights" over their homes.
"We have not overstayed our welcome yet," Petraeus said in an interview, "but we know that's going to happen. We are in a race to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and we've got to maintain a very rapid tempo in this race. The most important result is the soldier who is not killed because people are embracing him."
Petraeus said his troops were still conducting three to five raids and making an average of 11 arrests each day, with the aim of rooting out Hussein loyalists and others attacking U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies. But all the raids are designed not to alienate Iraqis who live in the neighborhoods where they take place. Engineers, lawyers and other soldiers from a group called Task Force Neighborhood visit such areas on the morning after raids, Petraeus said, to talk to residents and take claims for any damaged property.
Petraeus, 50, a West Point graduate with a doctorate in international relations from Princeton, described his strategy after climbing aboard a Black Hawk helicopter Wednesday and flying to a ceremony at the Mishrac Sulfur Plant near Qaiyara, 40 miles south of here. Three firms, from Iraq, Syria and Jordan, were signing contracts to buy $22 million worth of sulfur; $10 million of the proceeds will be reinvested in the government-owned plant.
Petraeus, whose division fought its way from Kuwait to Baghdad during March and April, credited the 101st's progress in northern Iraq to a series of "early wins."
Chief among them were local elections held two weeks after his division's arrival on April 22. Local people chose a governing council for Ninevah province through a process that Petraeus devised, selecting 270 delegates from the multiethnic region that includes Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Yezidis and Shabaks.
"Nobody told us to do that, but nobody told us not to do it, either," said Brig. Gen. Frank Helmick, the division's assistant commander for operations.
But civic action has been only one part of what has distinguished the 101st's six months in Mosul. The division was responsible for locating and killing Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay, in July after an Iraqi informant walked into the 101st's Civil Military Operations Center and told a sergeant from a military intelligence team that they were camped out in his home.
Two months later, an intelligence operation of a different sort led to the surrender of Iraq's former defense minister, Sultan Hashem Ahmed, who turned himself in after Petraeus wrote him a letter that appealed to his sense of military honor and promised him humane treatment.
Petraeus said he wrote the letter after intelligence analysts profiled the ailing ex-military leader, who lived in Mosul, and realized he was more of a career military man than a Hussein loyalist.
Petraeus credited his division's success against former government loyalists to an operation that combines tactical military intelligence teams from the 101st with agents of the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and other federal agencies. The group, he said, is modeled on the Joint Interagency Counterterrorism Task Force in Bosnia, which he served as deputy commander after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Effective intelligence operations, he said, have been the key to numerous raids, particularly as more Iraqis come forward to finger fugitives, reveal weapons caches and identify homemade bombs along the roadside before they kill or maim U.S. forces.
"We're getting more intel on them," Petraeus said, "and we're finding more than are finding us."
-------- israel / palestine
Video Raises Questions on Israeli Strike
October 23, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Missile-Strike.html
JERUSALEM (AP) -- A video of an Israeli missile strike in a Gaza refugee camp shows people running in a nearby alley, and the army said Thursday it is investigating whether this could explain the high number of casualties reported by the Palestinians.
Monday's attack in the Nusseirat refugee camp, which left eight people dead and 70 wounded, revived debate in Israel over the policy of targeted killings, prompted in part by Palestinian claims that one missile was fired into a crowd.
A bird's-eye video provided by the military from a drone aircraft shows two missiles hitting a car as it drives along the camp's main street, which from the air appears relatively empty. The missiles strike about one minute apart.
Palestinian security officials and witnesses have said that after the first hit, bystanders rushed to the scene, and that the second missile caused most of the casualties. Some witnesses also reported a third missile strike.
The military has said there were only two missiles and that it did not fire into a crowd. The video shows no crowd near the vehicle during the second missile hit. Military officials have said the order to strike again would not have been given had many bystanders been present.
However, a review of the video shows that after the first missile strike, camp residents began running through an alley toward the main street. People appeared as tiny black dots in the grainy, blurred footage, and there seem to be about two dozen in the alley, although it is difficult to determine the exact number.
There was little traffic on the main road -- only one car passed the stricken car between the first and second missile hits -- but the camera does not offer a clear view of sidewalks and alleys, because of balconies and overhangs.
On balmy evenings, as on Monday, it is customary for Palestinians to congregate outdoors, pulling up chairs on sidewalks to chat or smoke waterpipes.
``The street was full of people,'' said Iyad al-Masri, who lives along the main road and whose cousin, Mohammed, was among the dead. ``Shops were open, especially restaurants and coffee shops.''
Khalil Taha, who owns a nearby shop, said the second explosion was more powerful than the first and that he saw wounded lying on the ground as far as 60 yards away from the targeted vehicle. One of those killed was 11-year-old Mohammed Baroud, who lived just off the main road.
The military took the unusual step of showing the video to reporters Tuesday. On Wednesday, it distributed the video to news organizations, allowing closer inspection.
Maj. Sharon Feingold, an army spokeswoman, acknowledged Thursday that ``it is a possibility'' that people were in the alley at the time of the second hit.
``We are still studying it and we will draw our conclusions,'' she said. ``We released the video to refute Palestinian claims that the road was filled with people and rescue workers. We never said that it was not possible that people were hit, people were hurt.''
Asked whether the pilot of the attack helicopter would have seen the civilians in the alleys, she said: ``It is usually very difficult to find or see them if they are in an alley or under a balcony.''
The incident began Monday evening when Israeli troops killed two suspected Palestinian militants trying to sneak across the border fence between Gaza and Israel. The army said the two, later identified as members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical PLO faction, had planned to carry out a suicide bombing.
Other members of the cell fled in a car that was tracked by an Israeli helicopter and was then targeted by missiles in Nusseirat. Among those in the car was another would-be suicide bomber, Israeli security officials said.
Palestinian security and hospital officials say all those killed in the camp were civilians. In apparent support of that contention, armed groups did not claim any of the dead as members, as they would normally do. Also, the military did not release ``charge sheets'' on any of the dead, as is customary, though officials said most of those killed in Nusseirat that day were militants.
The Israeli Haaretz daily reported Thursday that four of the dead, all in their 20s, belonged to PFLP, as well as Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction and the Islamic militant group Hamas. A fifth man in his 20s died Wednesday of his injuries.
The remaining three -- the 11-year-old boy, a 29-year-old doctor and a 49-year-old cement factory owner -- were clearly bystanders.
Thirteen of the 70 wounded were in serious condition.
Associated Press reporter Ibrahim Barzak contributed to this report from the Nusseirat refugee camp.
--------
Scrutiny of Video Suggests Israelis Didn't See Gazans They Shot
October 23, 2003
By GREG MYRE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/international/middleeast/23MIDE.html
JERUSALEM, Oct. 22 - An Israeli military official acknowledged Wednesday that an Air Force video appears to show Palestinians gathering in an alley near the site of a helicopter strike in the Gaza Strip, and that their presence could account for the high casualty toll in a missile attack on Monday.
On Tuesday the Israel military took the unusual step of displaying to foreign journalists a videotape of two missiles hitting a Palestinian car carrying suspected Hamas members in the Nuseirat Refugee Camp, in the Gaza Strip.
Israel said the videotape, taken by a drone overhead, refuted Palestinian claims that a helicopter crew had fired the second missile into a group of civilians who approached the car after it was first hit. Overall, seven people were killed and many more were wounded, Palestinians said.
On Wednesday Israel released the tape and reporters were able to scrutinize each frame. Initially it seems to support the Israeli account: that a helicopter fired both missiles at a car on an empty street, and that no people were nearby.
But close viewing of the grainy black-and-white video appears to show people rushing into an alley near the car after the first missile was fired and before the second missile struck, about one minute later.
"It seems to me there may be people in the alleyway," an Israeli military official acknowledged. "It's possible this is the cause for all the casualties."
The official, who took part in a briefing of journalists on Tuesday, said the military did not detect the figures in the alley until later. The military said it would make no formal comment while its investigation continued.
During the attack, Israeli commanders were viewing the video images live and speaking to the crew of the helicopter hovering over the car.
A senior air force official said the helicopter crew had been authorized to fire a second missile because the main street remained empty and the car provided a clear target, with no other Palestinians visible.
Initially, the Palestinians in the alley are difficult to see. But when a black cloud of smoke dissipates after the second strike, the figures become clearer. They flee down the alley, away from the blast.
Counting individuals is difficult, but it appears there could be dozens of people, in line with the accounts of Palestinian witnesses.
The military said the helicopters fired two identical missiles that carried only a few pounds of explosives. But the second caused the bigger explosion. Military officials said the Palestinian car might have been carrying explosives, which would account for the larger blast.
About two minutes after the second missile hit, the video shows, large numbers of Palestinians surrounded the scorched car.
While the drone offers a good view of the broad street, it has blind spots. The apartment blocks in the crowded refugee camp have doors opening into the narrow alleys, where the view is much less clear. Some buildings have balconies, and the drone was not in a position to see anyone standing beneath the balconies.
Muhammad Abu Amuna, an 18-year-old high school student, said he responded to the first strike by rushing to the balcony of his apartment. "I saw smoke, and then I ran downstairs," he said. "I wanted to save people. Suddenly another rocket hit."
Mr. Amuna, who said he was about five yards from the blast, was wounded by shrapnel in an arm and a leg. "It was very ugly," he said. "I saw many people dead, I saw many people injured."
-------- mideast
Saudis reveal favors to U.S. in terror war
October 23, 2003
By John Solomon
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031022-092311-2536r.htm
Saudi officials, stung by American assertions they have been soft on terrorists, are divulging for the first time several intelligence and diplomatic favors they have provided the United States in the war on terrorism dating to 1997.
In interviews wit